We Don't Need Compelling Evidence that Jose Bautista is Not on Steroids

by jessef on Aug 26, 2010 10:28 AM EDT

As we all know, everyone's up in arms about a ridiculous article intimating that Jose Bautista's performance this year is the result of the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Those of us coming to Bautista's defence, remember, we don't need to give alternate reasons why Bautista has gotten better. If we are going to give alternate reasons, though, it's important to make sure that they cannot then be linked back to steroids.

One of the reasons some folks have brought up is the change in Bautista's batted-ball profile between 2009 (16.7% LD, 41.3% GB, 42.1% FB) and this season (14.3% LD, 32.0% GB, 53.7% FB). To be sure, this is certainly a solid proximate cause for Bautista's dramatic increase in homerun power this season. However, if you're going to bring up his batted ball profile, it's important to note that in addition to an higher flyball-rate, a larger percentage of those flys are also leaving the park (12.3% in '09, 21.3% in '10), which is another proximate cause.

But could steroids be the ultimate causes behind those proximate causes? I think most of us would be willing to accept that a steroids-using player would become stronger. A stronger player can hit the ball farther and it makes sense that an increase in HR/flyball-rate could be seen. Furthermore, how do we know that steroids won't help you hit more flyballs? Ultimately, the idea behind position players using steroids to enhance performance (as opposed to stave off or recover from injury) is not simply to become stronger, but more importantly to help with batspeed . . . quicker bat, better wood on the ball (for flyball hitters, more flys, fewer grounders). There could be a psychological basis as well, if more flyballs are leaving the park, perhaps Bautista would change his approach to hit more of them (remember, placebo effect can be pretty powerful). To be honest, we know very little about how much and how exactly steroids help performance in baseball, so to say that they do or don't do any particular thing is kind of jumping the gun.

As long as my suspicions regarding Bautista are concerned, I don't think he's on steroids, I don't think we have to ask (MLB is doing that for us) and I think anyone who says we have to ask needs to give us a compelling reason. As has been said before, we haven't seen the change in his body that was obvious with guys like McGwire, Giambi, Bonds, etc. and we haven't seen Jose carrying around a bunch of syringes or hanging out at dirty gyms.

The bottom line is that MLB hasn't found him failing a drug test and the original story was baseless crap. Guys do have career years where things fall into place for them . . . these things happen.

However, If Cox had some other reason besides the fact that Bautista's hitting well and the Jays have some bizarre steroids "culture" in the clubhouse, there'd be no reason why a career year could not also be aided by use of PEDs. I think part of Bautista's success this year could be ascribed to hard work, luck, new approach, whatever and a second (likely smaller) part could be ascribed to the use of banned substances. That said, no one's given a reason aside from the fact that he's hit a lot of homeruns, which really is not a reason. Not only is it almost impossible to prove someone's not on steroids, but there's no reason that we should have to. If we are looking for alternate causes behind his success, his batted ball profile is hardly watertight, though.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Excellent stuff Jesse

The one thing I’m not totally sold on was the deduction that a quicker bat means more flys and less grounders.

by T_Mizz on Aug 26, 2010 12:01 PM EDT reply actions

Good article, I hope fans and reporters will put an end of all these steroids talk behind us and just enjoy watching the ball clear the fence.

by Outz on Aug 26, 2010 12:20 PM EDT reply actions

The columnist who shall not be named is such a moron

if he thinks the Jays were the only team to have SEVERAL players juicing in that era, which is what he insinuated in his article. Mcgwire and Canseco played together in Oakland. Palmeiro and Gonzalez played together in Texas. Does he think Clemens ONLY used steroids in Toronto? What about Glaus? Along the same lines, Canseco almost definitely doped up at every stop in his career.

Also, he lacks an understanding of how steroids work. He cites Brady Anderson as an example of Bautista’s situation. I don’t need to go into detail here about what Anderson did to get mentioned like this. His 50 homer season was total fluke. He made adjustments to his swing and hit a lot more home runs. Sound familiar? If he’d been using steroids, he would have needed to use steroids for at least a couple of years to get to that point and there also probably wouldn’t have been such a huge drop-off the next year. After all, why would he have stopped after a year like that? Isn’t that why so many position players used steroids? Another huge hole in the moron’s argument: Anderson is not cited in the Mitchell Report. At all.

by crackerz_86 on Aug 26, 2010 1:00 PM EDT reply actions

People like to cite players like Anderson, and Luis Gonzalez as evidence of steroid use

because they think steroids are a convenient explanation for a huge single season spike in home run totals. As Keith Law tried to explain in his interview with the FAN 590, home run total increases are not directly linked to steroid use. While there were some prolific power hitters who used, there were also numerous other players using steroids that saw no home run increases. Why? because steroids are not there to make someone hit home runs. Testosterone and HGH have numerous effects on various systems in the body. Probably the most important effect that these drugs have for professional athletes is improving the body’s ability to repair and recover. It lends to their longevity and probably lengthens the window of peak performance.

by IanJ on Aug 26, 2010 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Warning: the following is purely opinion and IANAD:

If steroids help hitters hit home runs, it would be in the nature of fly balls that were previously caught at the wall would now be “just enough” home runs. For normal hitters, it would be an increase of a few homers a year. A deep fly ball would still be caught for an out, but just a few feet deeper.

