Tuesday, January 26, 2010

What caused the "Steroid" Era?

That's the question that J.C. Bradbury asks in this post. If you've followed my thoughts on steroids here, you'll be familiar with his answer. Nonetheless, his post is worth reading as a concise, focused, and effective primer on what happened and why in the 1990s.


D.Cous. said...

Is there really so little evidence for the ball changing? Bradbury mentions broad speculation to this effect. Isn't such information, if not widely, at least somewhat available?

I would find it really funny if MLB changed up the bats and balls and a bunch of other factors in the game, causing home runs to skyrocket, and then had to endure years of allegations that the game has been "tainted" and "just isn't what it used to be" because of, supposedly, steroid usage.

John Lynch said...

Actually, Bradbury mentions ball changes so casually in part because I think that it's so well known. I'm pretty sure I've linked to studies on this in the past. There's a lot of evidence for it.