Finally 40 homers means something again
Posted by Andy on September 23, 2011
It appears than only two players--Jose Bautista and Curtis Granderson--will hit 40 home runs this season. Two other players--Albert Pujols and Mark Teixeira--are currently at 37 homers with a handful of games to play.
If you're old enough to have been an MLB fan in the 1980s or earlier, you remember how impressive it used to be to get to 40 homers in a season.
Once we were knee-deep in the Steroids Era, 40-HR hitters became commonplace. In 1996, MLB had 17 different guys hit at least 40 homers, including Todd Hundley, Vinny Castilla, Ken Caminiti, and (in case you hadn't heard) Brady Anderson.
Now, it's back to the future time. For the 3rd time in the last 4 years, we're going to have only 2 guys break the 40-homer barrier. Here's a look back at 40-homer players since 1980:
| Year ▾ | #Matching | |
|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2 | Jose Bautista / Curtis Granderson |
| 2010 | 2 | Jose Bautista / Albert Pujols |
| 2009 | 5 | Prince Fielder / Adrian Gonzalez / Ryan Howard / Albert Pujols / Mark Reynolds |
| 2008 | 2 | Adam Dunn / Ryan Howard |
| 2007 | 5 | Adam Dunn / Prince Fielder / Ryan Howard / Carlos Pena / Alex Rodriguez |
| 2006 | 11 | Carlos Beltran / Lance Berkman / Adam Dunn / Jermaine Dye / Travis Hafner / Ryan Howard / Andruw Jones / David Ortiz / Albert Pujols / Alfonso Soriano / Jim Thome |
| 2005 | 9 | Adam Dunn / Andruw Jones / Paul Konerko / Derrek Lee / David Ortiz / Albert Pujols / Manny Ramirez / Alex Rodriguez / Mark Teixeira |
| 2004 | 9 | Adrian Beltre / Barry Bonds / Adam Dunn / Jim Edmonds / Paul Konerko / David Ortiz / Albert Pujols / Manny Ramirez / Jim Thome |
| 2003 | 10 | Barry Bonds / Carlos Delgado / Jason Giambi / Javy Lopez / Albert Pujols / Alex Rodriguez / Richie Sexson / Sammy Sosa / Frank Thomas / Jim Thome |
| 2002 | 8 | Lance Berkman / Barry Bonds / Jason Giambi / Shawn Green / Rafael Palmeiro / Alex Rodriguez / Sammy Sosa / Jim Thome |
| 2001 | 12 | Barry Bonds / Troy Glaus / Luis Gonzalez / Shawn Green / Todd Helton / Phil Nevin / Rafael Palmeiro / Manny Ramirez / Alex Rodriguez / Richie Sexson / Sammy Sosa / Jim Thome |
| 2000 | 16 | Jeff Bagwell / Tony Batista / Barry Bonds / Carlos Delgado / Jim Edmonds / Jason Giambi / Troy Glaus / Ken Griffey / Vladimir Guerrero / Todd Helton / Richard Hidalgo / David Justice / Alex Rodriguez / Gary Sheffield / Sammy Sosa / Frank Thomas |
| 1999 | 13 | Jeff Bagwell / Carlos Delgado / Shawn Green / Ken Griffey / Vladimir Guerrero / Chipper Jones / Mark McGwire / Rafael Palmeiro / Mike Piazza / Manny Ramirez / Alex Rodriguez / Sammy Sosa / Greg Vaughn |
| 1998 | 13 | Albert Belle / Jose Canseco / Vinny Castilla / Andres Galarraga / Juan Gonzalez / Ken Griffey / Mark McGwire / Rafael Palmeiro / Manny Ramirez / Alex Rodriguez / Sammy Sosa / Greg Vaughn / Mo Vaughn |
| 1997 | 12 | Jeff Bagwell / Barry Bonds / Jay Buhner / Vinny Castilla / Andres Galarraga / Juan Gonzalez / Ken Griffey / Tino Martinez / Mark McGwire / Mike Piazza / Jim Thome / Larry Walker |
| 1996 | 17 | Brady Anderson / Albert Belle / Barry Bonds / Jay Buhner / Ellis Burks / Ken Caminiti / Vinny Castilla / Andres Galarraga / Juan Gonzalez / Ken Griffey / Todd Hundley / Mark McGwire / Gary Sheffield / Sammy Sosa / Frank Thomas / Greg Vaughn / Mo Vaughn |
| 1995 | 4 | Albert Belle / Dante Bichette / Jay Buhner / Frank Thomas |
| 1994 | 2 | Ken Griffey / Matt Williams |
| 1993 | 5 | Barry Bonds / Juan Gonzalez / Ken Griffey / David Justice / Frank Thomas |
| 1992 | 2 | Juan Gonzalez / Mark McGwire |
| 1991 | 2 | Jose Canseco / Cecil Fielder |
| 1990 | 2 | Cecil Fielder / Ryne Sandberg |
| 1989 | 1 | Kevin Mitchell |
| 1988 | 1 | Jose Canseco |
| 1987 | 4 | George Bell / Andre Dawson / Mark McGwire / Dale Murphy |
| 1986 | 1 | Jesse Barfield |
| 1985 | 1 | Darrell Evans |
| 1984 | 1 | Tony Armas |
| 1983 | 1 | Mike Schmidt |
| 1982 | 0 | |
| 1981 | 0 | |
| 1980 | 3 | Reggie Jackson / Ben Oglivie / Mike Schmidt |
This sort of table really speaks to how offense has changed dramatically (and then changed back) over the last 30 years. There are some pages on this site, though, that really show it in even plainer black-and-white, and those are the League Index pages. For example, the MLB Batting Encyclopedia shows that run scoring in 2011 (4.28 runs per game) is the lowest since 1992 and the homers per game (0.93) is the lowest since 1993. This is also looking to be the first year since 1992 that the overall slugging percentage finishes below .400. On the MLB Pitching Encyclopedia page, we see that WHIP is its lowest since 1992, as are the number of batters faced per game.