So if a normal hitter is not seeing a huge increase in HRs, why would they do it? Well, the extra HRs are a few more RBIs and an increase in batting average. But the extra power would also help them on line drives and ground balls. The little bit of extra speed may mean an infielder can’t quite reach the ball or the ball squeaks past the outfielders to go to the wall.

by siggian on Aug 27, 2010 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions

The rise in homeruns during the supposed “steroid era” likely had more to do with the MLB juicing balls than it did with steroid use.

by metafour on Aug 27, 2010 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions

That's getting into pure speculation

Since we don’t know how much the balls were juiced and how much and how many players were juiced at the time.

Steroids was enough of a problem that U.S. President Bush included it in his State of the Union address in 2004 (?) . . . personally, I think it was strange that he brought it up there, but for it to come up at all shows that it was a problem in MLB as well as other sports.

As you said, HR totals are not evidence of steroid usage, but they aren’t necessarily evidence of ball-juicing or smaller parks, either. The way we know parks got smaller is simple — we can actually look at the dimensions. I have yet to see studies on how much baseballs were “juiced” in the post-Strike era, so until then, I’m going to call this speculation on your part. Not to say you’re wrong, but I don’t see where you’re getting this information.

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Aug 27, 2010 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions

The MLB has quite obviously altered the ball several times over the past 100 years. There are no studies because they will deny it every time; but it is so obvious that even Stevie Wonder can see it. When they have done it, it has produced drastic shifts in power production.

The biggest power jump of the “steroid era” happened from the 1993 to 1994 seasons. The jump was so comical that it would be absolutely ridiculous to claim that all of a sudden all of these guys having monster years ALL decided to do steroids at the same time. Barry Bonds was on pace to hit 53 home runs that year before the strike ended the season….and that was the SKINNY Barry Bonds.

by metafour on Aug 27, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions

So . . .

in 1994, after 112 games, a 29 year old Barry Bonds who had consistently been improving his HR/AB rate since entering the majors was on pace to hit seven more homeruns than he hit at age 28 (he hit 47).

Meanwhile, in 2001, at age 36, in 60 fewer at-bats than he had in 1993 (at age 28), Barry Bonds hit 73 homeruns (62% more).

I think you’ve picked the wrong example to demonstrate the importance of ball-juicing vs. player-juicing.

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Aug 27, 2010 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions

No. EVERYONE’s power was up in 1994. 17 different players had a shot at 40 home runs (most ever prior to that was 8 in a season). Players as a whole were on pace to hit almost 700 more homeruns than in 1993…and thats the point: what happened? All these guys got together and decided to start shooting roids at the same time? The only thing that could affect the entire league like that is changing something that affects every batter.

Look back even further than that. In 1976 4 players hit 30 or more homeruns. In 1977 there were 19 players that achieved that mark. What happened that year? MLB switched from a Rawlings baseball to a Spalding baseball.

Barry Bonds obviously benefited from performance enhancers, and so did many others…but juiced balls affect the entire league. Their effect is far greater and also guaranteed: steroid use CAN potentially help you hit more homeruns whereas altering a baseball to fly further WILL cause more homeruns.

by metafour on Aug 28, 2010 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions

I never said the balls weren't juiced

and I never said that ball-juicing wasn’t more of a factor in the increased number of homeruns than player-juicing. All I said was that you’re speculating when you say that it is.

When you say “17 different players had a shot at 40 home runs (most ever prior to that was eight in a season)” you’re misrepresenting the first part of that sentence, which is that 17 players had a shot at 40. Well, the most ever who had a shot at 40 after roughly 110 games was not eight, it was likely higher, but some did not make it.

The jump in ML-average wOBA from 1992 to 1993 was .317 to .327, actually much larger than the jump from 1993 to 1994 (.333), though 1993 did see expansion, which diluted the pitching pool.

There’s tremendous variability in league wOBA from year-to-year, which your 1976-1977 case-study fails to recognize. Furthermore, your selection of 30 HR is a very arbitrary mark. Four players hit exactly 30, three hit 31, and two hit 32 and 33. Four hit 28, but none hit 29.

year wOBA
1975 .321
1976 .315
1977 .324
1978 .318
1979 .324
1980 .320
1981 .314

Did they go back to Rawlings in 1978 and then go back to Spalding in 1979 only to go back to Rawlings for the low-offence ’80s?

