but here's my take.

If SLG and runs decrease roughly evenly across the board, wouldn't that therefore increase the marginal value of every extra-base hit? And if each discrete HR and 2B is more valuable, wouldn't that actually increase the value of the players that can still aggregate those hits dependably?

I don't doubt that players who could still hit homers and doubles without juicing would be more valuable in an environment where power was a rarer tool. But I don't think that the marginal value of a HR or a 2B would necessarily go up. HRs have some diminishing marginal value (4 HRs in a row isn't any better than 3 singles and a HR) in large quantities, but not much. 2Bs may not have any diminishing marginal value in large quantities, because someone still has to knock the runner in from second.

In other words, roidless Griffey might be worth more than roided Griffey-- but it's because the supply of Griffeys has gone down, not because the demand for Griffeys has gone up.

Likewise, if each run becomes more valuable, then wouldn't giving away outs by increasing SB attempts (even judiciously) be even more costly?

I've actually seen the numbers on this one, and basically, the answer is no. In the 60s and early 70s (very low run-scoring) the break-even point for steals was about 63%. In today's game, the break-even point is about 75%. If Bobby Crosby had played in the 1960s, he would have been a green-light baserunner instead of a situational one.

I did not say that it was the only drug that speed/endurance athletes could use. I did not IMPLY that it was the only drug that speed/endurance athletes could use.

It's beyond obvious to anyone with even a slight knowledge of the recent steroid scandals that sprinters and distance athletes have taken steroids in the past and likely will continue to cheat by doing so.

I did not say that only large athletes take steroids. What I said was, to put this in as explicit of terms as possible, if everyone's use of steroids declines equally, it will possibly create a baseball environment in which small-player skills are more effective relative to large-player skills.

The relevant question here isn't "do steroids help large hitters more than small hitters," it's "do steroids help hitters more than pitchers?" And I don't think there's enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion on that front. But if the perception that they help hitters more than pitchers is correct, a decline in steroid use should cause a decline in run-scoring, which in turn would cause small-player skills to become more valuable in relative terms.

"Chemical free era"? You may have noticed that alox's post was phrased in the form of a question. Questions are generally interpreted by most readers as expressing possibilities, not making "claims."

but in the long run, I think you're right-- whether it be shrinking (or my preferred solution, shifting upward) the strike zone, changing the composition of the baseballs, or moving the fences in, baseball will tend to recreate the high-scoring environment because it's what the fans want. Other leagues have done the same (the NHL rule changes, the NFL rules on pass interference, and so on).

However, if there's a medium-term profit to be reaped by exploiting players whose value is temporarily higher, the smart GM will attack it (while not overinvesting into it so that he can change directions again once scoring goes back up).

But he was a very small man, even for the era he played in. Would he have even been scouted in todays environment would have been a better question.

post, where he said "but a guy who can play defense like a SS – not like a guy you need to move away from SS – and can be an offensive plus, not a liability? Just not a lot already out there, and perhaps even less on the horizon."

I disagree with him. That is why I posted that list of young SS.