Also, although attendance is going to finish down for the 4th straight year, it'll still be higher than it was in 1992-2003 (even corrected for number of teams before the last 2 rounds of expansion.)
The bottom line? Home runs are more exciting when they are hit less frequently.
September 23rd, 2011 at 7:57 am
I keep seeing '1992', '1992', 1992' on these posts which reference the diminished(or, for those of us old farts, who were fans back then, 'normal') amount of run scoring in the past year or two. '93 brought expansion, and the stadium in Denver; also, to me at the time, it seemed as though '94 brought the 'demise' of quality pitching.....or, perhaps, unknown to me, this was the official onset of the steroids era?
Long live 1992! Let Cecil Fi...........er, Prince Fielder, reign as homerun hitter supreme.
Now, if we could just get the Yankees and Red Sox, to return to their 1992 levels.........
You kids get off of my lawn!!!
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:09 am
That 1994 number is a bit misleading given the strike. There were about 8 more guys on pace for 40, so a few would have likely gotten there.
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:30 am
Yeah, that's why I never bought the idea that MLB somehow used juice/power to "win back fans" after the strike. Whatever the effect that Mac/Sosa had on people coming back to the game, chicks were digging the longball before the strike. Matty Williams was at 43 homers when the strike hit.
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:31 am
It's not just home runs. You see a similar arc for total bases. From 1996 to 2007, at least 10 players had at least 330 TB (with the exception of 2004 with 9). Last year there were 5, this year there will probably be four, since Matt Kemp and Robinson Cano each have 325 with six games left. Curtis Granderson might make it five, although he's 9 down and the Yankees have nothing left to play for.
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:58 am
Gee, this Adam Dunn character used to be pretty good. I wonder what happened to him. 😉
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:58 am
I became a big baseball fan in '82. I remember in '83, I found a copy of stats for '81 & '80, & '79. I was in awe of the '80 season... 3 guys smacked over 40 HRs! That was impressive to me, even though I didn't like HR's... still don't. I love the speed game... steals, & taking extra bases whenever possible. How could I not? I grew up on Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Vince Coleman, and a host of other hot base runners. I like the idea that 40 is starting to become a rare achievement again. Hopefully that means we'll start seeing seasons of 80 steals again this decade.
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:58 am
@2 And, of course, the same sort of thing could be said about 1981.
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:00 am
Also, this Tiger fan appreciates being reminded of Darrell Evans leading the majors in homers in 1985. You do that today, and there'll be 100,000 website hits with your name and "steroids."
Evans' b-ref page says his nickname was "Howdy Doody." I don't remember anyone saying that despite the visual resemblance.
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:14 am
I used to greet my college roommate by saying "Howdy Doody", only I put a comma between the two words. He was not fond of it.
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:22 am
Your list reminded me of the reason I never really liked Barry Bonds...I'm still pissed that Ryno didn't even get a single 1st place vote for MVP in 1990 and Bonds ran off with it.... curse you for bringing that back up! lol.
I remember stewing for like 2 weeks! haha.
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:43 am
Re: 1994-1995 strike:
There were 14 players with 27 or more HR in 1994 when the strike happened. So you basically had 14 players with a legitimate shot at 40 HR that year.
In 1995, there were 21 players with 30 or more HR that year. Again there were about 15 players with a legitimate shot at 40HR had 1995 been a full season.
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:50 am
I had no recollection at all of David Justice hitting 40 HRs twice. He only made it to 30 one other time. His appearance on the list in 1993 is the first "wait, what?" moment of the list for me. I guess he was always injured, so his season total never amounted to much most of the time.
The 1996 Colorado team was interesting. 3 guys over 40 HRs, another over 30 (Bichette), Walker with 18 in half the year, and no one else over 8. A similar team in 1997 and 1995 too. It's like a rec league softball team - 3-5 sluggers, and 3-5 slap hitters. I have a strange fondness for those Rockies teams...
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:24 am
@7
One player was on pace for 40 in 1981. Most teams had played about 108 games at the time of the strike or two thirds of the 162 game season. Using that as an estimate for the easy 1.5 multiplier, then only Mike Schmidt projected to 46 HR. Next game Andre Dawson with 36 and then a slew of players at 33 (Armas, Evans, Foster, Grich, Kingman, Murray).
So 1981 wouldn't look out of place in the chart above.
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:24 am
Craig Nettles led the AL with 32 HR in 1976.
Just looking at the number matching for each
season is fascinating.
A period of increased offensive production
based on ballpark effects and steriods
is clearly shown.
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:30 am
@14
The increased power is clear.
The reasons for it have, in my opinion, never been identified very well. Most likely, there were multiple causes.
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:05 am
@14
Its "Graig".
Sorry to be pedantic, but I remember one of Nettles' Topps cards featuring a cartoon showing him pleading with sportswriters to get the spelling correct. 🙂
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:07 am
@14,16
It was the 1973 card. 🙂
http://cnt.toppsmillion.com/img/cards/1973-BB-TS1-498-NA_B_285x412.jpg
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:17 am
"For the 3rd time in the last 4 years, we're going to have only 2 guys break the 40-homer barrier."
C'mon Andy. Why say that already? Pujols and Teixeira each have SIX games left to hit 3 HRs. In 2009, ARod had 2 HRs and 7 RBI in his last ***INNING*** of his season to keep his 30 HR 100 RBI streak going. Did you think that would happen?
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:20 am
Well, yeah, at the beginning I said "it appears" that will be the case...it does appear that way.
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:21 am
I think that "40 homers means something again", when the league HR leader doesn't hit more than 40 every year. Compare by decades:
70s: 10 of 20 leaders had 40 or more HR
80s: 8 of 18 leaders had 40 or more HR (not counting the '81 strike year)
90s: 18 0f 20 leaders had 40 or more HR (both strike years had 40 or more HR)
2000s: 18 0f 20 leaders had 40 or more HR
The 40-HR mark is special if it is not done almost every year. This was true in the 70s and 80s, not so true in the 90s and 2000s.
