With the crackdown on steroids will we...

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

There was no steroid testing policy in those two seasons, yet the HR numbers dropped.

The peaks dropped because we're getting further and further from the last expansion.

The overall rate stats haven't changed at all in the last 5 years, and have barely moved since 1993.

NL homeruns per game since 1990:

1990 0.78
1991 0.74
1992 0.65
1993 0.86
1994 0.95
1995 0.95
1996 0.98
1997 0.96
1998 1
1999 1.12
2000 1.16
2001 1.15
2002 1.01
2003 1.05
2004 1.1

[Johnny Slick]

I think one can make the case that the first HR increase was caused by expansion, but you've got your time order way off on the second one. Since when are the effects of expansion going to kick in a year later? That simply does not make logical sense. And please do not attempt to apply your own after-the-fact reasonings.

My top reasons why there were so many HRs hit from 98-02 and why there still are so many today:

1. The whip-handled bat
2. More and more players figuring out that you could hit HRs to the opposite field. This trend started in the early 90s and, by 1999 or so, it was pretty much gospel that you could hit HRs by going with the pitch as easily as you could by pulling everything.
3. Changes in ballparks, although this isn't that huge of a deal outside of Colorado.
4. The size of the pitching staff, which peaked around the turn of the century and seems to be going back down now (I see fewer LOOGYs and more 70-game, 90IP relievers than before - I'd back this up with stats but I am too lazy).
5. Steroids. Also probably not as big a factor as people make it out to be, but to say it isn't one would be crazy.
6. To a lesser extent, stuff like hgh and creatine.
7. The weather. Wasn't the period 1999-2001 characterized by rather hot summers? Correct me if I am wrong. I know 1998 was scorching. Before you overlook this as a factor, please note that it was perhaps the largest cause of the offensive explosion of 1987.

Things that are not a factor:
1. Andro. Doesn't do a single thing for athletes. If you think Mark McGwire only used andro, then you think that he was essentially clean.
2. Expansion. Expansion IIRC favored the pitcher in 1962, 1977, and 1998 (despite the attempts by some to pretend that the last expansion happened in 1999). Well, and 1901 big-time, but that was a long time ago. Also bear in mind that the more teams that are already in the league, the less of an effect expansion is going to have on it.
3. Some inherent lack of character on the part of the pitchers, or increased character on the part of the hitters. Ballplayers are ballplayers. The end.
4. A juiced ball. Do you REALLY think that baseball would be able to juice the ball up without someone noticing. I don't mean in the "hey, there are a lot more homeruns being hit" sense, I mean in the "hey, this ball bounces more than the 1995 model when I test them against each other" sense. To juice the ball without the public's knowledge would require MLB, the players, the sportswriters, and even the more knowledgable fans to all be in on a conspiracy massively greater than the one that supposedly is covering up the Kennedy assassination.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

3. Changes in ballparks, although this isn't that huge of a deal outside of Colorado.

As a Rangers fan, I beg to differ. The Astrodome to Minute Maid wasn't a huge change, either?

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

I think one can make the case that the first HR increase was caused by expansion, but you've got your time order way off on the second one. Since when are the effects of expansion going to kick in a year later? That simply does not make logical sense. And please do not attempt to apply your own after-the-fact reasonings..

I never implied that the HR increase was caused by expansion. The only reason expansion would affect the league homerun rate is if the new parks favored homerun hitters, which obviously Colorado does to a historic level.

The effects of expansion are typically felt for about 3 years before peak individual values are back to normal. Again, since expansion affects pitching and hitting equally in terms of talent distribution, I'm not implying in any way shape or form that there was a homerun increase caused by the last expansion. 93, yes, because of Colorado. 98, no.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

As a Rangers fan, I beg to differ. The Astrodome to Minute Maid wasn't a huge change, either?

