With the crackdown on steroids will we...

[Ragin Cajun]

While I like Home Runs, I was a big fan of small ball back in the 80's where you saw people like Rickey Henderson steal 100 bases per season. With baseball's supposed crackdown on steroids I am wondering if we will see a continued "downsizing" of our baseball players and a return to small ball.

Interested to see thoughts on the subject and whether you think 60+ home run seasons should be the rule or the exception.

[Bonedwarf]

I'd rather know the players I'm watching are there through genuine athletic endeavour, rather than from pumping themselves full of drugs.

I'd like to see HR's reduced. They're just not that special anymore really.

[sebastian0622]

I'm guessing league HR leaders in the mid 40's or low fifties, with it dropping off quickly to the thirties by the 5th spot.

Not sure if that means "small ball" will return, but we might see a little more. I'm hoping so anyway.

[dougaiton]

I don't think it'll make much or any difference. The BALCO-type companies of this world are far too smart, and far too far ahead of MLB, to not create some pretty nice substances that go undetectable.

It's not exactly the Tour de France level of testing, is it? And how often do people get cheat in that regardless of the toughness of testing?

I would think we might see certain players drop-off if they are stupid enough to worry about it, but I think new players will come through just as quickly.

[canadiancreed]

exactly. MLB's drug policy is a joke, otherwise Congress woudlnt be butting in.

but ya, this will carry a permanent smell that like manure, will probably never leave teh game.

[Bluenoser]

I was always a fan of small ball too, and really enjoyed watching the Cardinals of the early to mid 80's. Whitey Herzog was to small ball what Earl Weaver was to long ball. The Cards could "manufacture" a run better than anyone else during that period.

While I like small ball the most, I'm not opposed to the long ball either. Like Bonedwarf, what's important to me is that they are doing what they do with their natural abilities and not with artifical help, be it small ball or long ball.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Ragin Cajun

While I like Home Runs, I was a big fan of small ball back in the 80's where you saw people like Rickey Henderson steal 100 bases per season. With baseball's supposed crackdown on steroids I am wondering if we will see a continued "downsizing" of our baseball players and a return to small ball.

Not unless baseball addresses the other 20 reasons for the hitting era.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Not unless baseball addresses the other 20 reasons for the hitting era.

Jason's right here... Baseball goes through cycles. People who believe that steroids are the sole (or main for that matter) reason for the offensive explosion are either ignoring the facts or are casual fans who have fallen victim to the idiocy of the media.

That being said... as a Sox fan I wouldn't mind if the rest of the league decided to return to small ball. It'd make things a lot easier for us.

[bulldog55]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Not unless baseball addresses the other 20 reasons for the hitting era.

Contracting the Rockies, Diamondbacks, Marlins and Devil Rays would do infinitely more for reducing offense than would wiping out steroid use.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by bulldog55

Contracting the Rockies, Diamondbacks, Marlins and Devil Rays would do infinitely more for reducing offense than would wiping out steroid use.

Expansion has nothing to do with anything. James and others have written countless arguments against it and yet people still cite it.


Two biggest things that need to happen are:

1. Bats need to start becoming governed by rules and checked ona regular basis to conform to these rules. Golf, hockey and other sports have their equipment checked. Why can't baseball ever be ahead of the curve on something?
Specificly, bat handles need to be made to conform to a mininum standerd over a number of years.

2. A player needs to come around who punches singles and lays the ball into the shallow outfield and does not try to swing for the fences. A slugger behind them will make a run at the 190 RBI mark. Other GMs will see this and think 'I need me one of those singles hitters'
That will do more than anything to change the era in which the game is played.


EDIT:
The BEST thing that could happen to baseball this year. Is for offense to go up around the league. If that happened people would think "I guess roids arn't really all that helpful afterall"
That would do more to get rid of all this mess than anything else.

[STLFAN2003]

Whitey-Ball (1980's Cardinals for those who might think this is racist)


thats real baseball, how it was meant to be played

[bulldog55]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

2. A player needs to come around who punches singles and lays the ball into the shallow outfield and does not try to swing for the fences. A slugger behind them will make a run at the 190 RBI mark. Other GMs will see this and think 'I need me one of those singles hitters'

Who cares how many RBI a player gets? A run scored is a run scored no matter who drove it in. So you'd rather have someone like Ichiro who collects 262 hits, 225 of which are singles, than a guy like, say, Pujols who gets 196 hits, 51 of which are doubles and 46 of which are homeruns? I'll give you one guess who has a higher slugging percentage.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by bulldog55

Who cares how many RBI a player gets? A run scored is a run scored no matter who drove it in. So you'd rather have someone like Ichiro who collects 262 hits, 225 of which are singles, than a guy like, say, Pujols who gets 196 hits, 51 of which are doubles and 46 of which are homeruns? I'll give you one guess who has a higher slugging percentage.