There's a small flaw in my reasoning - sometimes the HR leader will exceed the #2 HR leader by a large amount, not reflecting the actual HR level of the league. To get a truer reflection of top HR hitters, perhaps an average of the Top-10 HR leaders should be taken.
For instance, Bautista lead the AL with 54 HR last year, Carlos Pena had 39 in 2009. But the average of the Top-10 last year was 33.6, in 2009 it was higher at 35.1.
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:34 am
@19,
You did say "it appears", but then you changed your mind a few sentences later and said it won't happen.
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:38 am
My goodness, statboy. Just yesterday I was remarking how it seems your only posts on this blog are to correct others, whether myself, another author, or a commenter. Yeah, I think it's obvious that strictly speaking, you're right. But blogging has a very strong editorial component, and I am making a pretty inconsequential prediction that neither Pujols nor Teixeira will hit 40. Maybe they will, but probably not, and it doesn't much matter anyway. The real point of the post is simply to emphasize the lower offense levels cited at the end by way of a simple tangible example. One of those guys reaching 40 has no bearing on the validity of the post.
But, YOU'RE RIGHT. Feel good now? How about you go find somebody else to correct, and allow the other readers to actually further the discussion?
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:43 am
imo, based on league encyclopedia data from this site that i evaluated, the skill level of baseball reached maturity in the late 40s and has basically remained the same since then. you take away PEDs you get the 80s again. i see the last couple of years as a return to normalcy for MLB and a pretty strong indictment of the steroid era.
September 23rd, 2011 at 12:00 pm
@23/ Jason Says: "...the skill level of baseball reached maturity in the late 40s and has basically remained the same since then..."
Jason, what specifically do you base this on? I'd counter that the baseball _talent_ level reached maturity sometime in the mid/late 60s with the full integration of MLB, and has increased very gradually since then, with the incremental increase in athletic skills of the top athletes, as well as expansion into international markets (Latin America, Japan, etc...).
September 23rd, 2011 at 12:10 pm
@20
Well, in the pitching-dominated 1960s, 17 of 20 league leaders hit 40+ HR.
September 23rd, 2011 at 12:24 pm
#15 Detroit Michael--
I agree with the sentiment of your post. One thing I have always wondered about is the effect of players simply "swinging for the fences". When baseball salaries exploded in the 1980s (I can still remember Kirby Puckett's 3-year, $9 million contract as a record...can you believe that?) it was the players with big HR totals who got the big bucks. Salaries escalated ahead of stats knowledge--ahead of awareness of OBP and OPS, and so players with high HR totals pretty much universally got paid. This permeated down through the minor leagues and into college and high school. So as the 1980s gave way to the 1990s, we saw a lot more emphasis on power hitting.
I wonder how much this alone would have caused offense to spike in the 1990s...I am sure it is not the sole reason, but it probably goes hand-in-hand with steroids and smaller ballparks.
September 23rd, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Andy,
I think that's a contributing factor once one has other factors contributing to the offensive explosion. One used to hear guys (e.g. Wade Boggs) say that they could get more homers if they wanted to sacrifice their batting average. Except for Ichiro! I've not heard any player say that recently.
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:03 pm
I still blame the baseball. 1987 is the obvious example, as offense spiked, apparently due to an all-but-officially-acknowledged juiced baseball. The 1930s was blamed on the ball. Downturns in the war were blamed on the ball. I suspect the most recent spike/return to "normal" was also due, at least in part, to the ball.
Timeline: Baseball has years of no dominant teams or especially popular ones (1980s), the Jays win the WS twice (yay for me, but meh for most of the US). Then the strike, and fan interest craters. Planning ahead, MLB manages to juice the ball a bit. Unfortunately, combined with the PEDs, some new hitter-friendly parks, and a surge in power hitter-types in general, this causes an even more massive increase than expected, cumulnating with Bonds figuring out how to hit better than anyone in history. Once baseball institutes testing to pretend the PED issue is dealt with, the baseball is dejuiced as well, so the "problem" has been "solved" (both sarcasm quotes intentional). Total conspiracy theory, but I do love the narrative of it.
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:03 pm
"40-HR hitters are done." 🙂
Pujols and Teixeira are each 3 HRs away from 40.
Pujols has four career 3-HR games, Teixeira three (including a May 2010 game for each).
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:07 pm
I think the quality of pitching has a lot more to do with the offensive explosion than most people believe. Steriods is the easiest answer and people who are looking to be heard need easy (human) targets. At the time, Bud Selig was all for contracting a couple of teams, and I believe a part of this was the dearth of pitching at the time.
Baseball tends to flow in cycles. The pitching dominates and so teams get their scouts and minor leagues to concentrate on getting better hitters. Then batting takes over and it swings back. In the early 90s pitching staffs started growing as situational relievers became more commonplace. In the 80s a 10 man staff was the norm, then it grew to 11 and then 12. Adding 2 pitchers to every team added 52 new pitchers in a short time frame. Then, in the space of 5 years 4 more teams were added. 48 more pitchers. That's 100 pitcher increase in a decade. With the previous expansions, 36-40 pitchers were added, so there's a great difference.
How many of those 100 new pitchers were actual major leaguers? Look at the list of McGwire's 70 home runs or Bond's 73 and you will see about 20 guys you've never heard of giving them up. Add to that several more hitter friendly parks and you've got an offensive explosion. I'm not saying that steroids didn't have something to do with it. McGwire certainly wouldn't have hit 70 home runs in a season because he wouldn't have been healthy enough to get on the field- see 1993-94.
But more than steroid testing or anything else, I think it has more to do with names like Lincecum, Cain, Kershaw, King Felix... Since the turn of the century the obvious emphasis has been on pitching, where in the late 80s-early 90s it was on hitting.