They were pretty big changes from the standpoint of the fans of that particular team, sure. But from a league standpoint, consider that during approximately the same time, the Mariners moved from a neutral-to-slightly-hittery Kingdome to one of the most extreme pitchers' parks in baseball, the Tigers moved out of Tiger Stadium and into a very large park, the Giants moved from a moderate pitcher's park to Pac Bell/SBC, which up until last year was also an extremely favorable park for pitchers, and the Brew Crew moved into a new park that looks as though it might be more of a pitcher's paradise than old County Stadium. Not to mention the Braves moving out of the Launching Pad...

Overall, with the exception of Coors, it looks to me as though the stadium shifts have more or less canceled each other out.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I never implied that the HR increase was caused by expansion. The only reason expansion would affect the league homerun rate is if the new parks favored homerun hitters, which obviously Colorado does to a historic level.

The effects of expansion are typically felt for about 3 years before peak individual values are back to normal. Again, since expansion affects pitching and hitting equally in terms of talent distribution, I'm not implying in any way shape or form that there was a homerun increase caused by the last expansion. 93, yes, because of Colorado. 98, no.

Okay, no problem. I've no points of disagreement with you then.

[Jason Moyer]

Also, your points 5+6 could be summarized into "the acceptance of strength training". Regardless of steroids, hgh, creatine, whatever, strength training was viewed as a bad thing for a baseball player until the 90's. You always had a few stars who did it (Wagner, Carlton, etc) but it wasn't until the 90's that it came into vogue, with or without nutritional supplements.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Also, your points 5+6 could be summarized into "the acceptance of strength training". Regardless of steroids, hgh, creatine, whatever, strength training was viewed as a bad thing for a baseball player until the 90's. You always had a few stars who did it (Wagner, Carlton, etc) but it wasn't until the 90's that it came into vogue, with or without nutritional supplements.

Another good point. I specifically remember Nelson Simmons washing out of the league because, in the opinions of the people who coached him, he was "musclebound."

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Another good point. I specifically remember Nelson Simmons washing out of the league because, in the opinions of the people who coached him, he was "musclebound."

Which is kinda amusing since Honus Wagner had a fairly decent career whilst making weight training a part of his conditioning.

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

I think one can make the case that the first HR increase was caused by expansion, but you've got your time order way off on the second one. Since when are the effects of expansion going to kick in a year later? That simply does not make logical sense. And please do not attempt to apply your own after-the-fact reasonings.

My top reasons why there were so many HRs hit from 98-02 and why there still are so many today:

1. The whip-handled bat
2. More and more players figuring out that you could hit HRs to the opposite field. This trend started in the early 90s and, by 1999 or so, it was pretty much gospel that you could hit HRs by going with the pitch as easily as you could by pulling everything.
3. Changes in ballparks, although this isn't that huge of a deal outside of Colorado.
4. The size of the pitching staff, which peaked around the turn of the century and seems to be going back down now (I see fewer LOOGYs and more 70-game, 90IP relievers than before - I'd back this up with stats but I am too lazy).
5. Steroids. Also probably not as big a factor as people make it out to be, but to say it isn't one would be crazy.
6. To a lesser extent, stuff like hgh and creatine.
7. The weather. Wasn't the period 1999-2001 characterized by rather hot summers? Correct me if I am wrong. I know 1998 was scorching. Before you overlook this as a factor, please note that it was perhaps the largest cause of the offensive explosion of 1987.

I'm amazed you didn't mention theumpires to calling a tighter strike zone going into the late 90s. Having that tiny strikezone put batters in a lot of 2-1, 3-1 counts where they can tee off on one pitch. When they re-instituted the higher strike in the 02-03 time frame, the HR totals dropped a bunch.

[Skipaway]

I think we are looking for another hike in homeruns! The tighter test in 2004 increased offense output! And with even fewer pitchers on steroids, we will see more runs per game!

