If you’re like me, you’ve played something called ‘The Steroids Game.’ The Steroids Game takes place when you sit around a bar, or a rec room, or a ballpark, with a number of baseball-loving friends, and try and guess who is on performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). Perhaps, if you’re particularly deranged, you’ve even played Rotisserie Steroids, which is just like regular rotisserie baseball except that the categories are games suspended (GS), cameramen kicked (CK), testicles ruptured (TR), days spent in the company of Jose Canseco (DSJC).
Whenever I played the Steroids Game, Manny Ramirez was not a high draft pick. We all have some idea of what the typical PED user looks like: he is presumed to be someone with a lot of lean muscle mass (think Barry Bonds), and a carefully-cultivated, creepily aloof media image (think Alex Rodriguez). These things did not appear to describe Manny Ramirez, who, when he had his bandana on, bore a vague resemblance to Jabba the Hut, and whose unguarded if eccentric personality exuded a certain kind of authenticity. In fact, Ramirez was frequently taken to the counter-example, the guy who, come hell or high water, absolutely was not on steroids. He was so much of a freak that we assumed his hitting talents must have been freakish too-God-given ability, and not the result of any sort of chemical intervention.
“Outed” PED users, however, frequently turn out to defy the conventional wisdom. Nobody ever drafted or Sergio Mitre, or Dan Serafini, or Yusaku Iriki in the Steroids Game, and yet, all three were suspended by Major League Baesball for usage. I am also sometimes asked if there is some sort of statistical signature of steroid users. Perhaps barring the case of Barry Bonds, I don’t know that there is-such a test would have to find positive results for both Alex Rodriguez, who has 553 lifetime home runs, and Neifi Perez, who has 64. It would have to include both Jason Giambi, who won the 2000 MVP, and Jeremy Giambi, who, after posting numbers in the minors that were far more accomplished than his brother’s, played his way out of the game.
Until we gain more perspective on the Steroid Era, indeed, it is probably best to tame the urge to convict players through their statistics alone. Instead, we should think in economic terms: who has the most to gain from using steroids? There are two answers to this question: firstly, someone trying to establish or prolong their career in the majors (since the difference between minor league salaries and even the major league minimum is enormous), and secondly, someone on the verge of signing a big, multi-year contract. The former describes a lot of the more marginal players who used steroids, like Perez or Mitre, while the latter describes someone like Ramirez.
We do not know, of course, exactly when Ramirez’ usage began and ended. But his performance in 2008, a contract year, turned out to be far better than most people had expected. Ramirez compiled an Equivalent Average (EqA) last year of .339, something which our projection system, PECOTA, thought he had less than a one-in-ten chance of doing. And Ramirez’ performance was even more exceptional, of course, after joining the Dodgers, during which time he compiled an OPS of 1232.
Taken on its own, this performance was nothing particularly interesting-flukish statistical performances happen all the time in baseball, far more frequently than most people realize. But when a sharp uptick in a player’s statistics is coupled with strong economic imperatives to use steroids, perhaps they warrant more attention in the Steroids Game.
A version of this story originally appeared on ESPN Insider .
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
Six of the top 10 HR hitters since the middle 80s are now implicated. Better than 50 / 50 for the elite power hitter.
Haven't we crossed a threshold where these comps are worthless at predicting the path of a clean player?
Or is BP still holding onto the the mantra that PEDs are not performance-enhancing?
As for PECOTA litmus tests... try it this way. Many of the top offensive (and pitching) performers since the '80s are known to have prayed to God, or to Allah, or to Jobu. Other, less successful players are also implicated in prayer, especially fringy latino players trying to break into the major leagues. How much of the success of the successful ones should we attribute to prayer? Can we ignore the high incidence of prayer use among the most valuable players of the last few decades? Have we passed the point where we can expect PECOTA to predict the career of an atheist?
Anytime you are attempting to evaluate the significance of a correlation, a reasonable vehicle or pathway becomes a relevant part of the discussion.
Then again, other people believe in lucky socks. Athletes are a superstitious lot and, to an extent, creatures of habit. If a PED is part of their superstition and habit, even if the PED has no effect, they'll still continue doing it.
Perhaps. In my day job, it's all too common for the accepted/obvious explanation for the correlation to turn out to be totally bogus.
But what correlation were you referring to? The important point here is that there is, as yet, no demonstrated correlation requiring explanation. Nobody has found a correlation between "PED" use and performance enhancement in major league baseball players. That's partly because we have only very spotty data on who has used what, and partly because a lot of the players we DO have data on suck, and continued to suck after using PEDs.
I'm no Manny fan, but the media's rush to judgment here is disturbing.
With all that, this doesn't change my view on Manny. Still a HOFer, and one of the greatest hitters I have ever seen.
Manny may have been given similar dispensation, but this does now reek of inappropriateness.
For what it's worth, I read all of Barry's testimony, and what came through for me is his utter distrust of management (even my beloved Giants), and his reliance on his trusted advisers and staff (including Greg Anderson, his trainer and childhood friend).
I honestly believe that Barry may not have known, nor really wanted to, what was in the cream that Anderson rubbed into his arm (one of many over time, probably, as Barry would get into his game prep mode and turn over the trust), or squirted under his tongue (again, he took what his trainer gave him).
Now, if there's evidence that he was shot up (which he denies), then I think he will be convicted. But otherwise, I don't see the obvious lies to the grand jury that the government seems committed to prosecute.
I predict he'll walk (he was the best at that!), but no team will take a chance on him even at DH.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4148907
When there is no evidence, we should suspend judgment. In a case like this we KNOW that Manny used a banned substance, and that the banned substance is commonly used when one is cycling down from roids, we actually can make a judgment.
For the same reason, without reliable data on usage there's no way to create a PED vs. non-PED statistical baseline for doing projections. This isn't a PECOTA problem, it's a general limitation of all statistical projection systems.
Sure, we know of some cases where we have strong reason to expect use of PED's (read: the perps have confessed, or tests have been run). But the baseline variation in performance is still very large, even without PEDs.
Manny Ramirez
Jason Grimsley
Jim Thome
Albert Belle
Jeromy Burnitz
Alan Embree
Julian Taverez
Kenny Lofton
Omar Vizquel
Brian Giles
Though, upon hindsight, I guess that was the nature of the steroids game that Nate proposed... so I can blame him instead ;)
I guess it would have helped me if I had read your comment then saw some of the justifications you had "long argued" was the reason the 1995 Indians were the most juiced.
I am guessing it will be noisy and bounce all over the place, but that would still be a worthwhile analysis.
Second, my dissertation research showed no statistically significant positive (or negative) effect on runs created or total average, controlling for career performance up to that season, of becoming a free agent the next year.
Interestingly, there was also no effect, in the two years for which I had actual contract language data, of having any kind of bonus clause in one's contract on one's performance, again net of career performance up to that point.
So, all of this suggests that while PEDs might be supposed to enhance performance (thus the acronym), we would need to look at each player's baseline before compared to subsequent performance (taking into account "normal" performance improvements that might be expected before age 27-28), and also know when the expected benefits of the PED's should have occurred (some time after doping began, presumably).
Furthermore, we would probably need to control for other factors (besides age and physical maturity) that might positively effect peformance, such as training regimens, nutrition, LASIK, etc.
Finally, it may be that some body-types (or some other similar individual variable) react differently to PED's, and that would be hard research to get done, even in a clinical setting, I would think.