Steroids versus other cheating in baseball

In two previous blog posts, I've speculated on how and how much to possibly factor steroid performance enhancement out of some Baseball Hall of Fame candidates' numbers, and looked at just how long of a history steroids have in baseball. In that second post, especially, I noted that steroid of the past weren't personalized, or "designed," and that they weren't part of a whole regimen that enhanced the effectiveness of steroids.

In light of that, what about past cheating, which sometimes involved "engineering" and not "medicating"?

While players have always tried to get an edge, it's never been that "scientific" before.

Take Gaylord Perry and his spitter. Or Don Sutton and his scuff ball.

People like Jim Caple at ESPN, who gets holier than thou about allegations that some HOF voters are holier than thou on steroids, like to cite this pair.

But, really? If a spitter or a scuff/scratch ball gave THAT much advantage, we'd hear allegations about it all the time today. And, per the percentages above, with today's strike zones, especially, they wouldn't give that much advantage.

And, back then, even, in the pitchers' era of the 1960s and early 1970s, I think for both of them, it was more a psychological advantage than any real advantage. Looking further back in history, "grandfathered" legal spitballer Burleigh Grimes, even though he eventually made the HOF, didn't seem to benefit THAT much. Per modern sabermetrics, his ERA+ and WHIP are both HOF-unacceptable. Although he isn't cited as much, Stan Covaleski may have benefited more. (Running on late-night fumes, I originally had Jesse Haines here.)

More confirmation comes from that era: the entire "grandfathered list" had just 17 players, or, an average of one pitcher per team. Of course, with baseballs rotated in and out more less, one really didn't need to throw a spitter, or a scuff ball, emery ball or whatever you'll call it — a pitcher just needed to learn what types of old baseballs with what types of disfigurations would "perform" the best.

Beyond that, that's the old "two wrongs make a right" argument.

And, as for amphetamines? Sure, they relieved tiredness. Not much else, though, I'll bet. As I've commented before at Baseball-Reference blog posts, too many greenies would make a batter jittery and probably less coordinated. That said, an amped-up Bob Gibson or Don Drysdale would be scary as hell, even if so wild to lose effectiveness in some ways.

And, amphetamines, like steroids of 30-40 years ago, weren't individually designed, etc. So, if they did help with anything besides tiredness, it was random and scattershot.

In any case, Caple, before talking about other people's high horses, I'd look at your own steed a bit.

Now, back to steroids and their influence in the post-1994 era.

I'd say they're worth 30-40 percent of the power explosion. The Costa Rican baseballs after Rawlings moved its factor from Haiti? Maybe about the same. So, let's say 70 percent there. Maple bats 10-15 percent?

Continued squeezing of the strike zone? 10 percent. Miscellaneous factors, 5-10 percent.

So, 80 percent or more of this issue is readily correctible. Have a serious steroid policy (we do seem to be better than Bowie Kuhn's lies and Bud Selig's earlier ostrich posture); get some final verdict on today's baseballs and, if they are indeed part of the issue, de-juice them a bit; and continue to push the umps to call the high strike, which would also speed the game up, as a fringe benefit.