Steriods May Boost Home Runs by 50 Percent

First, I want to say it loud and clear I do not care in principle about athletes safely using steroids (or anything else) to enhance their performance. However, athletes may not use such enhancements when the rules of their sports authorities forbid it--that's cheating just like using a corked bat. Anyway, as everyone knows, Barry Bonds' home run record is tainted* by the suspicion that he used steroids.

But there has been some question about how steroids might increase home run production. Tufts University physicist Roger Tobin finds: 

"A change of only a few percent in the average speed of the batted ball, which can reasonably be expected from steroid use, is enough to increase home run production by at least 50 percent," he says. This disproportionate effect arises because home runs are relatively rare events that occur on the "tail of the range distribution" of batted balls...

Tobin reviewed previous studies of the effect of steroid use and concluded that muscle mass, the force exerted by those muscles and the kinetic energy of the bat could each be increased by about 10 percent through the use of steroids. According to his calculations, the speed of the bat as it strikes the pitched ball will be about 5 percent higher than without the use of steroids and the speed of the ball as it leaves the bat will be about 4 percent higher.

To determine the ultimate impact on home run production, Tobin then analyzed a variety of models for trajectory of the baseball, accounting for gravity, air resistance and lift force due to the ball's spin. While there was considerable variation among the models, "the salient point," he says, "is that a 4 percent increase in ball speed, which can reasonably be expected from steroid use, can increase home run production by anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent."

These results certainly do not prove that recent performances are tainted, but they suggest that some suspicion is reasonable," he concludes.

Press release reporting this research here.  

*used because that's what some commentators suggest should be done with Bonds' entry in the record books.

Comments

SIV | September 21, 2007, 9:53am | #

No byline on the front page Ron.

SIV | September 21, 2007, 9:54am | #

OK there it is.......

Randolph Carter | September 21, 2007, 10:02am | #

Also, I don't know how I feel about the Amazon ad that juts out and takes up space on the article and comments... I already bought Radicals for Capitalism! Dammit!

SIV | September 21, 2007, 10:05am | #

Glad I'm not the only one seeing that Randolph.

thoreau | September 21, 2007, 10:06am | #

Hehe. He said "taint." Heh.

Taktix® | September 21, 2007, 10:14am | #

Also, I don't know how I feel about the Amazon ad that juts out and takes up space on the article and comments... I already bought Radicals for Capitalism! Dammit!

Maybe if you stopped using AOL and switched to a grown-up browser, your pages would appear correctly :)

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 10:18am | #

"the salient point," he says, "is that a 4 percent increase in ball speed, which can reasonably be expected from steroid use, can increase home run production by anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent."

So if Hank Aaron had only used steriods (and we're positively sure he didn't because he is Dignified) he could have hit 1500 home runs in his career. That would have been something to see.

Warren | September 21, 2007, 10:31am | #

Baseball? Does anyone besides George Will watch baseball any more?

Legate Damar | September 21, 2007, 10:31am | #

He also points out that many other changes, including adjustments in ballpark dimensions, league expansions, entry of African-American athletes, and lowering of the pitcher's mound, could affect major league batting—although he says that none of those changes coincide with the sudden burst of home run production in the mid-1990s.

But you know what did coincide with the mid-1990s? Baseball's desperate desire to bring fans back after a strike and the coincidental(?) shrinking of the strike zone to the size of a soap dish.

Randolph Carter | September 21, 2007, 10:33am | #

firefox at work, homeboy

John | September 21, 2007, 10:48am | #

It always kills me when people say that steriods don't help you in baseball. If so, why do professional players whose livelyhoods depend on performance use them? Because they taste good? I am thinking that Barry Bonds and Mark Mcguire know a little bit more about what it takes to succeed in baseball and what helps them and what doesn't than the casual fan who claims that steriods don't help.

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 11:01am | #

It always kills me when people say that steriods don't help you in baseball. If so, why do professional players whose livelyhoods depend on performance use them? Because they taste good? I am thinking that Barry Bonds and Mark Mcguire know a little bit more about what it takes to succeed in baseball and what helps them and what doesn't than the casual fan who claims that steriods don't help.

Of course, the other side of that coin would be to ask why every ballplayer doesn't use them, what with millions of dollars on the line and MLB's very lax policy?

