If you mean batting average, then yes, steroids can improve your batting average for the reasons stated above. You won't make contact with the ball any more often than you would without steroids, but you'll hit more balls out of the infield to the more sparsely populated outfield, and you'll hit more balls out of the park, where they can't be fielded at all.
No, I believe that your confusing batting average with slugging percentage. In baseball, the batting average (BA) is defined as the ratio of hits to at bats. Batting average does not take into account walks or power, whereas other statistics such as on-base percentage and slugging percentage have been specifically designed to measure such concepts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_average
Ball placement is not dependent on strength. Ichiro Suzuki has a batting average of .333 but only has 66 hrs in 7 years. Suzuki averages something like 220 hits a season but only 9.4 hr a season. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichiro_Suzuki Steroids don't improve ball placement or eye-hand coordination, it only improves strength and endurance.
No, he's got it right -- steroids can increase your batting average by increasing your strength because a 340 fly out becomes a 350 foot home run, which is also a hit and therefore increases your batting average as well as your slugging percentage (and your OBP, your OPS, your OPS+, your EQA, your VORP and your WARP).
I'll pass on the remedial stats refresher (in addition to writing a general-sports blog, I do play fantasy ball, you know) and tackle this one. Ichiro is Ichiro. That's the kind of hitter he is. His game is built on a quick bat and quick legs. Players who hit more long fly balls can help their batting average with steroids. Why? Because "ball placement" does indeed improve. A ball hit over the fence is a better-placed ball than a ball hit to the warning track.
Not that we're not already far enough off topic (and I was kind of joking by throwing all the other metrics out there), but how exactly are sabermetrics overrated? I'm just waiting for a mod to put the kibosh on this threadjack.
My point is that batting average is based on getting on base, which is mostly due to quickness and ball placement. Steroids improves strength and endurance mostly. Speed/quickness is usually sacrified when juicying because they player is now carrying more mass. Ichiro has a high batting average, .333, than either bonds .298 or Aaron .301. Yet he averages only 9+ hr a season opposed to bonds 34+ and Hank Aaron 32+ a season. My point is that steroids improves slugging power but not a players ability to connect the ball with their bat. Getting a hit is mostly dependent on connecting the ball with the bat and directing it to an unoccupied part of the field. Sluggers just swing away hoping to hit it out of the ball park while players like Ichiro who lack slugging power mostly try placing the ball in an unoccupied location.
So, your use of Ichiro in a discussion of Bond's steroid use might best be described how? As a beard, blind, camouflage, cover, cover-up, curtain, disguise, dissimulation, front, hide-out, mask, obliteration, obscuration, occultation, red herring, smoke screen, or veil?
Basically what i'm saying is that juicy and bulking up do not always lead to a player becoming "better." Hence, if freddy was to bulk up (without juice of course) this would not necessarily translate to improvement on the field performance. If he was a a defender then strength and endurance would definetely improve his play because defending is mostly positioning and clearance. Since freddy is short 5'8" and an attacking players he would be better served improving his dribbling, passing, quickness, crossing, and shot placement rather than trying to improve his strength by bulking up.
The point is that steroids definetly improves slugging power and the ability to hit homeruns but this ability is tied to a players ability to put the bat on to the ball. I used Ichiro to show that batting average is not necessarily tied to homeruns or sluggling power but rather depends mostly on ball placement. A small quick players like Ichiro lacks slugging power hence his ball placement is why he has such a high batting average. Larger sluggers like Bond have to blast the ball out of the park or deep into the outfield otherwise they won't have sufficient time to get on base. In essence, my point is that while he may have juiced his ability to hit homeruns was only improved to the point that he could connect the ball with his bat. Do remember that juicying is probably more widespread than before yet relatively few batters are capable of matching Barry Bonds HRs and batting average.
And the point others are making is that if you "place" the ball out of the park, you get a hit. In fact, a line drive to the wall gives you a pretty good shot as well. If Ichiro's way were the only way, then you'd be correct in saying steroids can't improve your batting average. But there are many ways to get on base. Hitting home runs instead of fly balls to the warning track is one of them. (In fact, if we switch to OBP rather than simple BA, that's likely to improve even more because teams will pitch around you.)
Its easier to get a hit by playing it in the field than getting a HR. My point was that ichiro has a high BA .333 because he gets on base by placing the ball in undefended spots on the field. Bonds and Aarons BA .298 and .301 respectively are lower mostly due to the fact that they consistently look for HR instead of just a hit. While both Bonds and Aaron are sloggers they're BA are still extraordinarily high.
Its easier to get on base by placing a hit on an unoccupied part of the field than going for a HR. HRs are difficult to achieve while getting a hit is substantially easier
OK, there's some truth to that if you're going up and taking wild Rob Deer cuts at the ball. But if you're already a competent hitter (like Bonds certainly was), those long balls can help.
OK, that clarifies it. It was a bit ambiguous before. This is one helluva threadjack. Should we start talking about Donovan or Rossi?
What if Bonds played at Coors field his whole career, and never took steroids? He probably still would have had over 700 Home Runs, and even more stolen bases, like around 600. He would have been the only member of the 600/600 club, only member of the 500/500 club, and only member of the 400/400 club. He would have been a better fielder later in his career, too. So wouldn't he have been considered by far the best baseball player ever? If that had been the case?