Apologies for missing a few days there, I’m developing a couple fairly long posts and debating the double-play rules via email (I’ll write more about this later this week).
In any event - I came across a set of notes on something that never made it into the book that I found interesting. In the late 1980s, the game saw a huge surge of home runs that resulted in fairly wide speculation on what the causes were, from a juiced ball (which was investigated) to alternate theories like strike zone enforcement, a pitching drought, and so on.
I came across a fine example in a USA Today article at the Hall of Fame (undated, but it looks like it’s from a 1988 season preview) by Tom Barnidge, titled “Ball Didn’t Change, Did It? Naah”. He discussed what the possible causes were, how likely they seemed, including bat corking. Here’s what John Schuerholz (then with KC - he’d take over in Atlanta in 1990, where he’s done incredible work) said
“Sure, there are some corked bats. When I see bats explode, I believe they’re corked. But I really don’t think it’s all that pervasive. That’s not why we had all the home runs.”
The article ran a table, “Improved Outputs” listing “hitters who increased their home run totals by at least 10 from 1986 to 1987 (minimum of 400 at-bats each season)”. It runs, in part:
Andre Dawson, Cubs, 20 to 49
Will Clark, Giants, 11 to 35
Wade Boggs, Red Sox, 8 to 24
George Bell, Blue Jays, 31 to 47
Keith Moreland, Cubs, 12 to 27
[…]
Eric Davis, Reds, 27 to 37
The kicker is that there’s no one on that list - no one - who’s been tied into steroid use since. There are no Oakland players, though we now know that Oakland was, essentially, the infection vector for major league baseball, led by Jose Canseco (86 to 87? -2 HR, from 33 to 31).
I have a couple of observations on this:
- there was a home run surge at the same time as steroids started to come into the game, but the surge in large part was not due to steroids
- it’s possible that the huge surge in home runs actually drew attention away from the spread of steroids: after all, if the most prominent players having power surges were clean (and not at all the classic bulky muscle-bound guy we think of as suspects), then it’s hard to look at any specific cases, or team, and see a new factor
- because baseball had seen corked bats, rabbit balls, and the other causes before, those were the causes they speculated about. Now, we look to drugs for explanations of weirdness in baseball - but if there’s a new and widespread scourge, it’s quite likely it’ll be what no one expects, or even speculates is possible.
fgf | 18-May-07 at 6:59 pm | Permalink
wouldn’t the start of the steroid era be when Tom House admitted to dabbling with them?
DMZ | 18-May-07 at 7:52 pm | Permalink
No. As I said, it’s the late 1980s when players started using them and weightlifting regularly, on schedules, and found success — and imitators.
fgf | 19-May-07 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
Success can be found in them just by recovery.
They may have not seen increases in their homerun power, or their pitch speed, but being able to recover faster from injuries is still enough to consider it an unfair advantage.
fgf | 19-May-07 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
Found success in homerun power, and pitch speed increases.
Still doesn’t mean House, or possibly anyone during their time didn’t see a benefit of faster recovery.
DMZ | 19-May-07 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
Sure, but if you look at House’s comments and other accounts from pre-1985 (to draw a particular line), steroid/other drug use was essentially random: players were taking inconsistent doses, mixing different combinations, and not training. If they were able to get any advantage, it certainly wouldn’t have been constant.
The 80s were where we got players borrowing mature, effective drug dosage schedules and workout regiments from weightlifting, so they knew how to cycle, how to build and maintain muscle, and so on, in a way that baseball had never seen before.
fgf | 19-May-07 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
Sorry I posted twice ( thought it didn’t go through the first time).
I agree with everything you say, except for the fact that a ballplayer didn’t know how to ” mix ” and properly benefit from steroids - Who’s to say they didn’t, assuming they used? In other sports such as football and bodybuilding they were used in a beneficial way, and while weight lifting was frowned upon in baseball, it doesn’t mean they weren’t used along with intense weightlifting by certain players.
And House’s ” comments ” regarding the ways they were used is questionable - Especially since he backtracked his comments regarding them being widespread - He says Amphetamines were wide-spread, not steroids. He did however admit to using steroids and HGH himself.