Effects of Steroids On Offensive Production

This article was downloaded by: [University of Maine - Orono]
On: 26 May 2014, At: 08:07

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
CHANCE
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucha20
The Natural? The Effect of Steroids on Offensive

Performance in Baseball
Brian Schmotzer, Patrick D. Kilgo & Jeff Switchenko
Published online: 02 Aug 2013.
To cite this article: Brian Schmotzer, Patrick D. Kilgo & Jeff Switchenko (2009) The Natural? The Effect of Steroids on
Offensive Performance in Baseball, CHANCE, 22:2, 21-32
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2009.10722955
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Natural?
The Effect of Steroids on Offensive
Performance in Baseball
Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 08:07 26 May 2014
Brian Schmotzer, Patrick D. Kilgo, and Jeff Switchenko
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;

The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville mighty Casey has struck out.
Casey at the Bat Ernest Thayer
irst published in the San Francisco

Examiner on June 3, 1888, Casey at
the Bat captured the spirit of the
national pastime, and to this day, many
baseball fans know by heart this famous
last stanza.
Earlier in the poem, Casey is introduced as a giant among men, in complete control, and incapable of failure.
As the poem continues, the tension
builds, while Caseys condencehis
cockinessgrows in step with the
magnitude of the moment. It rises to
a crescendo as a triumphant success is
foreshadowed for the protagonist in the
penultimate stanza. That Casey strikes
out in the end is a classic sucker punch.
The fans in Mudville, and by proxy the
reader, are left with a shattered view of
their hero, their team, their season, and
their sport.
CHANCE
21
to the Mitchell Report,

Prior
investigations into steroid use
amounted to speculation about use
by individual players and ad hoc
analyses of their performance.
The parallel with the modern game

is striking. Todays baseball players,
like many professional athletes, are cast
as giants among men. But just like
Casey, they are capable of profound
moral failure.
In recent years, there has been rampant speculation that professional baseball players have used illegal steroids to
increase their performance. With the evidence of abuse mounting, there has been
no joy in the proverbial Mudville, as fans
and non-fans, alike, confront the sullying
of Americas national pastime.
For decades, anabolic steroids
have been used by some athletes
to gain an edge in performance. As
steroids are thought to increase protein
synthesis and, therefore, muscle mass and
strength, it is logical that some aspects of
performance in sports would be enhanced.
Indeed, there is little doubt that athletes in
sports that rely on explosive powersuch
as track and eld, swimming, and bicyclingcan improve their performance
through the careful administration of steroids into their training regimens.
However, it is not immediately clear
that a baseball player would see an
improvement in performance by using
steroids. On the one hand, the logic of
increased strength implies that a hitter
in baseball could bat the ball with more
force. On the other hand, the hitter must
rst make contact with the pitched ball,
and increased muscle mass may inhibit his
ability to do so.
22
VOL. 22, NO. 2, 2009
Therefore, the purpose of our study

was to assess whether there was an
observable increase in offensive performance due to steroid use.
We note here that steroids are just
one type of drug to which athletes may
turn. The larger class of so-called performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) includes
human growth hormone (HGH). We
have extended our study to include
HGH and will briefly describe the
results below. The focus of this article,
however, is steroids.
The Mitchell Report

In the spring of 2006, the commissioner
of Major League Baseball, Bud Selig,
appointed former Sen. George Mitchell to investigate the extent to which
PEDs, including steroids, had proliferated throughout baseball. On December
13, 2007, the Mitchell Report to the
commissioner of baseball was released,
following more than a year and a half
of investigation. The 409-page report
summarized the alleged abuse of PEDs
among major league baseball players.
In total, 89 current and former players were identied as alleged PED users.
The report drew heavily on the testimony and paper trail of trainers who
purportedly were involved as intermediaries between PED distributors and
players. The evidence included detailed
information about specic seasons and
types of PED abuse allegedly undertaken
by the accused players.
We used this information to compile a

new database containing the following:
The offensive players alleged to

have abused PEDs
The seasons during which the players allegedly abused PEDs
The types of PEDs allegedly abused

by the players (steroids, HGH, or
both)
Other ancillary items, including

the source of the allegations and
whether there is a paper trail of
evidence
The Mitchell Report is surprisingly complete with respect to this

