Projecting Power Growth

by fargocraig1971 on Feb 21, 2005 10:11 AM EST Comment 24 comments

One question I haven't seen addressed as a result of whole steroids controversy is the effect it will have on projecting power growth for players, both as minor leaguers moving up to the bigs, and on major leaguers moving into the later stages of theirs careers.

To clarify, it seems to me that "back in the day", players were not routinely expected to develop power if they didn't show it early - power seemed to be considered a tool (like speed) that you just couldn't teach. A good example is Jeff Bagwell - the Sox certainly didn't anticipate his power surge when they traded him. (Not to imply that Bagwell used steroids; just an example to illustrate the point).

Throughout the past decade or so though, it seems to have almost become a given that many players DO have the potential to develop power. I guess my question is, should the crackdown on steroids change this expectation back to the view that power increases should not be expected? I'm not accusing anyone in particular of using steroids, but should we expect to see fewer power surges from youngsters new to the bigs, or from veterans who suddenly develop power in their 30's? I know younger players sometimes "fill out", but how much of the phenomenon over the past decade or so has been due to steroids?

0 recs | Comment 24 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Power

I think the power will still develop, but it'll be the magnitude of power we expected pre-steroids: you know, a time when nobody had hit even 50 HR for a period of nearly 30 years. I think prospects can still develop moderate power after reaching the bigs through adjusting their swing and/or natural means of building strength, but I don't see anybody hitting 73 HR again...

by CatsBack2Back on Feb 21, 2005 10:30 AM EST reply actions

hitting 73

I disagree with not possibly seeing someone hit 73hrs. I mean, I am not going to say that it is likely because it took how many years for Mac to break Maris, but Jr. is an example of someone who if healthy could have broken any hr record, maybe not so much now. I also think Adam Dunn is a possibility and there are probably others. These are two guys nobody argues for using steroids since Jr. it comes naturally and Dunn is just big. Especially with todays smaller parks.

by rdiersin on Feb 21, 2005 11:01 AM EST up reply actions

Projecting Power

I don't think anyone really knows how much steroids add to power beyond what conventional strength training would do. I don't think that Willie Mays or Hank Aaron ever touched a weight, and almost certainly didn't use steroids, but they somehow managed to hit 660 and 755 HR's respectively. How many more would they have hit if they had strength trained? How many more with strength training plus steroids? We'll never know, but I think you can do a lot with just conventional strength training.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 21, 2005 10:58 AM EST reply actions

what?

that's a pretty general statement to make, that aaron and mays never touched a weight. you're basically implying that they never did anything to ensure they were physically fit or were conditioned. that's just hogwash. if all they did was sit around and watch TV like you're basically saying they did, they both would've had beer bellies by the time they retired. maybe they didn't use weights in the traditional sense, but im sure they did a lot to stay physically fit.

what they used to do doesn't mean it was more or less primitive than what we have today. it wasnt all that long ago that they played.

im gonna put words into your mouth since i think this is what you were eventually getting at, so forgive me if im wrong: but barry bonds simply would not be the size he is today without steroids. no one naturally can get the size he got to at the age he did it. i understand if you're 25 years old, but at 37-40 years of age, it would be very rare for someone to increase their muscle mass the way he did. especially since we have about 100 years of data and the fact that humans today arent really much different than they were 100 years ago, its even more rare to have career years at ages 37-40. naturally, you peak in your mid-late 20's and that peak ends at about 31-33. bonds comes out of nowhere and hits almost double the homers he did at any other point in his all-star career. thats a red flag right there.

yeah, weights can be a great tool, but as you get past your mid-30's it becomes very hard for people to build up muscle mass even with modern exercises. looking at bonds, and the fact that he was a relatively skinny albeit very fit individual in his 20's and now is just a hunk of muscle at age 39-40 tells me what is now obvious: bonds could NOT get to where he is today without steroids and/or artificial supplements.

both mays and aaron were great players. but even the greatest of the greatest had their natural peak years ~mid 20's to mid 30's, and then steadily declined. the numbers that bonds has accumulated speak for themselves. i think it would be a travesty if bonds is allowed to break aaron's HR record. this if far worse than gambling on baseball: bonds, in breaking aaron's record (which i think he will) is ruining the legacy and the achievement of aaron and basically insulting all those who ever achieved greatness by playing fair.

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte

by michigan moxie on Feb 21, 2005 11:29 AM EST up reply actions

What?

Nancy Reagan has said that Ronnie increased his shirt size by 2 sizes after he started lifting weights in the White House? Do you think he was on the juice too? He was over 70 years old at the time.