I would never ask Pujols to hit singles.
But instead with the modern era you have hitters who hit .240 with 100k but 15 HR who could hit .290 with 50 K but only hit 5 HR.
What I am saying is that in modern baseball you can go 1-9 and everyone is looking to hit a homerun. It is just a matter of time before a manager encourges one of his 'light' hitting players to hit singles instead of trying to be a power hitter.
After that everyone will be scrambling for a singles hitter to hit in front of their power hitters.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

I would never ask Pujols to hit singles.
But instead with the modern era you have hitters who hit .240 with 100k but 15 HR who could hit .290 with 50 K but only hit 5 HR.

Ok, first of all I don't know what your basis is for assuming those numbers. Second, you should probably do the math before you throw numbers like that out.

Essentially, what you're advocating is losing 10 HR in lieu of replacing an out with a single in 4% of a player's ABs. Assuming a season of 500 AB's, that's 20 more hits... take away the 10 HR and now, what you're saying is: lose 10 HR, gain 30 singles. That's a net loss of 10 bases. Not a good strategy.

Edit: whoops... maybe I should check my math... it's 5%. so you're losing 5 bases rather than 10.

[Luis_Rivera]

Another thing:

A player hitting .240 with 15 HR isn't going to be in the league unless he's either hitting a large amount of doubles, is walking at a fantastic clip, or both.

Making that player take the Ichiro strategy you're advocating would also affect those things... so add that to the mix and you're losing a lot more than 5 bases.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Another thing:

A player hitting .240 with 15 HR isn't going to be in the league unless he's either hitting a large amount of doubles, is walking at a fantastic clip, or both.

Making that player take the Ichiro strategy you're advocating would also affect those things... so add that to the mix and you're losing a lot more than 5 bases.

Im not advocating every player take the Ichiro startadgy. What I am saying is that every player is trying to play the same sort of baseball. Power up and down the lineup. Some players can't play like that but try to anyways.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Im not advocating every player take the Ichiro startadgy. What I am saying is that every player is trying to play the same sort of baseball. Power up and down the lineup. Some players can't play like that but try to anyways.

I didn't interperet it as you were advocating applying it across the board. I was taking the example you gave and explaining why it was a flawed reasoning... even in that situation.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

I didn't interperet it as you were advocating applying it across the board. I was taking the example you gave and explaining why it was a flawed reasoning... even in that situation.

I did give a poor example.
What I am saying is that everyone plays the same uniform kind of game whether they are effective at it or not.

[SWardle]

Originally Posted by dougaiton

I don't think it'll make much or any difference. The BALCO-type companies of this world are far too smart, and far too far ahead of MLB, to not create some pretty nice substances that go undetectable.

It's not exactly the Tour de France level of testing, is it? And how often do people get cheat in that regardless of the toughness of testing?

I would think we might see certain players drop-off if they are stupid enough to worry about it, but I think new players will come through just as quickly.

Which is why they need an allowed substance list rather than a banned substance list. If it's not on the allowed substance list you can't do it, period. That way it covers all new things like HGH and so forth.

Steve-O

[Arlie Rahn]

If we believe the "evidence" against guys like Canseco, McGwire, Palmiero and others, then you would go under the assumption that steroids were just as prevelant in the early 90s as they were in 1998. Yet, from 90-95, there was nothing like what happened from 98-02. So, either people didn't know how to use steroids correctly or there were other factors.

I firmly believe that the shift in the mid-90s to more HRs (to get back fans post-strike) is what caused the boom. The balls were supposedly "juiced", the strikezone was called about the diameter of a matchbox, fences were brought in and the OPS became the holy number in baseball (HRs > more Sac/singles). This caused the jump in HR totals (and the expansion certainly didn't help).

IIRC, baseball asked that the high strike be called more often starting in 03 and switched ball makers. Suddenly, the leaders in HR shrank from a range of 65-73 from 98-01 to 47 (03) and 48 (04). There was no steroid testing policy in those two seasons, yet the HR numbers dropped. I think the numbers in the large strike zone era (1990-95, 03+) show more of an impact than steroids when you look at the tiny strikezone/hard baseball era (96-02). Steroids has been in the game since 1990 and wouldn't account for the shift up in 96 and back down in 03.