Why do people think that only the home run leaders took steroids? What advantage did Bonds have over the rest of the league? And if steroids improve performance as suggested, why aren't there hundreds of examples of players improving drastically due to steroid use?
Did you know that Bonds' HR/AB increase in the last part of his career was less percentage-wise than Hank Aaron's HR/AB increase?
Before any of you cite the Braves' move to Fulton County Stadium, keep the following in mind... In the four-year period pre-1966 Fulton County Stadium, Aaron had two yearly HR/500AB rates of 35 and 38. His first four at Fulton (1966-1969) were 36, 32, 24, 40. His next four were 37, 47, 38, 51. If Fulton had an advantage, it waited six years to kick in, and only happend in two of those eight seasons.
In the eight years Aaron played at Fulton, he averaged only five more home runs at home than on the road. And in two of those eight years, he actually had more HR on the road than at Fulton.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DiamondDave
Extra strength can help a 280 foot out become a 315 foot HR... and the recovery aspect of roids can make it that he is fresher after a 6 game work week on the field....
|
As to steroids themselves, they are highly overrated as aids to home run hitting. McGwire, Ruth, Maris, Sosa and Bonds rarely hit balls to the warning track. When they connected the balls were gone, far over the wall. This was true throughout their careers. Bonds and Maris were line drive hitters earlier in their careers, but once they developed as home run hitters (a home run hitter swings slightly upward to launch the ball at a 35 degree angle and hits the ball just below center as opposed to a line drive hitter who has a level swing and hits the ball in the center) their home runs landed in the seats, not on the warning track. Were steroids effective at increasing bat speed (and they have not been shown to), they could increase home runs by lengthening warning track hits by 10 to 20 feet. Dr. Adair estimates that about 1 hit lands on the track for every 10 home runs. For Ruth, Maris, et al far fewer balls land on the track for every home run they hit. Suppose it is 1 out of 25. This means that, at most, higher bat speed would increase home runs by 1 to 3 a year in these great hitters. So, the test of steroids would be to calculate the number of warning track hits relative to home runs for a known steroid user and show that what were previously warning track shots become home runs. No one has produced this evidence.
http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff...yHomeRunMS.pdf