I believe Hank Aaron has said that he never lifted weights when he was playing. Weights were something ballplayers stayed away from in those days because they believed they reduced flexibility.

BTW. I never said one word about Barry Bonds in my post. Everything I said could also be applied to McGwire, Canseco, Giambi, and probably at least 50% of currently active players. so why are you singling out Bonds? Did you just assume that I was talking about him because I'm a Giants fan?

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 21, 2005 12:01 PM EST up reply actions

why not

yeah im singling out bonds, because you are a giants fan and the fact that his steroid-taking is having a very large impact on baseball. i dont see a problem with that, being this is a thread about power growth. why not talk about bond's power growth in what should be the twilight of his career?

like i said, even if aaron and mays and whoever else didnt weight-train, im sure they occupied themselves with other things in order to stay fit. weight training isnt the only way. for example, you can take steroids like bonds does.

even if reagan did increase shirt size, that doesnt mean much to me. just because he was lifting weights doesnt mean he could have turned back time and be the man he was at 40 or 50. same thing with bonds: even with weights, you cant turn back time and be the player, or especially even a better player, than you were at age 25. you can sort of stall the process, but naturally the body deteriorates. especially in an athlete. this is the argument i was making, not that because you are more muscular youy are taking steroids. thats not my argument at all.

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte

by michigan moxie on Feb 21, 2005 12:22 PM EST up reply actions

Turning back the clock?

Maybe you can explain how steroids can turn back the clock and make a player physiologically younger in a way that conventional weight training can't. I haven't heard that theory before and would like to know how it works.

You said that players can't add significant muscle mass after the age of about 35. I gave you an example of someone who did it at age 70. There are numerous reports in the medical literature proving that Seniors over the age of 75 can add significant amounts of both muscle mass and strength. Why isn't that relevent to the discussion since you used this false premise as part of your proof that Bonds used steroids?

I never said that Mays and Aaron didn't stay in shape. Whatever they did was a lot different than the type of weight lifting players do these day and not nearly as effective at adding muscle mass and strength.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 21, 2005 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

Roid Talk

I think you both make good points. The human produces more testosterone (naturally) when younger, which is why the propensity to gain mass is so miuch greater at a younger. That does drop off when people grow older, which is why it is tougher but not impossible to add mass when older.

I think the explosion of muscles at an older age certainly needs to be looked upon. Reagan may have gained muscle, but when looking at film of him, he did not "explode" with mass as some of today's ballplayers do.

Steroids may not physically make anyone younger, but they significantly improve recovery and healing time.

by count sutton on Feb 21, 2005 2:34 PM EST up reply actions

Steroids

Have you seen film of Reagan without his coat on? It seems to me that increasing your shirt size by two is pretty significant.

If steroids improve healing of injuries, why isn't that a legitimate use for them.? How is that different that taking anti-inflammatories, or an antibiotic for example?

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 21, 2005 3:09 PM EST up reply actions

Steroids = anti-inflammatories??

LOL... Well, if certain anti-inflammatories had the same harmful side-effects as steroids, they'd probably be banned too.

by CatsBack2Back on Feb 21, 2005 3:12 PM EST up reply actions

Anti-Inflammatories

Have you been watching the news? Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatories do have potential for serious harm. There was even a major FDA hearing about that this last week in Washington DC. They initial conclusion is that they are risky, but should be kept on the market due to lack of better alternatives.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 21, 2005 8:11 PM EST up reply actions

Steroids do help heal injuries - in small doses

Steroids are used in just the same manner as an anti-inflmmatory and also for some other issues. I was on the 'Roids in December when I was battling pneumonia.

The problem is not from those using steroids under the direction of a doctor for medical purposes.

by rockies73 on Feb 21, 2005 4:57 PM EST up reply actions

Reagan?

Your little Ronald Reagan story is laughable and does not prove or disprove anything. Not only is it simply a colorful quote that may or may not be true to begin with, but also Reagan was physically a normal person, not an athlete pushing the limits of his body. Sure if you take a skinny old geezer and give him weights he can put on some significant mass, because there was hardly any to begin with. It's the same reason why clinical tests of the effects of steroids have yielded mixed results: normally test subjects aren't exactly as motivated as professional athletes who are juicing so they can break records and win championships.