information. To ensure an objective
analysis, our approach was to treat
the Mitchell Report as inerrant and
to closely record its contents without
regard to their veracity or accuracy.
Every attempt was made to use conservative measurements for alleged steroid
use and non-use by players. Conservative,
in this sense, means that even when the
Mitchell Report listed anecdotal evidence or implied guilt by association, these
seasons were not labeled as PED seasons
unless there was a denitive statement in
the report (specic dates and paper trails
of evidence). A more liberal reading of
the report would have led to more player
seasons labeled as PED seasons. We did
not attempt this because it would lead
to a slippery slope of which seasons to
label as PED seasons without rm criteria.
Such an attempt could open the study to
investigator bias.
Previous Studies
Prior to the Mitchell Report, investigations into steroid use amounted
to speculation about use by individual
players and ad hoc analyses of their performance. The release of the Mitchell
Report prompted increased scrutiny.
Ten days after the release, J. R. Cole and
Stephen Stigler, in a 2007 non-peerreviewed newspaper editorial, checked
whether player performance changed
in the season steroid abuse supposedly
started, compared to previous years.
Using 48 hitters and 23 pitchers, they
concluded that steroid use did not
positively impact offensive or pitching
performanceand may have hurt it.
The release of the report also prompted
more pseudoscientic research into individual players. For example, on January
28, 2008, Roger Clemens, a prominent
pitcher and one of the accused players, released a 45-page report (www.
rogerclemensreport.com) via his legal team
that concluded his sustained performance into the latter years of his career
was not aberrant and thus served as
insufcient grounds for allegations of
steroid abuse.
In a February 2008 New York Times
article, a group of professorsEric
Bradlow, Shane Jensen, Justin Wolfers,
and Adi Wynercountered Clemens
claims on the basis that the comparison
group chosen in the professors analysis
exhibited selection bias. This study
claimed that Clemens performance,
when compared to a proper control
group, was indeed aberrant.
The common denominator in
most studies is a heavy focus on one
individual. The Cole-Stigler editorial
Former Sen. George Mitchell calls on a reporter during a New York news conference,
Thursday, December 13, 2007, about his report on the illegal use of steroids in baseball.
AP Photo/Richard Drew
notwithstanding, no comprehensive
study of the alleged players and the
effect of steroids on their performance
was undertaken prior to our work.
The key improvement in our study is
the inclusion of a full and proper control group against which to make an
appropriate comparison.
The Data
Our study includes all offensive seasons from 1995 to 2007 with at least
50 plate appearances (PAs) in a season.
A PA is recorded every time a hitter
comes to the plate to bat, regardless
of the outcome. This study period is
chosen because it conforms to what
is typically referred to as the steroids
era, in which steroid abuse was considered to be prevalent. Further, this
time period exhibited overall offensive
production that is relatively constant
(compared to earlier eras in baseballs
past when offensive production varied
widely from where it is today).
Pitchers were excluded from the
analysis. Pitchers have been accused
of using steroids, including players
mentioned in the Mitchell Report,
but we have not attempted to quantify the steroids effect for pitchers in
this study.
By including all seasons for all

offensive players, we can compare the
performance in seasons denoted as steroid
seasons against all other nonsteroid seasons. We believe this is the most appropriate basis for comparison because it uses all
the available information, rather than an
arbitrarily selected subsample of the data.
To assess the impact of steroids on
offensive performance, we must have a
measure of offensive performance. The
primary measure we chose is runs created
per 27 outs (RC27). This is a statistic
that measures a players overall offensive
performance. The simplest interpretation
of this statistic is that RC27 represents the
average number of runs a team would be
expected to score if the batter in question exclusively batted for his team. The
specic equation used to calculate RC27
varies slightly, and the version we chose
is the one found at www.espn.com.
In addition to RC27, we considered
other measures of offensive performance:
home runs, isolated power, on-base percentage, and stolen bases.
All the offensive performance data
is available for all players by season in
the Lahman database (2008). This database was merged with our newly created Mitchell database (containing the
steroid abuse information) to give the
nal analytic database.
CHANCE
23
Raw data
Average at each age