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:15 pm
who on that 1996 list wasn't juicing? maybe Griffey? and the American league from '71 to '77 was a tough place to hit a dinger, no one had more than 39, 25 got you 5th place in '72 and 4th in '74, and when Rice hit 46 in '78 the next guy up had 34
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:17 pm
I just turned 28, so I was only 8 and 9 years old during the '94 season. While I have recollection of baseball back then, I didn't really pay attention to the numbers. So, the "steroid era" or whatever we are going to call it has become my "baseline" for stats. I still have to remind myself that an OPS of 900 is stellar and that even 800 isn't the standard for considering a player good. It is hard to get over such reflexive thinking, to the point that I wanted to call BS on the statement that SLUG will be below .400 this year. I'm not one to get sanctimonious about steroids, but the fact is because of them (and other things) the offensive era during my baseball stat formative years is skewed, and unfortunately so, I think. Hopefully, I have enough years ahead of me as a fan to give me a more representative sense of what to expect, what is good, bad, great, incredible, putrid, etc, etc, etc.
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:27 pm
@7 Well, only Schmidt was on pace to hit 40 in 1981.
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Expansion+new bandbox parks+diluted pitching+explosion in the value of contracts leading to players getting better >> steroids. I'm still angry with all the santimonious prigs who railroaded Barry Bonds, and the owners and commissioners who pretended to be above it all. Where would Mickey Mantle be with today's medical technology? Why is the improvement that makes possible, or MacGwire's contact lenses, or Tommy John surgery, or body armor, or video and computer-based swing training, different than intelligently applied chemicals?
Answer: no difference.
BTW '94 was awesome. There could have been a *lot* going on that year. And George Foster's 1977 was pretty cool, too, but I guess there are some who see it as an affront to the purity of their game.
Phooey...
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Another measure of the decline of offense recently is slash stats:
2011 .255/.321/.399 (OPS .720)
2000 .270/.345/.437 (OPS .782)
For some past years (chosen as low or high points or similar to 2011):
1986 .258/.326/.395 (OPS .721)
1968 .237/.299/.340 (OPS .639 -- ouch!)
1962 .258/.326/.393 (OPS .719 -- not a lot of change form 1954 to 1962)
1930 .296/.356/.434 (OPS .790)
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:09 pm
God, in 2000 it was almost all juicers with 40. Amazing.
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:20 pm
I remember reading Paul Molitor's entry in the Stats Inc. Handbook for 1993. In commenting on his 1992 season, it read that against lefties, "Molitor slugged -- brace yourself -- .659."
That "brace yourself" stuck with me as passing odd as we went through the 90s, when plenty of guys slugged .659 or better overall and how it was once some kind of major accomplishment for a guy to do it against a favorable platoon split and in a limited number of ABs.
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:50 pm
@25/ DavidRF - see the last two paragraphs in my #20.
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:52 pm
34- add players using lighter bats for increased bat speed as well. I forgot to add that if I had been in McGwire's place, I would have never apologized, I would have used the argument that it was his ethical obligation to do anything he could to get healthy enough to justify his salary. In 93 he was paid 4 million dollars (at that time huge) and played in 27 games. In 94 the salary dropped to 3 million and he made it into 47 games. So with a contract kick up to 6.9 million in 95 and 7 million in 96 (this was all part of the same contract) might you be desperate enough to use something that while illegal, wasn't against the rules of your sport (and which a certain former teammate had used to great advantage)?
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:30 pm
There is no indication the ball was juiced after the one year of '87. And diluted pitching was one of many factors cited above, but it makes sense to think PEDS were bigger than that. One reason is that after testing, homers & powers dropped: at first the HR outliers dropped dramatically, now offense as a whole has, while there has been no dial back in # of pitchers or relievers at all.
I STRONGLY disagree that using PEDs is at all practically & ethically comparable to taking advantage in upgrades in technology & training. This is an obvious & universally acknowledged point. PEDs were illegal, from the start of the '90's by order of the baseball commissioner-they were just not tested for. Players & attentive fans knew this-why do you think not one guy ever said they were drugging then?! Big Mac cannot be faulted for using a fully legal substance that was available at any GNC, Andro, but he lied & cheated by using steroids.
So players have an obligation to lie & cheat, also warp the game through changing the balance of power, literally in two ways: between offense & defense, & help your team steal wins? That reasoning sounds Orwellian. PEDs are different in both degree & kind from all the valid forms of training listed above: they not only have a more dramatic effect, (absent perfecting the study & practice of techniques), but the fundamentally change your potential. Also build & shape even BEYOND what can be accomplished with modern training & nutrition.
Drugging yourself strong makes a mockery of the natural ecology of the game. It also sets up a dynamic where those who do NOT lie & cheat are denied equal success, money, & many have been denied even a chance to realize their dreams & make the big leagues. Because there are many more marginal or decent players than great. Those who did not violate the law (including baseball's rules) logically very often replaced those who were close or equal in talent, but unwilling to cheat & pollute their body with ball shrinking drugs.
I like Big Mac, but he was a coward in front of Congress. It also is absurd to think his, Sosa's, Bonds, etc., motivation was anything but selfish. At any rate you do not lie & cheat/break the law & baseball's rules to help your team. NOT that he was merely staying healthy: the distance he was even able to hit the ball increased dramatically in his 30's, as opposed to every human being in the history of time who has already maxed out his training & practice, & does not use PEDs. Evidence: see Bill Jenkinson's survey of the greatest distance hitters ever, "Baseball's Ultimate Power".
I would loosely say excusing the cheating is akin to approving all those who raped the public through earlier & more current S & L scandals, pumped up things artificially with untenable & deceptive loans, & then tons of innocent folks were hirt when things crashed hard. And many more suffered indirectly due to the economic crashes.
September 23rd, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Andy,
I can't even remember the last time I corrected someone. Most of my posts are pretty helpful, and people have said that. Anyway, lots of people make corrections here. I've been corrected a few times myself. It's no big deal. When someone corrects me, I simply admit that I was at fault and move on. I suggest you try doing the same. It's poor journalism (even for a baseball blog) to write "we're going to have only 2 guys break the 40-homer barrier" when there's a decent chance that you could be wrong.
September 23rd, 2011 at 4:53 pm
@31
We never know, at least between Jose Canseco's debut and when MLB started doing at least partially effective drug testing, who was using steroids. Sometimes we know who was using steroids but we never know who wasn't.