The issue isn't so much as whether Bonds did or didn't do steroids. He did steroids, he said it himself. The issue is whether they have helped him maintain his out-of-this-world workout regimen and physique. There is plenty of empirical evidence that, yes, steroids have such an effect. I can't go into the details on how steroids help you "turn back the clock" since I admit I'm no A&P expert, but what I've read is that there is evidence that steroids "reduce recovery time needed between training sessions and thus enable athletes to train more intensively for longer periods". You can do a google search if you really want to find out, though I would think that in your case you might not. Ignorance is bliss, so they say.

by CatsBack2Back on Feb 21, 2005 3:09 PM EST up reply actions

Reagan's muscles

I was simply respondeing to an assertion that it's extremely difficult for people over the age of about 30 to gain muscle mass and strength. Why isn't pointing to a well known 70 yo as an example of someone who did laugable? I happen to be very familiar with the medical literature re. the effects of weight training on the aging body. It is very well established that Senior weight trainers can add significant muschle mass and strength through conventional strength training, and that this in turn leads to functional improvements. If you don't believe it, there are plenty of medical websites where you can look it up. If 75-85 year olds can do this why not 35 yo athletes?

BTW. I don't think I've said one word in any of these posts about whether Bonds did or didn't use stereids. Why can't you and michigan moxie discuss the issue without frothing at the mouth over Barry Bonds? Michigan might want to explain why Pudge showed up at camp this year about 20 pounds lighter. LOL.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 21, 2005 5:32 PM EST up reply actions

so what?...redux

okay, yes, great, weight-training is effective...to an EXTENT. but basically you are making a fallacious comparision between 75 year olds gaining muscle mass and 35 year old baseball hitters gaining muscle mass. I doubt you think 75 year old men like Reagan, even with weight-training, can be as physically fit as they were in their prime years. So why do you think 35 year olds are any different? it is simply rare, even with weights, for a 35 or 40 year old baseball player to perform better than they did when they were younger, ESPECIALLY power hitters. i understand there is the occasional freak of nature like Randy Johnson, but he is not throwing harder than he used to, he's just gotten better at location and intelligent pitching. Bonds, on the other hand, is a perfect example for my purposes. I like bringing him up because you seem to think that 35-40 year olds can just hit the weights and perform MUCH better than they did in their hey-day.

again, no one CARES if reagan as a 70 year old hit the weights and gained some extra strength. we are talking about professional athletes who are trying to maximize strength to their greatest ability. it is simply not a coincidence that almost every baseball player peaks in his late 20's early 30's and declines in their later 30's and 40's. 100 years of baseball, basketball, football, and hockey data suggest this. Who are you to say that hitting the weights can somehow 'turn back the clock', so to speak? when i say 'turn back the clock', understand that i am using a metaphor for the fact that some players in baseball these days are consistently performing better than they did in their supposed "prime years" a la late 20's. I am not accusing, but it IS suspicious how Bret Boone, Rafael Palmeiro, and yes Barry Bonds are performed better in their mid to late 30's than they did in their 20's/early 30's.

Yes, it IS concerning that Pudge came to camp much thinner. This isnt just about Bonds. It is about everyone who is using steroids to improve their performance. If you really did research on the effects of weight training on the aging body, you should be familiar with some of the issues brought up in this board: decreasing (natural) testosterone and androsterone production with increasing age, loss of elasticity in tendons, ligaments, and muscles, slower recovery times from injury, etc etc. As a physiology major at Michigan State, i TOO am aware that weight-training can certainly IMPROVE fitness. but to think that you can be AS physically fit and AS healthy as you once were 10, 15, 20 years before is simply absurd. Anyone that truly has done their medical research should know that.

P.S. i brought up Bonds for the record, but this isnt only about Bonds. its about any player who improves their natural abilities (including throwing a baseball 5 mph faster than before) by a vast, unnatural amount. Even Pudge is under the eye now. And until baseball takes the proper steps to test for steroids or HGH (for example, since MLB cannot do blood tests, they cannot test for Human Growth Hormone), anyone who does what Bonds et al has done will be under suspicion. That's just the way it is.

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte

by michigan moxie on Feb 21, 2005 9:20 PM EST up reply actions

Weight training and aging

You are assuming that the athlete was doing the same anount of strength training all along. What if, say, Barry Bonds got along solely on his athletic ability until he turned 35 and then reallized that he was starting to lose his edge. If he started strength training at that point he definitely could gain more strength than he ever had before because he never worked out before.

Would a weightlifting Reagan at age 35 be stronger and bigger than one at age 70? Most likely, but a weightlifting Reagan at age 70 might well whip a couch potato Reagan at age 35.

It all depends on what your baseline is and where you are starting from.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 22, 2005 1:39 AM EST up reply actions

steroid and power

Power developement will definitely take a hit without steriods.

