You've been lied to. You've been lied to over and over again for 15 years, and that lie has driven MLB to where it is today -- as the DEA with a big TV contract.

The big lie is this:  Steroids caused home runs and testing stopped home runs. That didn't happen. I used to think it was laziness that spread the misinformation, and then I thought it was fear of math, perhaps hatred of certain individuals. I know better now. It's a lie proffered by people who can see the truth but are so invested in the lie that they would prefer you didn't.

The following chart details the lie. It shows what happened when bats met balls over a 21-year period that bridges what is popularly known as "The Steroid Era" and the era of testing that followed through today. "/con" is "on contact," which is simply at-bats minus strikeouts.

Year    HR/con   SLG/con   ISO/con

1993     3.13%     .478      .166
1994     3.65%     .517      .188
1995     3.61%     .511      .184
1996     3.89%     .525      .193
1997     3.70%     .519      .189
1998     3.74%     .519      .190
1999     4.06%     .533      .200
2000     4.19%     .538      .205
2001     4.08%     .530      .202
2002     3.77%     .514      .192
2003     3.83%     .518      .194
2004     4.02%     .528      .200
2005     3.70%     .514      .189
2006     3.97%     .533      .200
2007     3.66%     .523      .191
2008     3.64%     .519      .190
2009     3.81%     .524      .195
2010     3.52%     .508      .184
2011     3.47%     .504      .182
2012     3.83%     .520      .193
2013     3.67%     .511      .186

This isn't the product of anonymous quotes. It isn't the product of some complicated calculations, like WAR. It isn't a black box. The above chart is a very simple record of what happened in baseball games -- plus some long division -- and it tells a clear story. There is no difference in what happens when a bat meets a baseball in a post-steroid-testing world than there was for most of the "steroid era". 1995-98 and 2008-11 are indistinguishable from each other in terms of home runs on contact and slugging on contact and isolated power on contact. There's no break in the record between 2003 and 2004, when testing with penalties began. There's no break in the record between 2005 and 2006, when penalties were ramped up. (In fact, in both seasons when the Joint Drug Agreement changed, power on contact rose.) Last season, 2012, had the highest rate of home runs on contact since 2006, and the highest slugging on contact since 2009. The big lie of steroids -- that they caused players to hit for more power in a way that distorted the statistical record -- is put to rest by these numbers.

So why are scoring, home runs, batting averages, slugging averages down in the testing era? It's the strikeouts. Increasing strikeout rates are what have driven the absolute counts of everything else down. Improved defense, largely through aggressive shifts, is having an effect on hits on balls in play as well -- especially singles. The statistics you see quoted by people invested in the big lie are accurate as far as they go -- no one is making up numbers -- but they're misleading because they're ignoring what actually is changing. The following chart is simple: the overall strikeout rate for the same 21 seasons as above:

Year      K%

1993   15.2%
1994   16.0%
1995   16.3%
1996   16.7%
1997   17.2%
1998   17.0%
1999   16.5%
2000   16.5%
2001   17.5%
2002   17.0%
2003   16.5%
2004   17.0%
2005   16.6%
2006   17.0%
2007   17.2%
2008   17.6%
2009   18.1%
2010   18.6%
2011   18.7%
2012   19.9%
2013   19.9%

That's about a 30% increase in strikeouts per game. It's easier to think of it, actually, as about 1-2 strikeouts in each game replacing contact. That's more than enough to change the overall statistics dramatically -- especially with the more recent spike since 2008 or so. It's enough to convince people that the reason there are fewer runs and fewer home runs is because those cheating ballplayers no longer have the power they used to have because now MLB has a tough testing program that has run steroids out of the game. It's simply not true. The only thing that has changed is those 1-2 PAs a game -- maybe 4000 a year -- in which the ball isn't struck.

There was actually someone on Twitter who argued that the increase in strikeout rate was a product of the testing program. I admit to unfamiliarity with the notion that steroids increase contact rate, and as you can see here, strikeout rates rose both pre-testing and post-testing. To borrow from Don Fehr, the only two things that have been constant throughout history is that no one made any money, and that strikeout rates have gone up.

The changes in baseball from the era before testing to the era after testing have nothing to do with the testing. When a bat hits a baseball, it is about as likely to leave the yard today as it was in 1997. It's slightly less likely to produce an in-park extra-base hit, which has less to do with power and more to do with defense -- league batting average on balls in play has dropped sharply over the last six years. That's taking away singles, doubles and triples because teams are using the available data to shift infielders, yes, but also to shade outfielders just enough to take some extra-base hits away. Defensive performance in MLB is at an all-time high.

I want to go back to that first chart and cut off a slice.