September 23rd, 2011 at 4:59 pm
@40
Please. There is a huge difference in culpability between
(1) players taking drugs that are illegal without a perscription and violate one directive issued by the commissioner of baseball when there is no enforcement of the drug ban and a significant percentage of your peers seem to be taking the drugs.
AND
(2) Committing white collar crimes that violate criminal laws, were fraudulent, and ended up seriously harming the economy.
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:01 pm
I should say that I think that steroid use was prevalent and seems to have helped sluggers more than pitchers, so that's a factor. However, I think the thin-handled bats, as mentioned by an earlier poster, is probably a much bigger factor that was given credit.
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:25 pm
This new anti juiced era has ruined a great trivia question for me. For this question, imagine going back to a simpler era in 2007, before iPads and Twitter, a time when people used their phones to call someone to convey information that takes 1 minute to say instead of 17 text messages to write and old people weren't on facebook.
Who was the last player to lead each league in HRs while hitting less than 40...
.
.
.
.
.(Hint: its the same player)
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:26 pm
40 - Your conclusion that 'after testing homers dropped' ignores the fact that there are different pitchers and different batters and those who were the same were older. What if Halladay, Lee, Lincecum, Cain, Kershaw etc...had been pitching in the 90's? What if Ruth, Gehrig and Foxx were playing now? I believe that if you took every teams current pitchers and threw them into 1998, it would drastically change the power and offensive numbers. Because for the most part there is more pitching talent right now. And on the same note, alot less hitting talent. The players have changed, whether or not they use PED's (and there are alot of people today who believe alot of them still are using)
'every human being in the history of time'... Really? You surveyed all of them? Just from personal experience I can tell that is not the case, and hopefully I qualify as part of that list.
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:30 pm
statboy, I just went and looked at all of your recent comments in an attempt to back up my statement and discovered that I am wrong, and indeed wherever you have recently posted corrections it was clearly an attempt to be helpful. I apologize for the remark, and note that it was incorrect.
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:40 pm
@25: Good point. Would not have guessed there were that many in the 60's. The pitcher's mound was lowered from 15 to 10 inches in 1969. Must have produced more line drives in the 1970's. Also expansion of 4 teams in 1969.
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:45 pm
This is a very well written and informative post, thanks Andy!
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Also Jamile Weeks hit HR #1 last night.
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Detroit Michael, you are correct, let me be more precise. I did not mean to say these things are similar in scale of harm & evil. I was trying to communicate that excusing either one is equally misguided & logically untenable.
Pauley, thee are several reasons why your claim does not hold water. One, there is no indication of any significant change in pitching talent over a short period. And there never WOULD be a sudden shift in talent over such a large, pool, all hitters, defense, or hurlers, short of a major structural change. Like integration or sudden expansion. Also, the shifting fortunes of any era cannot be attributed to a very few great players-they just cannot shift the average production significantly, especially with 700 + players today.
Over time since '98, which includes expansion & more foreign players? There is more chance for a significant shift. But "drastically" change the offensive balance of the game if we went back to '98? I believe that is an overstatement, & would be surprised if others differed here. There already was a difference that year do to expansion. I could see hitting damped down further, but not so dramatically-possibly not at ALL, since there is every indication that there is at least LESS cheating today.
OK, my statement about "everyone ever". I am going by two things: there has never been a hitter in the history of MLB, or any level that I am aware of, who increased power in their 30's based upn the CONDITIONS I delineated. Of course one can be better than ever even way after 30, if one has not maximized their potential before.
So a guy trains more for power, in one or several ways, does NOT qualify as violating my claim. Which includes one or several things: increasing strength, muscle, &/or explosive power at a later age. Swinging more for the fences. Using better nutrition, supplements, &/or drugs. I got stronger at 30, & was slightly stronger than ever at 43. That is NOT due to enhanced potential, but I ratcheted up the volume &/or type of weigh training I did.
Now about your case: I would be interested to know. If you qualify as a disproof of my claim. you would need to have maxed out at ALL aspects of your training, nutrition, & effort to hit the long ball, having tried to do so for years. If you tried harder or found something that made you stronger or hit further that is great, I believe you. But I qualified above that there are not gonna be guys getting increased power absent either using, or changing their approach.
And his huge muscles did not come naturally. There are a very small % of folks, who with hard training over a period of time, could have achieved big Macs massive 21" arms. He hit 49 dingers as a rookie, but never showed the native bulk or bone structure that would have made that possible naturally. Maybe Frank Thomas, & some football players, would have that potential.
September 23rd, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Quoting from Andy's original post: "...although attendance is going to finish down for the 4th straight year, it'll still be higher than it was in 1992-2003."
How can more people afford to go to the ballpark, with higher gasoline prices, ticket prices, ballpark food prices, etc.?
Are there any economists here?
Or are baseball teams selling more tickets to vendors and advertisers, who turn them around for sometimes discount prices and promotional give-aways that are "hidden" in the system?
Wrigley Field has been routinely packed year after year for some time now, but I would bet there are actually fewer Cubs fans than were able to get into the park back in the days when 10,000 tickets were held in reserve for walk-up sale the day of each game.
My Dad would drive our whole family, or my brothers and neighborhood kids, from northeast Indiana to Chicago several times each season, and paid for everything himself; never asked the other kids' parents to pitch in and help cover costs. A few times we got SRO tickerts, with over 40,000 people in the place and you had to step gingerly past and over folks sitting in the aisles everywhere.
Those were Cubs fans.
Who are the 40,000+ these days?
They're mostly clients, prize-winners, and people who bought season tickets ONLY because that makes them eligible for post-season tickets, and they want to be able to brag in their old age about how they were there when the Cubs won their first World Series in over a hundred years (those are the empty seats you see when the "crowd" never actually shows up).
Yuppies and their children, that's who goes to Wrigley when the team is winning. This year, you've seen mostly Cubs fans and empty seats, just like when I was a kid in the 50s. At least the empty seats generate cash flow, something the Wrigleys never figured out how to do.
As for Andy's "The bottom line? Home runs are more exciting when they are hit less frequently...", then why is attendance declining?
