7 thoughts on “WW: Steroid Theory

  1. Totally disagree. Steve likes to throw “posibilities” and maybes out there so that when he is right, he predicted it, and when he is wrong, he never made a definite statement. fact is, he took an entirely normal career progession and found information to fit his theory. I’m not going to parse the entire article, but most of his points have huge holes in it because he makes giant assumptions.

  2. Well, yea, he threw in “possibilities” but it makes sense in that it’s not just, “his career spiked, there, and there, he’s on steroids!” He actually bases his assumptions on the numbers and relevant contextual information.

    • Except that the relevant contextual information was stuff he cherry-picked to fit his idea. 2005 in particular is a strange stretch for his theory.

      • Actually, looking back on it now, every year outside of 2001-3 is sort of a stretch. Ben K. (from RAB) mentioned to me that the analysis must be deeper, which I agree with. Park factors, the league numbers, all of it should be included when analyzing the situation.

    • Thanks. I too love the new layout, but if you notice anything that’s not to your liking or “glitchy,” please let us know.