Was there a change in the ball between 1917, when ML-average wOBA was .311 and 1921, when it was .348? I’m not saying that there wasn’t, by the way. Again, I’m just saying that there is way too much statistical noise at work here to make it out to be as clear as you are.

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Aug 28, 2010 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions

What does wOBA have to do with anything?

by metafour on Aug 28, 2010 3:18 AM EDT up reply actions

wOBA is more correlated to offensive output than HR

If you prefer going solely by HR . . .

1973 – 3102 HR – 42.7 AB/HR
1974 – 2649 HR – 49.9 AB/HR
1975 – 2698 HR – 48.7 AB/HR
1976 – 2235 HR – 58.8 AB/HR
1977 – 3644 HR – 39.5 AB/HR
1978 – 2956 HR – 47.9 AB/HR
1979 – 3433 HR – 41.6 AB/HR
1980 – 3087 HR – 46.7 AB/HR
1981 – 1781 HR – 53.0 AB/HR

The season you picked (1977) could just as easily be an outlier as it is that MLB specifically juiced the ball. Additionally, 1977 was an expansion season (Jays and Mariners), so naturally the pitching pool would be diluted.

1990 – 3317 HRs – 43.0 AB/HR
1991 – 3383 HRs – 42.3 AB/HR
1992 – 3038 HRs – 47.1 AB/HR
1993 – 4030 HRs – 38.5 AB/HR (Marlins and Rockies)
1994 – 3306 HRs – 33.4 AB/HR
1995 – 4081 HRs – 34.0 AB/HR
1996 – 4962 HRs – 31.6 AB/HR
1997 – 4640 HRs – 33.5 AB/HR

Seeing as HRs fell back after the 1977 season, I see that more as an outlier than I see it as evidence of ball-juicing. Additionally, I fail to see how the marked increase in HRs (beginning in 1993, not just 1994) necessarily has more to do with a juiced ball than it has to do with steroids or smaller parks, which continually opened through the 1990’s and early 2000’s.

You’re allowed to speculate that ball-juicing has had more of an impact on MLB than steroids, but at this point I still see it as speculation.

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Aug 28, 2010 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions

I think the key to ask the question about PED and steriods is when the power jumps are largely inexplicable. While it’s uncommon, Bautista’s jump in numbers has a lot of elements which corralate to the belief that this is a player simply developing late. Fangraphs did a detailed breakdown of his ISO, park factors, and we’ve seen the mechanical differences between the Bautista swing in June 2009 and June 2010. All of these elements make a reasonable, logical case for a player thriving with batting instructors who are working on his swing appropriate to his skills, getting everyday playing time, and incredibly, mashing inside fastballs that pitchers for some reason keep throwing him.

That should have been clearly outlined before bringing the thought of PEDs. Instead, it was represented solely that Bautista’s HR production has more age 29, and that alone is suspicious. Could Bautista be on something? Absolutely. As I said, no one can ever prove they’re not on something, as there will always be examples about why a test is never infailable. But really, it should be the statistic outliers that have suspicious circumstances around them that draw the attention, not just a quick glance at the numbers to make a case.

by dexfarkin on Aug 26, 2010 5:52 PM EDT reply actions

You raise a good point...

Why DO they keep throwing him inside fastballs?

by crackerz_86 on Aug 26, 2010 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Because pitchers make mistakes and outside pitches sometimes drift over the plate.

Because the Jedi is standing a bit closer to the plate and taking the outside away from them..

Because the Jedi has shown a very good eye in not swinging at outside pitches, forcing the pitchers to throw closer to the plate than they really want to.

Finally, because he is a Jedi, and he is telling the pitcher “You will throw the pitch to the inner half of the plate” and they are responding “I will throw the pitch to the inner half of the plate”

by siggian on Aug 27, 2010 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

Bautista doesn’t go fishing on the outside part of the plate, and when you’re 2-1 on a hitter, traditional wisdom is to go hard and inside for the strike. It doesn’t make a lot of sense, but pitchers are creatures of habit too.

by dexfarkin on Aug 27, 2010 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions

JUST TAKE ALOT AT HIS SWING!

IF U FOLLOW THE BLUEJAYS U WOULD ALREADY KNOW THAT THE REASON FOR ALL THE HOME RUN IS IN THE ADJUSTMENTS HE’S MADE TO HIS SWING! SHORTER FASTER BETTER!

by Brights on Sep 1, 2010 10:22 AM EDT reply actions