The excitement was genuine, even if the HR's turned out to be phony.
I think attendance is declining because of economics, but also because people aren't as sure that they'll see somebody go yard.
Baseball became Home Run Derby, and the fans are now going through the withdrawal.
September 23rd, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I was just wondering.If Pujols does win the N L home run crown(looks very likely) and manages to not strike out more than 4 more times,he will be a home run champion with less than 60 strike outs.Excepting the greatly shortened 1981 season who was the last home run champion to strike out less than 60 times in that season?The best I can tell,it was Hank Aaron in 1957.God,I hope I don`t jink Albert!
September 23rd, 2011 at 7:38 pm
@45.
"Who was the last player (before 2008) to lead each league in HRs while hitting less than 40..."
Interesting quetion, Topper009. I looked it up, so I won't give away the answer. I was surprised to learn, though, that the answer to this question is one of only two players to lead each league in HRs. The other player did it twice in each league. Who was he?
September 23rd, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Great question Doug because the answer is not the obvious one, Frank Robinson. I know he only led the league in HRs once when he won the triple crown. It must be Mark McGwire, 1998-1999 with StL, at least his rookie year '87 with Oak and I think he had a 50+ HR year in the 90s that led the AL also. And thats not even counting his 1997 when he led the majors with 58 HRs but neither league individually.
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:04 pm
I wonder what kind of crowd is going to fill Wrigley for this:
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7008671/ferris-bueller-day-shown-wrigley-field-oct-1
Naturally, there will be a VIP section on the lawn ... I'll bet Bill Veeck is rolling over, wishing he'd never planted that ivy....
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:17 pm
@55.
Topper's answered the second quiz question @54.
Still waiting on the original question @45.
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:37 pm
I would guess Fred McGriff led both leagues with under 40.
And didn't Barry Bonds lead the league while striking out fewer than 60 times? .... no. When he hit the 73, he struck out over 90 times. He drastically cut down his strikeouts the next few seasons, but did not lead the league. He did achieve the rare feat of more HR than K in '04 (45 to 41).
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:43 pm
@18,41: lol. you need to get off your high-horse buddy. The sky may turn red tomorrow, but unlikely. The poster was using it as an anecdote of how times have changed. Should Pujols, et al, get to 40 in the next 6 games, great! Good for them! Hooray!
But seriously, to use A-Rod and his crazy inning as an indicator that they plausibly will do it? c'mon. So, do you yell at the t.v. when CNN reports x is the new president before all the precincts are in? Or announcers when they say that x is the new super bowl champion even though there are 5 seconds on the clock and they could theoretically lose it?
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:22 pm
@14&15: How about this for a cause? The NFL signed their first ESPN contract in March 1987. ABC & NBC were losing a lot of money on their MLB deals. MLB looked the other way on steroids and let the players start juicing to hitch a ride on the cable tv monopoly gravy train that is still rolling down the tracks.
( NFL just got 8 year contract extension for $1.9 billion per year for Monday Night Football).
ABC & NBC let CBS and ESPN take the next baseball contracts that began in 1990. If I remember right they had the 1987 baseballs tested and determined that they were the same as the 1986 baseballs. Not responsible for the home run surge.
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:28 pm
@58, the Crime Dog is correct
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Ha. I came of age, baseball wise, back in the mid 1970s when players for about four years running used to lead the league in HRs by hitting between 32-38 HRs. That was unusual both prior and after those years, and even some the guys who led the league -- like Jackson and Schmidt, Allen and Rice -- during that time would prior and/or post those years hit more than 40 HRs, so I'm not sure what was happening those years.
The HRs, total bases and run-scoring levels do seem to indicate were back to early 90s levels.
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:12 pm
I am really getting tired of the "Steroid Era" garbage that will more than likely cost a number of very good hitters (and at least one extremely great pitcher) their bids for the Hall of Fame. It hasn't even been proven not once that any of the players (except the ones that have already confessed) were using steroids. In the case of Barry Bonds, He used HGH before it became illegal. So are you going to condemn players after the fact. If so, keep track of all the players that are using protein powder or amino acids, because that's the next thing to be eliminated until we have a bunch of Honus Wagners in baseball. Little rail thin guys that can barely hit a ball past second base. And if you don't believe me when I say that all these people are wrong, just ask yourself this...Bodybuilders are the largest men on the planet. Do you think any of them could step onto a baseball field and hit fifty to sixty home runs a season versus major league caliber pitching? All the steroids or HGH did was enhance the abilities the players already had. Maybe they wouldn't have hit 60 homers every year, but they probably still would've ruled the game.
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:43 pm
The fact of the matter in this whole debate has been spoken quite a few times in this feed. Pitching has gotten better. Look at last season. The Giants had the most lethargic offense of practically any team to win the World Series, but the pitching staff was one of the best. This year, there will probably be more starting pitchers with ERAs below 4.00 than in any other year. How many 20 game winners are there? You can say that the stricter testing has attributed to the decline in offense, but I'm more inclined to believe that the pitching is the reason. We still have more than enough hitters that have the ability to hit fifty homers a season. The pitchers just aren't allowing them to anymore.
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:58 pm
keep track of all the players that are using protein powder or amino acids, because that's the next thing to be eliminated until we have a bunch of Honus Wagners in baseball. Little rail thin guys that can barely hit a ball past second base.
I can't tell if you're being facetious, but it seems not. Wagner was probably the first player known for weight-training. He was much bigger than the other shortstops of his day.
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:58 pm
@ 63: 12 year olds hit 200 foot plus home runs in little league. There are only 240 everyday starters in the major leagues. Steroids are a big edge at that level.
September 24th, 2011 at 12:31 am
Small points: The league leaders are averaging an HR every 4 games they play, so the odds are in 6 games they would each hit 1.5. This is a simple statistical question many here are more qualified than me to answer, but with 2 players in striking distance, it seems like the odds are against them, but not that strongly.
Also I do not why Veeck would object to that promotion. I do not think he would care much if in the off season, but it seems a charming event.