[Jason Moyer]

For the sake of my sanity, here's the information you need to formulate any sort of knowledgable opinion on the subject. People should be able to find this themselves before wildly speculating, but whatever. This data is NL only, including the AL would just make the 92-93 leap seem less significant and would even out the power-plateau that we've been hanging around since 93.

Year	R/G	H/G	HR/G	BB/G	K/G
1969	4.05	8.5	0.76	3.3	5.98
1970	4.52	8.8	0.87	3.6	5.88
1971	3.91	8.5	0.71	3.1	5.42
1972	3.91	8.4	0.73	3.2	5.67
1973	4.15	8.7	0.8	3.3	5.41
1974	4.15	8.7	0.66	3.5	5.13
1975	4.13	8.8	0.63	3.5	5.04
1976	3.98	8.6	0.57	3.2	4.94
1977	4.40	9	0.84	3.3	5.4
1978	3.99	8.5	0.66	3.2	5.1
1979	4.22	8.9	0.73	3.2	5.11
1980	4.03	8.8	0.64	3.1	5.06
1981	3.91	8.6	0.56	3.2	4.92
1982	4.09	8.8	0.67	3.1	5.3
1983	4.10	8.6	0.72	3.3	5.52
1984	4.06	8.7	0.66	3.2	5.63
1985	4.07	8.5	0.73	3.3	5.5
1986	4.18	8.6	0.79	3.4	6.01
1987	4.52	8.9	0.94	3.4	6
1988	3.88	8.4	0.66	3	5.69
1989	3.94	8.3	0.7	3.2	5.83
1990	4.20	8.7	0.78	3.2	5.74
1991	4.10	8.4	0.74	3.2	5.9
1992	3.88	8.5	0.65	3.1	5.83
1993	4.49	9	0.86	3.1	5.88
1994	4.62	9.2	0.95	3.2	6.32
1995	4.63	9	0.95	3.3	6.61
1996	4.68	9	0.98	3.3	6.72
1997	4.60	8.9	0.96	3.4	6.83
1998	4.60	9	1	3.4	6.76
1999	5.00	9.2	1.12	3.7	6.64
2000	5.00	9.1	1.16	3.8	6.68
2001	4.70	8.9	1.15	3.3	6.92
2002	4.45	8.8	1.01	3.5	6.71
2003	4.61	8.9	1.05	3.4	6.59
2004	4.64	9	1.1	3.4	6.69

[Luis_Rivera]

Relating back to the ol' strikeout debate...

From "Whiff or Whiff-Out You" by James Click:

Breaking out the old TI-85: 0.0175 + 0.0257-0.0136 = 0.0296. On a very rough scale, a strikeout costs a team about three one-hundredth of a run. Looking at team totals from 2004, Reds batters led the league in strikeouts with 1,335 while the Giants trailed with 874, a difference of 461 whiffs. All those failures at the plate cost the Reds an estimated 13.6 runs over the course of the season, or just over one win. With individual batters who accumulated at least 600 plate appearances, Adam Dunn led the league with a well-publicized 195 strikeouts while Juan Pierre trailed with a mere 35. The 160 strikeouts--the most extreme case in the majors--add up to a difference of 4.7 runs.

Strikeouts do have a marginal cost when it comes to offense. The problem with evaluating them is that the price is so marginal that even between the most extreme teams and players, the difference is negligible. While the Reds would certainly like to have those 13.6 runs they "lost" by striking out so many times, the strikeouts come part and parcel with the kind of players the Reds have, the kind of players that are case studies for the positive relationship between isolated power and strikeout rate. Everyone can agree that strikeouts are not ideal, but like "Honey," they may make you cringe, but if you just focus on the other positives, the marginal costs become just that: marginal.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=3857 (subscription needed)

[KurtBevacqua]

I reject this notion of a legitimate crackdown on steroid use. Human growth hormones (the stuff BALCO is famous for revolutionizing in sports) aren't even being tested for. Players know in advance when they are tested in the spring, so they can go off the juice until tested, pass the test, then go their merry own steroid/HGH taking ways.