J sub D | September 21, 2007, 11:05am | #

Of course, the other side of that coin would be to ask why every ballplayer doesn't use them, what with millions of dollars on the line and MLB's very lax policy?

Morality and health concerns come immediately to mind.

stuartl | September 21, 2007, 11:11am | #

Of course, the other side of that coin would be to ask why every ballplayer doesn't use them, what with millions of dollars on the line and MLB's very lax policy?

In the 2004 post season it looked to me like they all were taking steroids. The players all had the same bulky body type.

In 2006, there was much more variety in body types. As a fan I appreciate this, it helps me tell the players apart and gives them more personality.

Perry | September 21, 2007, 11:15am | #

While i'm sure that steroids have some impact on baseball players, I think its very much so not in the form of increasing home runs via the method described.

If brute strength was all that you needed to hit a home run, I think we'd see a lot more bodybuilders playing baseball. But we don't. Brute strength alone doesn't translate into increased bat speed, which is what makes home runs.

But where they probably help is that a 40 year old barry bonds doesn't need 2 days to recover after a game anymore, his muscles are back in working shape the next day.

So it doesn't help him physically go beyond 100% of what he is capable of, it just lets him be 100% more often..

peachy | September 21, 2007, 11:25am | #

Although you're right that steroids are useful for recovery, I wouldn't dismiss the study; if someone has the power and technique to hit thirty HRs in a year, they're going to be producing a fair number of very deep flyballs (some of which will be other XBH). I find it very easy to believe that with just a little more zip on the bat some of those warning track balls will slip over the wall.

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 11:51am | #

Morality and health concerns come immediately to mind.

But surely there exists a couple hundred ballplayers who are willing to overlook those concerns for millions of dollars?

Nick M. | September 21, 2007, 11:59am | #

If brute strength was all that you needed to hit a home run, I think we'd see a lot more bodybuilders playing baseball. But we don't. Brute strength alone doesn't translate into increased bat speed, which is what makes home runs.

Maybe because the type of weight training used by body builders has no effect on athletic ability. Big, crazy defined muscle doesn't necessarily translate to increased speed and agility.

Nick M. | September 21, 2007, 12:00pm | #

That should be:

If brute strength was all that you needed to hit a home run, I think we'd see a lot more bodybuilders playing baseball. But we don't. Brute strength alone doesn't translate into increased bat speed, which is what makes home runs.

Maybe because the type of weight training used by body builders has no effect on athletic ability. Big, crazy defined muscle doesn't necessarily translate to increased speed and agility.

ed | September 21, 2007, 12:15pm | #

Does anyone besides George Will watch baseball any more?

Yes. We smart, good-looking people.
The rest watch football and belch.

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 12:16pm | #

But where they probably help is that a 40 year old barry bonds doesn't need 2 days to recover after a game anymore, his muscles are back in working shape the next day.

So it doesn't help him physically go beyond 100% of what he is capable of, it just lets him be 100% more often..

I think this is correct, and especially true for pitchers. Roger Clemens is not a muscleman so it seems that the anti-steriod crowd overlooks the fact that somehow he's still throwing heat after 20 seasons. His arm should be a limp noodle at this point.

Rhywun | September 21, 2007, 12:16pm | #

Just like I should be able to choose a smoking casino or a slightly risky foot operation, I should be able to choose among baseball leagues with various levels of drug content in their players.

ed | September 21, 2007, 12:43pm | #

Awww...The Little Steroids League. How cute!

Rimfax | September 21, 2007, 1:10pm | #

50-100%? Sounds like Bonds isn't getting his money's worth.

J sub D | September 21, 2007, 1:47pm | #

But surely there exists a couple hundred ballplayers who are willing to overlook those concerns for millions of dollars?

Long ago, I read a survey that asked olympic hopefuls, I'm paraphrasing here, If you could take an undetectable substance that get's you a gold medal, and kills you at age 50. would you do it? The number that said yes was disquieting at best. Specifics of all this escape my admittedly flawed memory, but I do remember being shocked at how many would cheat and die for a gold medal.

So for millions of dollars the incentive to cheat is certainly going to be a consideration.
Hell, I know people who will cheat at cards with $0 involved. Amazing, ain't it?

Eric the .5b | September 21, 2007, 2:20pm | #

Victory is involved, J sub D. For some people, even winning something trivial is worth it. Meh.