20
Overall average
Runs created per 27 outs (RC27)
15
10
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Age in years
Figure 1. Runs created per 27 outs (RC27) versus age in years for 6,657-player season from 1995 to 2007
Age Effects
It is generally accepted that players (on
average) improve early in their careers,
maintain peak or near-peak performance
for several years, and then tail off their
performance at the end of their careers.
This is termed the age effect, or sometimes when referring to an individual, his
career trajectory. It is necessary to make
an adjustment for age because otherwise
we might mistakenly conclude a change
in performance is due to steroids when
a change in age is a competing explanation. Making an age adjustment for all
player seasons removes age as a possible
confounder in the steroids results.
Figure 1 shows RC27 plotted against
player age. As you can see by looking
at the mean at each age (heavy solid
24
VOL. 22, NO. 2, 2009
line), the observed age effect is quite

mild compared to the variability in the
data. While it does seem the younger
players are performing at below peak
levels, the conventional wisdom that
performance tails off at the end of
careers is not evident in this plot. One
reason for this is because of the inuence of a single player, Barry Bonds,
who posted remarkable seasons in his
late 30s that changed the nature of the
tail of the distribution.
Another explanation as to why Figure
1 shows a relatively at age effect is the
impact of selection bias. As mediocre
players age and get worse, they are less
likely to be employed by a major league
team. Hence, when we look back at
all 37-year-olds, for example, we nd a
relatively high mean RC27 because only
the players capable of maintaining that

high level are allowed to continue to
play. A similar argument says that only
the very good young players are allowed
to play and the curve is articially at at
the lower end.
It is an open area of baseball research
to determine what the true underlying
average age effect curve is. In a presentation at the 2008 Joint Statistical
Meetings, Phil Birnbaum reviewed the
age effect problem. He suggested the
curve from Figure 1 is too at to be the
truth (because of the selection effect).
He further posited that a popular, but
biased, estimate of the age effect based
on the paired seasons method is too
curved to be the truth, and reasonably
concluded that the truth must lie somewhere in between.
To check whether the results are sensitive to different age adjustments, we

applied the paired seasons approach
from Birnbaums presentation and a naive
adjustment based on Figure 1. We found
that the steeper curve resulted in larger
estimates of the steroid effect. Therefore,
we report the smaller, more conservative
results in this article. If researchers ever
arrive at a consensus age effect curve, it
will almost certainly be steeper than that
shown in Figure 1, and the corresponding steroid effect estimates would be
larger than those reported here.
The naive method adjusted individual player seasons to the overall average
(the horizontal reference line in Figure
1). The adjustment was a simple difference between the reference line and the
line of averages added to each individual
player season. For example, the average
RC27 at age 24 was 4.49, the overall
average was 4.87, so the age adjustment
for 24-year-old players was 0.38. Any
player season by a 24 year old would
be increased by 0.38. The same type of
adjustment is made for each age.
Because other measures of offensive
performance (not just RC27) were considered, the age effect had to be estimated
for each measure and an age adjustment
made in a similar manner for each. The
apparent age effect for the other variables was as mild or milder as that seen
for RC27 (gures not shown).
Again, assuming the true age effect
curve is steeper, the results presented
here should be conservative. Any time
in this article that RC27 or HR (home
runs) or other baseball statistics are used,
it should be noted that we are talking
about an age-adjusted statistic.
Estimating the Steroids Effect

To estimate the effect of steroid use on
offensive performance, one must consider the appropriate statistical model
for the data at hand. Let us start with
two simplified modeling strategies that
would be suitable if our data structure
was a little different.
First, consider a data set with n1 players
on steroids and n2 players not on steroids,
where each of the players contributes one
season of information. To judge whether
steroids are associated with increased
performance in this example, you would
need to perform a two-sample independent t-test, comparing the average RC27
between the two groups.
Second, consider a data set with n