For the most part, you wont see some skinny middle infielder bulk up and hit 40 homers, and you're less likely to see some contact hitter with no power suddenly hit 30 homers.

Thats not to say steroid is gone for good. MLB's new testing rules are laughable to speak the least. The penalty itself encourages steroid use.

I'm not quite sure if the league owners and commissioners are against steroids anymore than the fact that Bonds broke McGwire's record and possibly will break Ruth's, too. When Big Mac went for the record, steroid was a hush-hush thingy bordering taboo status among the likes of ESPN.

by Bobo2 on Feb 21, 2005 11:47 AM EST reply actions

Re: MLB's new testing rules are laughable

I'd agree that how many offenses it takes to get suspended for a year is laughable. But a 10 game suspension for the first offense is awesome. I'm surprised the players associated ok'd that b/c their godfather Marvin Miller is against any testing at all.

When a player gets that 10 game suspension it will be a media circus. No player wants that upon him. So i think that first offense penalty is significant. What I don't know is whether the implementation of the testing will be sufficient.

by natsfan2005 on Feb 21, 2005 12:41 PM EST up reply actions

Power Development

I think power development in the early stages of a career is based on a propect's frame and whether or not he will grow into it. So I think the development of power early will still happen through good diet and conventional strength training. A solid prospect can take four or five years to develop, which is plenty of time to build muscle through adequate strength training. Though I have also heard that steroid testing in the minors is pretty much a joke. The testing is administered by the team trainers and it's not hard to get someone else to go in your cup. So I think early development will still happen.

I don't think as many people will development power late in their careers. While I am NOT throwing accussations, Rafael Palmeiro and Bret Boone's power growth late seem to be something that does not happen too often even in today's so called Steroid Era. So I do believe these twilight power surges will be few and far between.

by count sutton on Feb 21, 2005 12:58 PM EST reply actions

Steroid testing by team trainers?!

Has anybody actually read anything concrete about exactly how the steroid testing is administered in the minors...or will be in the majors? I sure haven't. The term "independent testing" is enthusiastically used a lot, but I trust Commissioner Selig about as far as I can sling a piano. Punishments don't matter much if nobody ever gets caught--and knows they won't (wink).

Even the threat of automatic 2-year first-offense suspensions (and very thorough, systematic testing) hasn't sufficiently deterred many a track & field athlete from drug cheating. I'm afraid that until a first offense means a lifetime ban--and there's a mix of regular AND random testing--we'll have drug cheats in baseball. There's too much money and glory to be gained.

by Mary Sunshine on Feb 21, 2005 8:41 PM EST reply actions

Roid Testing

To clarify my earlier post, the minor league testing is (or at least was up to a couple years ago) done by the team trainer. I don't know how MLB will conduct its testing, but I imagine that from all the scrutiny MLB will contract professioanls to conduct the test.

Sickels, this site rules!!!

by count sutton on Feb 21, 2005 9:06 PM EST up reply actions

Power Surge

Don Mattingly hit 37HR in 1842 AB in the minors. Then in the show, 23,35,31,30.

Kirby Puckett hit 13 HR in 903 AB. He hit 4 in his first 1248 AB in the show. Then 31,28,24.

Power will continue to develop as players get older. Some players peak physically earlier than others. Some players have fluke years.

The power surge is not just steroids. And in fact many people believe that pitchers are benefiting from steroid use MORE than the hitters. When we look at all the offense, let's not forget about the smaller ball parks, the tighter wound balls, the extra 60+ pitchers that take the mound every season due to expansion...and blah blah blah. Weight training (without steroids) and nutritional science has improved drastically over the last 20 years. It's no coincidence that the offensive explosion has taken place during this time.

Here's a bit of infamous trivia. Who is the last player to lead the American League in HR's with less than 40? Who is the last player to lead the National League in HR's with less than 40?

by rwperu34 on Feb 22, 2005 2:35 AM EST reply actions

Power surges...

The thing is, power can sometimes come from nowhere.

Robin Yount's power numbers jumped from 1979 to 1980. Similar jumps occured for other hitters as well across the years. You really can't tell.

A pro-artificial turf, pro-designated hitter baseball fan.

by Harold on Feb 22, 2005 12:52 PM EST reply actions

League Leaders

Funny enough, the last two league leaders in HR with less than forty were both Fred McGriff. He had 36 for the Jays in 1989 and 35 with the Padres in '92. Wonder if he'll ever see serious consideration for the Hall...

by gbrusca on Feb 22, 2005 1:29 PM EST reply actions