Support NeoGAF

[Angry Grimace]

People bring it up because his ownership of the pitcher/batter matchup is very very rare.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/barry-bonds-and-the-2002-world-series/





Those numbers also show that. His Z-contact average during that time was 90%!

Perhaps, but how do you gauge what impact do steroids have on that?

 

[antipode]

I'm not an expert on baseball stats, but I would think that the big impact of steroids is that they directly improve your ability to detect pitches in time to hit them (your "eye", so to speak.)

Given the same bat weight, if you have x% more force in your swing, your swing can start at time Y later after the pitch and still arrive in the strike zone at the same moment and momentum to deliver a home run. You basically have Y more time to identify the pitch and make your move.

I mean, people hit home runs without steroids all the time - it's not really greater momentum that you need. But using steroids gives you more acceleration, which maybe enabled Bonds to hit the ball at the sweet spot more frequently, given the same reflexes as another player.

 

[Opiate]

I'm really surprised how many people feel that steroids should be allowed in professional sports.

Do we not realize the perverse incentives this would create? Professional athletes come predominantly from poor backgrounds. If we make anabolic steroids legal in the NFL/MLB/etc, we provide strong incentive to poor young children to start using substances which are explicitly harmful for them long term just so they can have a shot to play these sports professionally and escape from poverty in the Dominican Republic or Columbia or inner city slums.

Let me rephrase that in simpler terms: if we allow steroids to be openly used in professional sports, we'll be explicitly encouraging poor adolescents to take drugs so that they might better entertain us. It's not quite Gladiator, but I find it rather disgusting all the same.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I'm not an expert on baseball stats, but I would think that the big impact of steroids is that they directly improve your ability to detect pitches in time to hit them (your "eye", so to speak.)

Given the same bat weight, if you have x% more force in your swing, your swing can start at time Y later after the pitch and still arrive in the strike zone at the same moment and momentum to deliver a home run. You basically have Y more time to identify the pitch and make your move.

I mean, people hit home runs without steroids all the time - it's not really greater momentum that you need. But using steroids gives you more acceleration, which maybe enabled Bonds to hit the ball at the sweet spot more frequently, given the same reflexes as another player.

That's sort of my point; I don't see how people can give him credit for all this stuff that's apparently non-steroid related when it could very well be steroid related. I'm not sure in the wake of tiny little second baseman pulling 35+ bombs per year one can argue that steroids don't affect that kind of thing.

I'm really surprised how many people feel that steroids should be allowed in professional sports.

Do we not realize the perverse incentives this would create? Professional athletes come predominantly from poor backgrounds. If we make anabolic steroids legal in the NFL/MLB/etc, we provide strong incentive to poor young children to start using substances which are explicitly harmful for them long term just so they can have a shot to make to play these sports professional and escape from poverty in the Dominican Republic or Columbia or inner city slums.

Let me rephrase that in simpler terms: if we allow steroids to be openly used in professional sports, we'll be explicitly encouraging poor adolescents to take drugs so that they might better entertain us. It's not quite Gladiator, but I find it rather disgusting all the same.

We could probably break hat down even further to "steroids are illegal."

 

[see5harp]

Perhaps, but how do you gauge what impact do steroids have on that?

You can't which is why that line of thinking is ridiculous. You don't even know how many pitchers that he faced were using or how many of his peers like Bret Boone and Gonzo were juicing and how that affected their numbers. No one was remotely close statistically. Not a single player.

 

[freenudemacusers]

I'm really surprised how many people feel that steroids should be allowed in professional sports.

Do we not realize the perverse incentives this would create? Professional athletes come predominantly from poor backgrounds. If we make anabolic steroids legal in the NFL/MLB/etc, we provide strong incentive to poor young children to start using substances which are explicitly harmful for them long term just so they can have a shot to play these sports professionally and escape from poverty in the Dominican Republic or Columbia or inner city slums.

Let me rephrase that in simpler terms: if we allow steroids to be openly used in professional sports, we'll be explicitly encouraging poor adolescents to take drugs so that they might better entertain us. It's not quite Gladiator, but I find it rather disgusting all the same.

Hmm, I've never really though *too* deeply about the steroid issue, but this is a very good observation.

 

[see5harp]

We're already paying to watch people destroy their bodies for our entertainment so I'm not sure how steroids makes that whole relationship all of the sudden much worse. The average football player plays what 3 years?

 

[Opiate]

We're already paying to watch people destroy their bodies for our entertainment so I'm not sure how steroids makes that whole relationship all of the sudden much worse. The average football player plays what 3 years?

You're essentially saying "the world is already pretty bad" and concluding that we should stop trying to make it any better and allow it to get even worse.

As another note, it isn't as if "destroying your body" is some inherent property of sports and athletics. Lots of sports are actually very healthy for you (provided, of course, you don't take steroids). Swimming, European rules football, and tennis are all examples off the top of my head. Yes, if the game involves gigantic, extremely heavy people running in to each other violently and at full speed, then the game is probably going to be inherently destructive even if played without drug enhancements.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

I'm really surprised how many people feel that steroids should be allowed in professional sports.

Do we not realize the perverse incentives this would create? Professional athletes come predominantly from poor backgrounds. If we make anabolic steroids legal in the NFL/MLB/etc, we provide strong incentive to poor young children to start using substances which are explicitly harmful for them long term just so they can have a shot to play these sports professionally and escape from poverty in the Dominican Republic or Columbia or inner city slums.

Let me rephrase that in simpler terms: if we allow steroids to be openly used in professional sports, we'll be explicitly encouraging poor adolescents to take drugs so that they might better entertain us. It's not quite Gladiator, but I find it rather disgusting all the same.

very good point.

 

[jorma]

You're essentially saying "the world is already pretty bad" and concluding that we should stop trying to make it any better and allow it to get even worse.

As another note, it isn't as if "destroying your body" is some inherent property of sports and athletics. Lots of sports are actually very healthy for you (provided, of course, you don't take steroids). Swimming, European rules football, and tennis are all examples off the top of my head. Yes, if the game involves gigantic, extremely heavy people running in to each other violently and at full speed, then the game is probably going to be inherently destructive even if played without drug enhancements.

I honestly don't think that either of those sports at elite level is healthy for your body. Football isn't for sure, european rules or not. But then again, the pros get good money to compensate.
I do agree that steroids should stay banned because of the hordes of young hopefuls that would be on steroids and wreck their bodies and still never make it to pro level. A lot of them probably already are, but making it legal would ensure that all of them are.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I honestly don't think that either of those sports at elite level is healthy for your body. Football isn't for sure, european rules or not. But then again, the pros get good money to compensate.
I do agree that steroids should stay banned because of the hordes of young hopefuls that would be on steroids and wreck their bodies and still never make it to pro level. A lot of them probably already are, but making it legal would ensure that all of them are.

I don't know that I'd agree that the average sports player is in worse shape than the average person.

 

[cashman]

I'm not an expert on baseball stats, but I would think that the big impact of steroids is that they directly improve your ability to detect pitches in time to hit them (your "eye", so to speak.)

Given the same bat weight, if you have x% more force in your swing, your swing can start at time Y later after the pitch and still arrive in the strike zone at the same moment and momentum to deliver a home run. You basically have Y more time to identify the pitch and make your move.

I mean, people hit home runs without steroids all the time - it's not really greater momentum that you need. But using steroids gives you more acceleration, which maybe enabled Bonds to hit the ball at the sweet spot more frequently, given the same reflexes as another player.

Steroids won't do much to impact your reaction time.