players, where each player contributes
two seasons of information: one on steroids and one not on steroids. To judge
the effect of steroids in this example, you
would need to perform a paired t-test,
comparing the average change in
RC27 between the steroid and
nonsteroid seasons.
The actual data is somewhere between these two
conditions. Similar to
the rst example, there
is a steroid group and
a nonsteroid group
(independent data).
And like the second
example, some players
contribute both a steroid
season and a nonsteroid
season (paired data). However,
the real data is more complicated
than either example, because many players contribute several seasons of data and
some players contribute several steroid
seasons and several nonsteroid seasons.
To use all this data, we must turn to linear
mixed effects modeling.
A linear mixed effects model is an
extension of the traditional linear model.
One purpose of such a model is to allow
the analysis of data where the observations are correlated with each other,
such as when one player contributes
more than one observation to the data
set. This is accomplished by identifying
so-called fixed effects and random
effects portions of the model. The xed
effects portion is the traditional component that identies a response or dependent variable of interest and attempts to
explain its variability by regressing it on
one or more predictors or independent
variables. The random effects portion
is the component that accounts for the
variability due to a random sample of
players in the data and the variability
within players (i.e., season to season variability). The interpretation of the xed
effects portion of a linear mixed effects
model is the same as the interpretation of
the traditional linear model after taking
account of the random effects. We will
focus on the xed effects interpretation
because it contains the estimate of the
steroid effect.
The simplest model has only the
xed effect of steroids. As the variable steroids is dichotomous (each
season is denoted as 0=nonsteroid or
1=steroid), this model has the avor of
a t-test. However, as mentioned, there

are repeated measures for some players
that need to be accounted for, so this
model needs to be t using the mixed
models framework. The xed effects
portion of the model is of the form:
RC27 = b0 + b1 STEROIDS.
Where b0 represents the intercept
and b1 represents the slope associated
with the steroids predictor.
The resulting model fit for our
data is:
RC27 = 4.62 + 0.83 STEROIDS.
This model estimates that the average
RC27 in a nonsteroid season is 4.62,
whereas the average in a steroid season
is 4.62 + 0.83 = 5.45, an increase in
offensive production of 18% attributable
to steroid use. Note that this is an average
effect. We would expect some players to
see a larger effect, some to see a smaller
effect, and even some to see no effect
at all. This interpretation needs to be
applied to all the effects presented in
this article.
Changing the Model

Specifications
An objection to the simple model is that
the players mentioned in the Mitchell
Report may not be like the rest of the
players in the league. Since there are only
steroid seasons for Mitchell Report
players (by definition), the effect that
appears to be due to steroids may actually be an artifact of the Mitchell players
being different (better) on average. To
CHANCE
25
Including all the player seasons

Including Bonds data
1. Centered RC27 = b0 + b1 STEROIDS + b2 MITCHELL
2. RC27 = b0 + b1 STEROIDS + b2 MITCHELL
3. Centered RC27 = b0 + b1 STEROIDS
4. RC27 = b0 + b1 STEROIDS
Excluding Bonds data

5. Centered RC27 = b0 + b1 STEROIDS + b2 MITCHELL
6. RC27 = b0 + b1 STEROIDS + b2 MITCHELL
Including only seasons from players listed in the Mitchell Report
Including Bonds data
Excluding Bonds data
steroid use allegation against this individual player is true, but merely to assess
the magnitude of the effect more clearly.
Note also that of all Bonds seasons (he
played in all of the seasons in the study),
only two (2003 and 2004) are denoted as
steroid seasons in this study based on the
strict criteria we established for reading
the Mitchell Report.
To get a comprehensive view of how
these adjustments affect the results, we
performed all possible combinations
of the four adjustments (see the box
at left).
Looking at the results of all 12 models allows us to assess the results in the
context of a variety of assumptions. If
the results are widely different, then we
must examine what assumptions led to
the differences and what assumptions are
most appropriate and meaningful for the
question at hand. If the results are largely
the same, then we conclude that they are
robust to various modeling assumptions.
Results
account for this effect, we considered

three adjustments to the model.
First, we included a xed effect for
whether a player is one of the Mitchell
Report identied players (0=no, 1=yes).
This is the simplest and most logical way
to account for this set of players being
different. Note that the Mitchell variable and the steroids variable are not
the same because those mentioned in
the report have both steroid years and
nonsteroid years, so some seasons that
are yes Mitchell will be yes steroids,
while others will be no steroids.
Second, we tried centering each players performance on his own mean. That
is, for each player, we calculated his average RC27 across all his seasons, then for
each individual season, we subtracted his
RC27 from his overall average to get a
new outcome variable, Centered RC27.
If the Mitchell players are different on
average, this effect will be eliminated by
removing the effect of the overall level
of each player. In fact, this adjustment
goes further than the rst because it
removes any average difference among
all the players, not just the Mitchell players. As an aside, this action drives one
26
VOL. 22, NO. 2, 2009
component of the random effects portion of the model to zero, as there is