Mike, from another Mike, I must respectfully disagree. Please consider my points one by one:
1) Many players who did not confess have tested + for PEDs. Others have not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but a great # were named in the Mitchell report, to site the most prominent example. They had no subpoena power, so their teeth were limited, but from what I know about them & George Mitchell, their scruples & care were great. The vast majority named were likely guilty.
2) Also, while nobody knows exactly, there is almost no debate that somewhere between a large minority & most players used, at least some time, over a period of years. All anecdotal evidence shows this. And speaking to, say, a Minor league player in my gym, it was pretty endemic there too.
3) Bonds was guilty as sin. He used TONS of substances, from steroids to HGH to insulin many other things, a cocktail of drugs. .Just Google it. He was extremely well investigated. I have been called naive re: reserving judgement at folks who superficially conform to a 'roid stereotype, but Bonds is undeniable.
4) There are 100's of steroids, & many are designed to maximize strength at a lean body weight/without a great deal of muscle. Like what A-Rod did.
5) NOBODY sane, has suggested banning protein pwder of amino acids. I have never heard it suggested. I defy you to find anyone who ever advocated for them. The substances you mention are natural AND folks take them in amounts they can get from foods. Completely distinct from PEDs.
6) That absurd statement leads to ANOTHER error: that you need any of those things to have power & hit HRs. DO you know that almost nobody even lifted weights in baseball until a few in the '70's. then it exploded in the '80's? And that it was supposed to make you muscle bound & hurt your swing? That was absurd, but even without LIFTING you had most of the great power hitters in human history-Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, Aaron, Mays, Josh Gibson, & endless #s more. In fact...
7) These guys often built their initial strength with manual labor & farm work. But the premiere baseball Historian of literal distance hitting has tremendous evidence that Ruth hit the furthest ever, followed by Foxx, Mantle, Howard, Allen-only player cracks the top guys is a "DRUGGED UP Big Mac, then Stargell, Jackson, Killer, Stretch, Gibson...They needed NO modern training.
8) You are totally & completely wrong about Honus Wagner. Your avatar was 5'11", 200 lbs. of lean muscle, & was the earliest player I ever heard about that lifted weights. Also, not only is he credited with one of the furthest shots in the deadball era, he ALSO set a record for the longest throw ever!
He was a slugger for his time, but nobody during his career swung for the fences. Who do you think (from the future) would have done so then? Put the best power hitters who drugged up in a time machine back to that era. They have massive advantages of science, built up their body, & they would know the advantages of hitting dingers before anyone did it.
Their success would be very limited at hitting dingers. They could get many extra bases like the good hitters of the era, But with larger parks & MAINLY a dead ball, they would not hit many homers. Even if they were allowed to use the more efficient, lighter bats nobody did then. That ball itself took away 15-20% of distance, & they used it until it became mushy, often tampered with & slobbered up.
9) It was 1911 when they put in the rubber core, & Ruth who showed what could be done with it a few years later. And 1920 introduced more/whiter balls that were not beat to a pulp, partly due to the beaning death of Roy Chapman. I do not know if they were also more tightly wound then, but '11 was the main ball change.
10) "All" the PED era did was enhance abilities? No way man. It enhanced abilities, but BEYOND what the best trained & motivated athletes could achieve naturally. Then guys are hitting the ball better & further in their mid to late '30's? That was a joke.
11) Also, some of those guys would NOT have "ruled the game". Steroids have a characteristic effect of permitting players to overcome certain physical problems-& guys often break down in characteristic ways, often related to overwhelmed joints. Big Mac likely would have not been healthy enough to "rule", or for any length of time. Sosa? Drugs have different effects on guys-some respond "better". He went from fast & 165 lbs. to 220 pretty lean, over 230 at his peak.
I do not think he would have ever sniffed 60, maybe not 50, without them. Even playing at Wrigley.
12) You are RIGHT about bodybuilders-well not precisely, but in the essence of your 1st point. You mean muscle weight (even then power & Olympic lifters can have at least similar mass, & some NFL players, but not nearly as lean). CORRECT: And I will go further than you in affirming your point. I would be amazed if any of them could even be a starter in MLB. They do not have the skill set, experience, nor hand eye coordination/amazing response time.
But nobody believes that just being strong is a SUFFICIENT condition for hitting with power against great pitching. It is just something that tends to help someone in batting when combined with the talent to do so.
Get used to the attitude you are tired of Mike. The vast majority of folks have deserved contempt for those (or at least their actions) who cheated, lied, stole roster spots, dreams & victories from those who had integrity. And they made an Int'l mockery of our game.
My personal opinion? IF a player was good enough to get the HOF absent 'roids, PLUS admits his offense that clearly is a cardinal ethical violation of the letter & spirit of the rule book & game, & apologizes: sure, then put in Bonds & Clemens. Otherwise, they are blights on the game & their deeply flawed ethics are very relevant to HOF standards, not a private matter like, say, cheating on your wife, or having a non-PED drug problem.
Thanks for listening to my long winded & pedantic musings.
September 24th, 2011 at 12:37 am
WIthout a rule change or league expansion, there is no reason to believe that pitching quality itself will be the biggest reason for a big shift one year in offensive/defensive balance. Many factors go into altering this ecology, & we are not sure of all of them, or in what degree. But it is not mostly attributable to tons of guys suddenly getting better in a highly competitive sport. And rookies are almost never very dominant.
September 24th, 2011 at 12:52 am
@6
Pretty much me. 1982 was the first season I was really "aware" of baseball. Remember me and my dad coming home listening to that battle between Orioles and Brewers to see who would go to the playoffs. And I remember the Cards winning the Series. Shortly, thereafter Dan Quisenberry of the Royals became my favorite player.
September 24th, 2011 at 1:10 am
@67, Mike Felber -- Veeck would have loved the promotion in general, but he would have hated the VIP tent at seventy-five bucks a head.
September 24th, 2011 at 1:12 am
... VIP tent for a friggin' movie night in a ballpark.
... VIP tent to see friggin Ferris Bueller's Day Off, fer cripes' sake.
(I don't like VIP tents, in case you missed it.)
