http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

some excerpts:

I doubt this entirely. I think the effects have proven themselves.

I refuse to even read the article unless someone can prove to me that when you inject steroids that they miraculously know that while traveling through the bloodstream where the waist is and when they start to head below it they manage to do a quick U-Turn.

Actually that's not true. I will accept proof of a K-Turn as well.

At least look at the graphs that they post and explain why there has been no spike in power during the "steroid era".Also:

re. the first, perhaps they're intentionally exaggerating, but there's no way that's true (just as it isn't true that batting power is all about upper body strength)

re. the 2nd, perhaps it depends on how they're defining "strength"...

What about pitching? That is mostly legs as well and guys have been known to increase their velocity significantly with roids.

There are a couple of obvious flaws with the "home runs as a proportion of total hits" analysis:

1. For there to be a "power spike" by this measure, you have to assume that PEDs impact home run totals but don't impact other offensive numbers. I don't see a basis for that assumption. If I'm stronger from PEDs, more weak grounders are going to be hard grounders that get through the infield. More routine fly balls are going to carry to the wall for doubles and triples. And yes, more home runs. There can be an overall spike in offense without that spike showing up as a change in the percentage of hits that are home runs.

2. Not all players use/used PEDs. Without knowing who did and didn't, you can't easily measure the impact. Maybe for the 25% of players who did use PEDs, there is a power spike. Maybe for some percentage of those who didn't use PEDs, there is actually a power drop because they couldn't compete with pitchers who were using PEDs. But without knowing who falls into which category, there's no way to prove or disprove any trend.

As for the notion that power is all about lower body strength:

Yes. That's where power is generated.

But, no. The single biggest factor in actually hitting for power is how squarely you hit the ball.

That's where arms and wrists come in handy. You can generate all the power in the world with your lower body -- but once that bat gets moving, if you don't have the upper body strength to control where it goes, you're going to have a lot of epic swings-and-misses, plenty of mile high pop-ups. And, sure, a mammoth home run or two -- but you're not going to be a great power hitter.

The more potential power you're generating with your lower body, I would think the more upper body strength you would need to get consistent results at the plate. So even if it's true (seems odd, but I have no idea) that PEDs disproportionately impact upper body strength, that's not as irrelevant as the author is suggesting.

Beyond that, I've only skimmed the article. Haven't read it thoroughly. He does raise some valid points. I'm not convinced that one of those valid points is "PEDs don't actually enhance performance," though.

Also:

Most seem to only consider the effects of increased bat speed after the bat makes contact with the ball. But what happens before needs to be considered as well. If you have increased bat speed, you can sit back on the pitch just a couple of milliseconds longer - long enough to see one extra ball rotation or so. This leads to improved pitch/location recognition, resulting in more walks, fewer strikeouts, and more contact on the sweet spot, ultimately ending in more quality at-bats all around.

I'm calling shenanigans. Did you read the abstracts to those studies? Just glancing over a couple I found a couple of items that jumped out at me:

"By age 40" meaning that there was a perceptible change prior to the age of 40



I haven't had a chance to deep dive into these studies, but I don't think they are stating what you think they're stating.

After the age of 25 the production of testosterone in men begins to decline at a steady rate. Weight training can help ameliorate this process, but it is still going to happen. The more you weight train the slower the process. So, while a baseball player who is an avid weight lifter will see a slower decline that decline will still occur. I saw nothing in the few abstracts listed that stated that ageing and decreased muscle mass/strength are not linked. If I get some free time I’ll try and dig into these studies.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=833

Great, RSF2, you're quoting the website that is misinterpreting the studies. You might want to look at the actual studies(abstracts).

Let's break this down. Testosterone equates to muscle mass. The more testosterone an individual has the greater their muscle mass. Speaking in generalities, men at the age of 25 stop producing as much testosterone in their bodies. Weight training can help reduce the percentage of testosterone lost, but there will still be a total net loss.

So, let's look at the evidence quoted by the website:



By age 40 means strength and power declined at or before the age of 40. Since I don't have access to the Journal of Gerontology I can't view how exactly this study was linked in other articles. Reading this abstract, I have a strong suspicion that there is a noticeable decline in strength and this study focuses on the precipitous drop of strength after the age of 40.



I'm not a kinesiologist nor do I play one on TV, but I can tell you there is a world of difference between building muscle mass through weight training and muscle training through isometrics and Dynamic strength. Isometrics and Dynamic training can help with overall strength, but these types of training regiments focus more on muscle endurance.



ibid (Although, I do want to look at this a little more. This information could relate to pitchers in particular so, I'll withhold from saying more)



ibid.

So, these studies tell me that muscle endurance can be built into one's 30's and maintained until roughly the age of 50. That's wonderful news for marathon runners, but not so much for baseball players (as it relates to hitting the long ball). These studies don't state that the muscle mass associated with power can be maintained, which is what I meant that there is no correlation between muscle mass and any of these studies (at least what I could read with limited access). Again, I really don't think these studies say what you think they say.

Edit: Word Correction