effectively no variability of average level
among the players. But a mixed effects
model is still necessary to account for the
correlated data within players.
Third, we reduced the sample of players to include only the Mitchell Report
players. Again, any systematic difference
between Mitchell players and others
would be eliminated by the direct method
of simply removing the other players
from consideration. Obviously, this is
not the preferred adjustment because
we want to include all relevant data and
the non-Mitchell players certainly have
information to impart.
In addition to adjustments to the
modeling to account for the Mitchell
Report effect, we also considered one
last adjustment to investigate the effect
of a single player. Bonds had seasons
that were so exceptional that his effect,
alone, was inuential in measuring the
overall effect of steroids. We removed
Bonds seasons from the data set to determine the steroids effect with him versus
without him. Note that this exercise
is not intended to judge whether the
The results of the models for RC27 are

summarized graphically in Figure 2. The
model specifications are given below the
plot. The point estimate for the percent
increase in offensive production due to
steroids is given, as well as a 95% confidence interval on this estimate.
As you can see, the estimated effect of
steroids ranges from about a 4% to about
an 18% increase in offensive performance.
The high estimate comes from the model
where no adjustment is made for Mitchell
players, and the low estimates come from
models that dont include Bonds. The
strength of evidence from all the models supports the notion that the steroids
effect is in excess of 5%.
If 5% seems like a small increase in
offensive production, the use of RC27
allows us a simple interpretation that
shows how large 5% really is. A common
baseball rule of thumb allows us to estimate a teams winning percentage based
on how many runs it scores (RS) and
how many runs it allows (RA). The socalled Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball
suggests a teams winning percentage is
well estimated by RS2 / (RS2+RA2).
Because our statistic (RC27) is based
on runs, we can estimate that a completely average teamnot on steroids
would score about 4.6 runs per game
Percent Increase in Runs Created due to Steroids
30
20
10
10
Centered:
Mitchell:
Bonds:
Sample:
N
N
All
N
Mitchell
Figure 2. Results of the effect of steroids on runs created per 27 outs (RC27) from linear
mixed effects models under 12 sets of assumptions. The assumptions are noted below the
plot. The point estimate for the percent increase in performance due to steroids from each
model is plotted with a 95% confidence interval. The models where Bonds is excluded are
shaded to aid visual comparison.
CHANCE
27
Percent Increase in Home Runs due to Steroids
60
40
20
20
Centered:
Mitchell:
Bonds:
Sample:
N
N
N
All
N
Mitchell
Figure 3. Results of the effect of steroids on home runs (HR) from linear mixed effects models under 12 sets of assumptions. The assumptions are noted below the plot. The point estimate for the percent increase in performance due to steroids from each model is plotted with
a 95% confidence interval. The models where Bonds is excluded are shaded to aid visual comparison.
and allow about 4.6 runs per game for

a winning percentage of 0.500 and 81
wins in a 162-game season. If the steroids
effect was indeed 5%, then a team composed of hitters on steroids would score
about 4.6*1.05 = 4.83 runs per game and
continue to allow 4.6 runs per game. Its
winning percentage would be 4.832 /
(4.832 + 4.62) = 0.524. Over the course
of a 162-game season, this amounts
to 85 wins, or an excess of four wins
over expected.
To give some perspective, in the 2007
season, four of the six divisions of baseball
were decided by a margin of fewer than
four games between the rst- and secondplace teams. Clearly, an advantage of
5% is substantial. Furthermore, based
on some of the models, one could make
28
VOL. 22, NO. 2, 2009
an argument that the advantage is more

than 10%, which would translate to
almost eight extra wins per year by the
similar calculation.
We think the model with an indicator variable for players mentioned in
the Mitchell Report is the best model.
Therefore, we peg the steroid effect at
12% based on all the players and 7%
if Bonds is excluded. The other model
results vary somewhat around those estimates, as seen in Figure 2.
Further Results
Having shown strong evidence that steroid use confers an overall advantage
to offensive performance on average,
we next set out to better understand
what part of the offensive game is most

