Wednesday, July 28, 2010

No more steroids is the reason?

So I'm hearing the experts say the reason runs and home runs are down in Major League Baseball and why there are so many no-hitters and perfect games is because there's no more steroids in baseball.  When was it decided that steroids helped hitters make contact?  When was it determined that steroids helped hitters hit for average?  If this logic is true, then doesn't it also follow that the same hitters who usually hit more home runs than they are this year must have been using steroids in years past?
So are the pitchers still on steroids but the hitters aren't?  Aren't there more really hard throwing pitchers currently than we've seen in many years?
I'm not sure why this is a sea change time in baseball, vis-a-vis a hitters era formerly and seemingly now entering a pitchers era, but I don't think it has anything to do with the supposed eradication of steroids from baseball.


R.J. said...

I don't think it has anything to do with 'roids at all. Things run in cycles and now it's the pitchers turn to dominate the game.

Greg said...

Couldn't agree more, Zeb. I've always felt that yes, steroids might help a batter hit the ball further, but before they can do that they have to actually be able to hit the ball, and I'm pretty sure steroids don't give you superman eyesight. I think the ball clubs have just stepped up their pitching game more (perhaps because of batters on steroids), rely on their bullpens more, are being a little smarter about their pitching rotations and player signing, and also developing new pitches.


I totally agree with you. Thats a rediculous theory. SMH

Lovr your blog!!

Brent said...

From the mid 90's to the mid 2000's, the long ball was king. Hitting for average and playing small ball was frowned upon. Now you are seeing the effects of that mindset. More and more hitters aren't skilled enough to scratch out a hit when they are struggling, while pitching has become better than in the Home Run years.