Also, the punishment is a scam. First offense is 10 day suspension or $10K fine with no public announcement. In fact, all following offenses are also covered by the or fine with no public announcement clause so my cynical suspiscion is no announcements will ever come from baseball that anyone has failed a test because it is in MLBs best self perceived best interest to sweep this all under the rug if it can get away with it, and the program has been written with one big ass rug and broom available for sweeping.

At best, some fringe guys who are picking up your basic steroids at the local gym will be scared away from the stuff because testing can catch them, but serious users paying serious money to groups like BALCO for HGH and other untraceables will still be able to get away with it under this lightweight crackdown. So I expect things to go on pretty much as before with no significant changes to the way the game is played.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

I reject this notion of a legitimate crackdown on steroid use. Human growth hormones (the stuff BALCO is famous for revolutionizing in sports) aren't even being tested for. Players know in advance when they are tested in the spring, so they can go off the juice until tested, pass the test, then go their merry own steroid/HGH taking ways.

Also, the punishment is a scam. First offense is 10 day suspension or $10K fine with no public announcement. In fact, all following offenses are also covered by the or fine with no public announcement clause so my cynical suspiscion is no announcements will ever come from baseball that anyone has failed a test because it is in MLBs best self perceived best interest to sweep this all under the rug if it can get away with it, and the program has been written with one big ass rug and broom available for sweeping.

At best, some fringe guys who are picking up your basic steroids at the local gym will be scared away from the stuff because testing can catch them, but serious users paying serious money to groups like BALCO for HGH and other untraceables will still be able to get away with it under this lightweight crackdown. So I expect things to go on pretty much as before with no significant changes to the way the game is played.

Bud clearly stated in the congressional hearings that that wording was a mistake and said any player testing positive WILL be outed and suspended. If it wasnt a mistake (the wording), he has now stuck his neck out there and would face harsh punishment if it doesnt go down that way (the punishment).

Its not the best policy, but i say give it a chance to work before criticizing it.

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

startadgy

Is this an attempt to start a new OT/TS buzz word?

[Ragin Cajun]

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.

I would think the Nationals/Expos rather than the Marlins. They've got a pretty solid team and with Beckett and Willis a pretty formidable staff compared to others.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Ragin Cajun

I would think the Nationals/Expos rather than the Marlins. They've got a pretty solid team and with Beckett and Willis a pretty formidable staff compared to others.

You mean Beckett and Willis would be out of the league if the Marlins are gone?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

I reject this notion of a legitimate crackdown on steroid use. Human growth hormones (the stuff BALCO is famous for revolutionizing in sports) aren't even being tested for. Players know in advance when they are tested in the spring, so they can go off the juice until tested, pass the test, then go their merry own steroid/HGH taking ways.

Also, the punishment is a scam. First offense is 10 day suspension or $10K fine with no public announcement. In fact, all following offenses are also covered by the or fine with no public announcement clause so my cynical suspiscion is no announcements will ever come from baseball that anyone has failed a test because it is in MLBs best self perceived best interest to sweep this all under the rug if it can get away with it, and the program has been written with one big ass rug and broom available for sweeping.

At best, some fringe guys who are picking up your basic steroids at the local gym will be scared away from the stuff because testing can catch them, but serious users paying serious money to groups like BALCO for HGH and other untraceables will still be able to get away with it under this lightweight crackdown. So I expect things to go on pretty much as before with no significant changes to the way the game is played.

Some facts you cited here are only correct one year ago, and some two years ago.

[KurtBevacqua]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Some facts you cited here are only correct one year ago, and some two years ago.

But the fact the program does not test for HGH is still true, thus players willing to pay good money for good dope will continue to get away with it. As for Bud's "bad wording", if the wording allows for no public outing, other than Bud's word we will have no way of knowing whether he is living up to his word or not. I doubt the wording was an "accident" either. It's too specific to just be an error of semantics.