affected. To do so, we looked at different
measures of offensive performance.
One popular notion is that HRs are
inated due to steroid use because the
extra power gained from steroids causes
the ball to travel farther, turning long
y ball outs into just-barely home runs.
The results for HR are shown in Figure
3. First, note that the estimated steroids
effect is similar to (if not larger than) that
shown in RC27. However, the condence intervals are substantially wider.
The reason for the wider intervals is
that HR is a considerably more variable
measure than RC27. A simple way to
show this is with the coefcient of variation (CV). We nd that the CV for HR is
1.05, whereas the CV for RC27 is 0.39.
Percent Increase in Isolated Power due to Steroids
30
20
10
10
Centered:
Mitchell:
Bonds:
Sample:
N
N
All
N
Mitchell
Figure 4. Results of the effect of steroids on Isolated Power (IsoP) from linear mixed effects models under 12 sets of assumptions. The
assumptions are noted below the plot. The point estimate for the percent increase in performance due to steroids from each model is
plotted with a 95% confidence interval. The models where Bonds is excluded are shaded to aid visual comparison.
This means the standard deviation of

HR is 5% larger than its mean, whereas
the standard deviation of RC27 is 60%
smaller than its mean.
In conclusion, it appears HR shows
the same sort of steroids effect as RC27,
but this conclusion must be tempered by
the fact that it is made in the context of a
much more variable environment.
Because HRs are a crude measure of
power, we next considered the statistic
Isolated Power (IsoP), which attempts
to more accurately measure the power
aspect of offensive performance. IsoP is
calculated by subtracting a players batting
average from his slugging percentage.
The batting average measures the rate
a player gets a hit out of his at-bats. For
example, if you get 100 hits in 400 at-bats,
your batting average would be reported

at 0.250 (for the 2007 season, the mean
batting average was 0.270).
The slugging percentage measures
the weighted batting average with the
weights equal to the number of bases per
hit. For example, if your 100 hits in 400 atbats were all singles (one base achieved),
then the slugging percentage would be
the same as batting average. If the 100 hits
were 50 singles, 30 doubles (two bases
achieved), and 20 home runs (four bases
achieved), then the slugging percentage
would be (50*1 + 30*2 + 20*4)/400 =
0.475 (the mean in 2007 was 0.423).
Because it takes power to hit the ball
hard enough or far enough to capture
extra bases, slugging percentage is a
good measure of power. But, since IsoP
subtracts the batting average (which can

be achieved without power), it is an even
better measure of power it isolates the
effect of power from the effect of just
getting hits (hence the name).
The results for IsoP are shown in
Figure 4. The widths of the condence
intervals are similar to those seen in
RC27. This reects the fact that IsoP has
a similar level of variability (CV=0.45).
The effect of steroids on IsoP is
substantially more than 5%. Given
the results of all the models, the
effect is probably comfortably around
10%. This suggests that while there
appears to be a signicant effect on
overall offensive performance due
to steroids (likely in excess of 5%),
there is an even larger and more clear
CHANCE
29
20
Percent Increase in Stolen Bases due to Steroids
20
40
60
80
100
Centered:
Mitchell:
Bonds:
N
N
Sample:
N
Mitchell
All
Figure 5. Results of the effect of steroids on stolen bases (SB) from linear mixed effects models under 12 sets of assumptions. The assumptions are noted below the plot. The point estimate for the percent increase in performance due to steroids from each model is plotted with
a 95% confidence interval. The models where Bonds is excluded are shaded to aid visual comparison.
Table 1 Point Estimates of Percent Increase in Offensive Performance

Due to Steroids
Model
#
RC27
9.1
30
10
11
12
12.6 7.2 18.0 4.9
7.0
3.9 11.9 7.7 11.3 4.2
6.2
HR
11.9 12.1 7.8 26.1 9.8
9.3
5.8 22.3 7.3
6.7
IsoP
9.3
8.3
6.2
15.9 7.3 20.8 8.0 14.3 6.1 18.8 7.6 13.0 6.7 11.8
VOL. 22, NO. 2, 2009
effect on the power aspect of offensive