Year    HR/con   SLG/con   ISO/con

1997     3.70%     .519      .189
1998     3.74%     .519      .190
1999     4.06%     .533      .200
2000     4.19%     .538      .205
2001     4.08%     .530      .202
2002     3.77%     .514      .192
2003     3.83%     .518      .194

There was a spike in power on contact from 1999 through 2001. The only three seasons in MLB history with HR/con above 4% are those three, and they're also the only three years with a SLG/con above .530. That's a spike, and it was the overall conditions of the game that laid the groundwork for what people think of as the case for steroids as homer-making superdrugs: 73. Those three years, however, stand out dramatically; by 2002, numbers had gone back to their previous levels and would stay there in 2003. Penalty-phase testing didn't change anything in 2004; the big fall-off in power had already happened in 2002.

I don't believe there's anyone who argues for a "Steroid Era" bounded by 1999 and 2001, but someone doing so would at least have the data on his side. As we know, though, the power spike in those years was about many factors unrelated to sports drugs. The double expansion, combined with changes in roster construction, had a significant short-term impact on the caliber of pitching in MLB. (Ironically, the double expansion was born out of collusion. Bud Selig created the environment that allowed for the big lie, and he's capitalized on that big lie for the last decade.) The strike zone, as called, was very small. The success of the take'n'rake approach that helped the Yankees and Indians in the 1990s spawned imitators throughout the game. There are many reasons why power on contact would have been higher during this three-year period that have nothing to do with sports drugs. Moreover, as a three-year period the 1999-2001 stretch isn't terribly unusual relative to the years around it. Check out 1983-89:

Year    HR/con   SLG/con   ISO/con

1983     2.71%     .459      .151
1984     2.69%     .456      .148
1985     2.99%     .519      .159
1986     3.22%     .478      .166
1987     3.75%     .503      .185
1988     2.67%     .452      .148
1989     2.59%     .450      .145

Watch the numbers jump around even more wildly over this seven-year period:

Year    HR/con   SLG/con   ISO/con

1975     2.40%     .438      .136
1976     1.98%     .421      .123
1977     2.98%     .472      .161
1978     2.43%     .441      .141
1979     2.80%     .462      .154
1980     2.49%     .451      .143
1981     2.19%     .429      .131

The big lie is that steroids caused home runs and testing stopped them. What's true is that home runs -- specifically the ones hit by Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire -- caused testing. The other reasons given for a testing program are all red herrings and remain so today. Player health? Drugs had been a part of clubhouses for 50 years. Not only did players push for testing and bans, even as the players gained more and more power, but there's no record of baseball players who used amphetamines and steroids having long-term health problems -- the way players who played football have today. Was it a moral issue? Cheating, with drugs and otherwise, has been a celebrated part of baseball dating to the Reconstruction. Was sports-drug use damaging to MLB's business interests? Revenues and attendance spiraled upwards during the late 1990s, and cities fell over themselves to give public money to the industry.

It was the home runs. It was outliers who put on muscles and broke records, queering the conversation and allowing for the big lie. As the data shows -- no, as the baseball played on the field shows -- what actually happened was a three-year spike in power that was not unusually out of sorts with the years surrounding it, after which the game returned to what it has been since 1994.

Year    HR/con   SLG/con   ISO/con

1993     3.13%     .478      .166
1994     3.65%     .517      .188
1995     3.61%     .511      .184
1996     3.89%     .525      .193
1997     3.70%     .519      .189
1998     3.74%     .519      .190
2002     3.77%     .514      .192
2003     3.83%     .518      .194
2004     4.02%     .528      .200
2005     3.70%     .514      .189
2006     3.97%     .533      .200
2007     3.66%     .523      .191
2008     3.64%     .519      .190
2009     3.81%     .524      .195
2010     3.52%     .508      .184
2011     3.47%     .504      .182
2012     3.83%     .520      .193
2013     3.67%     .511      .186

Can you tell me, looking at the above chart, the years of the "Steroid Era"? There was a clear change in the game in 1993-94, certainly given the low-power environment of 1988-92, but we have been at the level of power reached in 1994 for 20 years now -- but for a single three-year period. Steroids didn't cause home runs, and testing didn't stop home runs. Here are the five years of the "Steroid Era" before the spike, and the ten years since testing began in two five-year chunks.

Period      HR/con     SLG/con   ISO/con

1994-98      3.73%      .519       .189
2004-08      3.80%      .523       .194
2009-13      3.66%      .514       .188

The big lie is why we are where we are today. The big lie, the first half of it, anyway, is what enabled MLB to make sports drugs the boogeyman that split the union, that painted the players as untrustworthy, that gave MLB the whip hand. The big lie, unexamined, is what mandated that the players give up their bodily fluids and submit to ever-increasing punishments, and be doubted and investigated even when their screens were clean. The big lie allowed Bud Selig and MLB to pour resources into witch hunts of baseball players by paying off drug dealers while ignoring every other problem in the game. The big lie is why we're talking about this today, rather than about the Pirates or Mike Trout or David Price.

Steroids didn't cause home runs. Testing didn't stop home runs. When a bat hits a ball, there is as much power in the contact as there was in 2007 and in 1995. That's the truth.