September 24th, 2011 at 1:17 am
@67 (again), Mike Felber -- Outstanding rant & followup @68.
September 24th, 2011 at 1:28 am
Thanks John, you are too kind.
I am sure you must be right about Veeck. I am a rent stabliized apt., freegan some of my food, much of my clothes & furniture kind of guy. But if guys want to pay for the status of a VIP whatever, if it does not detract from the options of the common man, I have no problemo with it. Sometimes the swells fund good things that benefit everyone else. It is when space & choices become scarce for others, folks get priced out or ignored, that I object.
September 24th, 2011 at 1:34 am
@53, Brian.
Leading league with 40+ HR while striking out 60 or fewer times.
If Pujols does it this year, it will be the 19th time this has happened since 1901. You are correct in guessing Hank Aaron as the last player to do this, in 1957. In fact, both HR leaders that year did it, with Roy Sievers in the AL matching Aaron, the only time both HR champions achieved this distinction.
Here are the other times:
- 3 times : Gehrig ('31, '34, '36), Mize ('40, '47, '48)
- 2 times : Ruth ('29, '31)
- Others: Hornsby ('22), Cy Williams ('23), DiMaggio ('37), Ted Williams ('49), Kiner ('51), Rosen ('53), Kluszewski ('54), Mays ('55)
September 24th, 2011 at 6:53 am
hate to be the tag-along guy, but @67 Mike Felber.......excellent.
September 24th, 2011 at 7:35 am
@67 Mike Felber-
Outstanding. Two quick points of follow up...
In regards to Bonds and the "question" of if he did
steroids, it really isn't even a question.
Anyone interested should read Game of Shadows.
A college roomate who is now a defense attorney
read the book and felt that it proved it's case.
Also, like you said Mike, the Mitchell Report.
http://files.mlb.com/mitchrpt.pdf
You can even view copies of checks and
FED EX airbills.
September 24th, 2011 at 9:09 am
One of the neatest things about baseball is also perhaps the most frustrating thing--it's long history. Mike Felber puts forth some good projections about how today's players might have performed in the early part of the 20th century, but damn we will of course never know. There is so much time between then and now, and so very many things have changed, and it's impossible to have even a really good guess at how things would have been.
Here are a few examples of things that are different:
- Average lifespan has changed dramatically. In 1930, life expectancy for US white males was 59.7 years. That means that a player who was, say, 35 years old, had on average less than 25 years left to live! In 2007, the life expectancy of the same group was 75.9. Overall health of players was a major factor.
- Normal foods and vitamins (ignoring protein shakes, steroids, etc) have changed a lot. Our understanding of nutrition has changed a lot, and what people put in their bodies has changed a lot. On the one hand we understand a lot better what it takes to be healthy, and things like vitamin deficiencies are all but gone among middle class people. On the other hand, people are putting tons of processed foods into their bodies and cancer rates are soaring. I have no idea how any of this might have affected baseball.
- Most games are at night now whereas all games were during the day then. Average game-time temperature is very different and ball visibility is quite different. How would Josh Hamilton's career look if he played all day games vs all night games?
- Video replay. In the 1930s, the most you knew about a player was what you remembered, what you were told, or perhaps what had been charted during games (whether correctly or not). These days, video replay and computers can tell you everything about a pitcher or a hitter--pitch selection, velocity, break, etc. I feel there was some evidence that players who were early adopters of video technology (Tony Gwynn springs to mind) had a distinct advantage.
There are a bajillion things like this...
September 24th, 2011 at 9:50 am
@74 Thanks Doug!Since I posted, Pujols has garnered another strike out.But if he hits into 3 more double plays he will equal the NL seasonal record,so maybe a strike out or two isn`t so bad after all.Again,thanks for the very interesting stats!
September 24th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
"...what is good, bad, great, incredible, putrid, etc.."
The young person who wrote that sentence believes he's just getting straigtened out about what's real and what has been faked in baseball. He grew up in, and was soiled by, the steroid era.
Take heart, son. I've been a fan of the same team for 45 years. They've been all those things you wrote deciding to become 'putrid' this year. But they've won it all (twice) and have been competitive most years (okay, not this year), but hope springs eternal. There's a month of championship baseball to come. In my parts, we're stoking the fire for the hot stove league.
Sorry the scoundrels faked you out...Let me see, how long has it been since a player on my team hit 40 homeruns? Awhile for sure.
September 24th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Twins?
September 24th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
@77 life expectancy is longer, but mental health has gotten worse.
September 24th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Much appreciated Bruce, Jason & Andy. No doubt there is no reasonable question with Bonds-beyond the Cream & Clear "mistakes".
Andy, those our good pints. Though if you make it to a certain age, especially in an environment where many die young due to, usually disease (childbirth also for females), your life span is longer than a newborns.
There is also the elimination of grueling long trips by rail, & living conditions are much more pampered. At a certain point it becomes almost a theological question-what 'is" the player? A purist would likely reincarnate a modern & dead ball era player, have them play under the conditions of each other, & compare the results. Likely not permitting altering your training though, since their capacities were defined in part by what they had access to, like weight lifting.
But you can make an argument that if they play under each other's conditions, you get to do their training. Then do you let them do it long enough to get close to the full benefit, or just compare them over a season? I would bar different training than you used before to gauge their real life ability, but they play under the same equipment & training.
Clearly a modern power hitter, certainly those who with little speed, would do much better when the ball was "live" than when their was no cork center. If the best guys without PEDs were comparable or better than Ruth, you still would have to say that they had body & efficiency transforming advantages the old timers never had.
September 24th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
For a while, I believed the increase in Home Runs was due to both steroid use and the changes in bat-making technology, which produced harder and more brittle bats. They break more often, but the ball goes farther, and everybody seems to think that's a fair trade-off.
Now that MLB has "cracked down", so to speak, on steroids, home runs are declining, so I guess I don't need to be concerned about the bats anymore, right?
September 26th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Just noticed... Granderson is the 18th player in MLB history to have 40+ homers & 10+ triples in the same season, joining Mays, Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron etc..