performance (likely in excess of 10%).
Table 1 shows the estimated increase in
power-specic performance is generally larger than the estimated increase
in overall offensive performance.
There are other aspects of a players
ability, such as speed, that may be affected
by steroid use. To this end, we next considered the number of stolen bases (SB)
by the players. Since a player has only a
limited amount of time to dash from rst
base to second and arrive safely for a SB, a
SB is a good measure of player speed. The
results for SB are shown in Figure 5. The
condence intervals are again wide due to
the tremendous amount of variability in
the measure (CV=1.57). Strikingly, there
is a clear decrease (negative increase) in
SB attributable to steroids. This effect
appears to be in excess of 20%.
Percent Increase in Runs Created due to HGH
30
20
10
10
Centered:
Mitchell:
Bonds:
Sample:
N
N
All
N
Mitchell
Figure 6. Results of the effect of human growth hormone (HGH) on runs created per 27 outs (RC27) from linear mixed effects models under
12 sets of assumptions. The assumptions are noted below the plot. The point estimate for the percent increase in performance due to HGH
from each model is plotted with a 95% confidence interval. The models where Bonds is excluded are shaded to aid visual comparison.
The world of sports suggests speed is

one of the primary athletic attributes that
can be enhanced by steroids (Ben Johnson in the 1988 Olympics 100m dash).
The most likely explanation for steroids
in baseball showing a marked decrease
in speed (as measured by SB) is that the
players (or their teams) value power
hitting more. Therefore, steroid abusers likely tailor their training to increase
muscle mass and power in such a way as to
improve their hitting, while neglecting to
train to increase their speed. A 20% drop
in SB seems large (weve already shown
that a 5% increase in runs is substantial),
but SBs are not an important part of the
modern game. The league-wide SB per
season average is only 5.66, and a 20%
reduction would drop this to 4.53.
Last, we considered the effect of

HGH, rather than steroids. The results
for RC27 for HGH are shown in Figure
6. As you can see, the magnitude of
the effect is quite close to zero, with
one model even showing a negative
effect. There is no evidence that HGH
is associated with an increase in offensive performance. The results for the
other offensive measures for HGH
are not shown they are similar to
Figure 6 (with different widths of
condence intervals as expected from
different CVs).
A recent review article in the Annals of
Internal Medicine concluded that, Claims
that growth hormone enhances physical performance are not supported by
the scientic literature.
Limitations
Our study does have some limitations.
First, the Mitchell Report was not
intended as a data source for statistical
analysis. We applied a strict reading
of the report to decide whether a season was to be labeled a steroid season.
This can lead to two types of errors.
A false positive labeling would come
about when the Mitchell Report lists
a player season as an alleged steroid
season when no abuse occurred. As
the report is merely allegation, this
type of error must be acknowledged.
A false negative labeling would come
about when the Mitchell Report fails
to list a player season as an alleged steroid season when the player was abusing
CHANCE
31
steroids that year. Given anecdotal evidence that steroid use was prevalent during the Steroids Era, it seems likely that
this sort of error is commonplace.
What effect would these mis-measurements have on the results? Of course
it is impossible to know, but given that a
signicant steroids effect was observed,
it is likely that more accurate data would
strengthen the conclusion. We would
expect performance in false negative
seasons to be inated due to steroid use.
Currently, those seasons are allocated
to the nonsteroid column, and switching them to the proper steroid column
would strengthen the results. Similarly,
we would expect performance in false
positive seasons to be non-inated due
to nonsteroid use, and reallocating them
to the proper category would again
strengthen the results.
A second limitation is the possibility that steroid users took the drugs in
response to an injury. Thus, there may be
concern that the effect being attributed
to steroid abuse may actually be more
accurately attributed to injury recovery
or regression to the mean. There is no
way, in a study such as this, to decide
which is the true cause. However, the
anecdotal evidence is that HGH is the
preferred performance-enhancing drug
for injury recovery, and our work suggests that HGH has no effect on performance, leaving steroid abuse as the more
likely cause of the observed effect.
A third limitation is related to steroid
dosing. While the Mitchell Report is
comprehensive in many respects, it is
simply not possible to know the quantity
of steroids that actually made its way
into the players bodies. Therefore, the
estimates obtained in this study are most
properly interpreted as average effects.
It is undeniable that some players would
have seen larger and some smaller (or
no) advantages compared to the averages
seen here. And it is likely that some of the
variation is attributable to dosing.
Conclusion
Given the body of evidence from the
Mitchell Report, it appears that use of
performance enhancing drugs in the form
of steroids (but not HGH) does confer
an advantage to offensive performance.
That advantage is estimated to be a 12%
increase in run production, given the
players in the league during the Steroids
32
VOL. 22, NO. 2, 2009
Era. Even discounting one remarkable

player in that time frame, the advantage
is still estimated to be 7%. Further investigation shows that power as measured by
home runs or isolated power is positively
affected by steroids, likely beyond a 10%
increase, but speed as measured by stolen
bases is negatively affected, likely beyond
a 20% decrease.
While offensive performance appears
to be enhanced by the use of steroids,
there can be no mistaking the negative impact the scandal has had on the
reputation of the once-gilded sport of
baseball. Indeed, these playersthese
mighty Caseyshave struck out.
Editors Note: One of the top players in baseball (Alex Rodriguez) admitted to steroid use this
spring. In our study, all his seasons are labeled
as nonsteroids because he does not appear in the
Mitchell Report.
Further Reading
Birnbaum P. Studying the Effects of Aging in
Major League Baseball. Joint Statistical
Meetings Presentation, 2008.
Bradlow E., Jensen S., Wolfers J., Wyner
A. Report Backing Clemens Chooses Its
Facts Carefully. The New York Times
(Keeping Score Section), February
10, 2008.
Cole J.R., Stigler S.M. More Juice, Less
Punch. An editorial published in The
New York Times, December 22, 2007.
Hendricks R.A., Mann S.L., LarsonHendricks B.R. An Analysis of the
Career of Roger Clemens. Available at
www.rogerclemensreport.com, 2008.
Lahman, S. The Lahman Database (www.
baseball1.com). 2008.
Liu H., Bravata D.M., Olkin I. Systematic Review: The Effects of Growth
Hormone on Athletic Performance. Annals
of Internal Medicine, 148:10, 2008.
Mitchell, George J. Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation Into the Illegal Use of Steroids and Other
Performance Enhancing Substances By Players in Major League Baseball. DLA Piper
US LLP, December 13, 2007.
Schmotzer B., Switchenko J., Kilgo P.
Did Steroid Use Enhance the Performance of the Mitchell 89? The
Effect of Performance Enhancing
Drugs on Offensive Performance
from 19952007. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 4(3).

Effects of Steroids On Offensive Production

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Effects of Steroids On Offensive Production

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by: [University of Maine - Orono]

On: 26 May 2014, At: 08:07

The Natural? The Effect of Steroids on Offensive

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 08:07 26 May 2014

Brian Schmotzer, Patrick D. Kilgo, and Jeff Switchenko

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;

irst published in the San Francisco

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 08:07 26 May 2014

to the Mitchell Report,

The parallel with the modern game

VOL. 22, NO. 2, 2009

Therefore, the purpose of our study

The Mitchell Report

We used this information to compile a

The offensive players alleged to

The seasons during which the players allegedly abused PEDs

The types of PEDs allegedly abused

Other ancillary items, including

The Mitchell Report is surprisingly complete with respect to this

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 08:07 26 May 2014

By including all seasons for all

Average at each age

Runs created per 27 outs (RC27)

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 08:07 26 May 2014

VOL. 22, NO. 2, 2009

line), the observed age effect is quite

the players capable of maintaining that

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 08:07 26 May 2014

To check whether the results are sensitive to different age adjustments, we

Estimating the Steroids Effect

Second, consider a data set with n

a t-test. However, as mentioned, there

Changing the Model

Including all the player seasons

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 08:07 26 May 2014

Excluding Bonds data

account for this effect, we considered

VOL. 22, NO. 2, 2009

component of the random effects portion of the model to zero, as there is

The results of the models for RC27 are

Percent Increase in Runs Created due to Steroids

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 08:07 26 May 2014

Percent Increase in Home Runs due to Steroids

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 08:07 26 May 2014

and allow about 4.6 runs per game for

VOL. 22, NO. 2, 2009

an argument that the advantage is more

what part of the offensive game is most

Percent Increase in Isolated Power due to Steroids

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 08:07 26 May 2014

This means the standard deviation of

your batting average would be reported

subtracts the batting average (which can

Percent Increase in Stolen Bases due to Steroids

Downloaded by [University of Maine - Orono] at 08:07 26 May 2014

Table 1 Point Estimates of Percent Increase in Offensive Performance

12.6 7.2 18.0 4.9

3.9 11.9 7.7 11.3 4.2

11.9 12.1 7.8 26.1 9.8

5.8 22.3 7.3

VOL. 22, NO. 2, 2009

effect on the power aspect of offensive