I did thorough research before posting the Sammy stats. Does that restore my geekhood?

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

Ya, that whole 'fishing for strikes' fiasco made me want to rip my hair out.

Bonds is smacking em out once every 7 at bats or so. McGwire was hitting them right around the same clip in 98. In 61, Maris had a ratio of one every 9 and a half at bats, and in 1927, Ruth hit one out once every 9 at bats. That's a 2 at bats per homer difference averaged over a period of 550 to 600 at bats. That's a huge difference.

A point against the "players are better" argument is batting average. Batting average hasn't risen appreciably as you'd expect with a crop of better players. That's because a juiced ball doesn't help batting average much; if you hit the ball at someone, hard or not, you're still out.

Does the fact that players are bulking up explain some of this? Sure. But only a small part.

What the hell do you know?! You're a Cardinals fan. (I'm a Cubs fan. We have to start hating each other now. It's a law or something.)

As for Sosa, he's definitely a power hitter. One look at his numbers or his back-cracking swings tell you that. But anyone who hits .322 is hitting more than home runs. He can now hit for average as well. Babe Ruth hit .356 the year he smacked 60 home runs. Does that make him a player that hits for power or hits for average? Both obviously. Not that I'd be batting Sosa leadoff anytime soon. :)

P.S. Screw the designated hitter sideways.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

The designated hitter is a tool of the devil.

Bonds is smacking em out once every 7 at bats or so. McGwire was hitting them right around the same clip in 98. In 61, Maris had a ratio of one every 9 and a half at bats, and in 1927, Ruth hit one out once every 9 at bats. That's a 2 at bats per homer difference averaged over a period of 550 to 600 at bats. That's a huge difference.

---

I think you misunderstood what I was saying -- no question about Barry, Mark, and Sammy, but what I meant was most of the other 747 guys in the majors haven't shown the same explosive increase (in proportion to their power or lack thereof).

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

Touche Ms Chicka

I can confirm that , very few people can say they actively "know" 300 people , but fortunately , im a member of numerous societies , stretching back to my college days , and thus , i can confirm i know "in excess" of 300 people.

I can even get Dr.Pedantic to give us an exact figure if youd like.

---
"Life Sucks, Then you Die. The bit inbetween isnt very funny either"

Baseball is a natural for geeks. Stats bring the history of the game to life.

The "now" in the above statement was missing from my post. I am shit. I believe that Sosa drank some island potion (like Mac's power-pills) and underwent a swing-change. He can wait back and place the ball now. And I believe Babe is still the strikeout king... or has that changed?

Before the strike I was religious. I spent week-long vacations in the bleachers of Wrigley. I refused to go to parks that were younger than me. After the strike I have been to more minor league games than major. Baseball has never really recovered from the death of A. Bartlet Geomatti.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Babe Ruth is # 57 on the all-time strikeout list with 1,330. Sammy Sosa, who still has several years to play, has 1,690 in his career, which puts him at # 15. Reggie Jackson is # 1 with 2,597 strikeouts during his career. The only active players with more career strikeouts are Andres Galarraga and Jose Canseco with 1,858 (# 6) and 1,942 (# 2), respectively.

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

By the way, as long as I'm droning on about boring baseball stuff, I don't buy the "smaller stadiums" argument. Most of the new baseball stadiums that are noted for being smallish - Camden Yards, PacBell Park, Enron Field, etc. - were designed as throwbacks to the old, small stadiums like Fenway and pre-renovation Yankee Stadium. The trend towards larger stadiums took place between the '50s and '80s. Back when Ruth was hitting homeruns, Yankee Stadium's right field fence was less than 300 feet from home plate (and that is where the Babe and Maris hit a lot of his homeruns). That's shorter than PacBell Park's right field fence.

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

Gee Wirthling. We always assumed you were just a pretty face.

We never realised you were such a colossal baseball geek.

---
"Life Sucks, Then you Die. The bit inbetween isnt very funny either"

quote:

---

Gee Wirthling. We always assumed you were just a pretty face.

We never realised you were such a colossal baseball geek.

---

It's more that I enjoy doing web research. I'm not really a hardcore baseball fan (although I used to cry when the Orioles lost when I was a kid). Also, I kinda get irked that Barry Bonds gets such short shrift for what has been an amazing year on his part.

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

I was comparing Ruth, Maris, and McGwire because they're basically the cream of the crop. They're peers in a sense. They held the home run record for 34 years, 37 years, and a whopping 3 years, respectively. I'd offer that many other major leaguers have shown a similar explosive increase to Barry and Mark and Sammy, just an explosive increase from 35 to 50 or 20 to 30 home runs, etc. This is more than backed up by the large number of players who've hit 50+ homers in the last 4 years.

In 1996, the year after the strike, there were 1000 more home runs hit than in 1994, the last complete season before the strike. 1000. This tells you something about how MLB was trying to bring fans back to the game.

I've only been to Wrigley maybe three or four times as a kid, but there's nothing like moving from the walkway to the seats, and getting your first glimpse of the grass and the ivy. George Will used to go on and on about how baseball was a religion how a ballpark is a cathedral. Wrigley will make you believe it.

I don't think smaller stadiums or weaker pitching have nearly the impact of the juiced ball. Even if there are disparities, I see them pretty much evening themselves out in the long run. I mean, Wrigley's as old as they come, but when the wind's blowing out, there isn't a better hitter's park out there.

Damn media.

I'm pissed about this as well. I keep hearing the same stories that people aren't as captivated, which I tend to agree with, seeing as how the last record was just broken 3 years ago and not 37. But still, the media coverage hasn't even been close to what it should be. Sure, Bonds is a prima donna, but he's a prima donna that just set a homerun record that may last awhile.

I think part of why it angers me is that I see resemblances to how Hank Aaron was over looked when pursuing 714. I always thought that was a black eye to the game and our country.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

Fuck you, too, pal.

Down the lines, sure. But the alleys and dead center are a lot shorter now than they were in the Polo Grounds or old Yankee Stadium or Tiger Stadium, etc. Look how right field in Fenway shoots back -- they don't make them like that anymore.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

obi--the cubs are far too harmless for me to actually hate them.

everyone else--i certainly would not for a moment call mcgwire a better player than bonds. honestly, griffey be damned (and judging by his recent performance, he will be), barry bonds is the finest player who's donned a uniform whilst i've been a live.

nonetheless, mac was destined to have that record, dammit. from his first year in the majors, that record belonged to him. i suppose i'm glad he got to have it for the little while he did, but it would have been nice to hold it a bit longer...

and poor todd macfarlane (:

---
- christ@myself.com - fuck a cat, kill yourself - my alter ego has five stars

OK, I'm bored so I'll keep this going...

The strike actually lasted from 1994 (wiping out the end of the regular season and the entire post-season) to early 1995, so 1993 was the last full season before the 1996 season. There were 4,030 homeruns in 1993 and 4,962 homeruns in 1996, meaning an increase of 23% between 1993 and 1996 homerun totals. Was this attributable to juiced baseballs? And if so, were the balls juiced deliberately?

Breaking down the numbers further...

[font=courier]
Year..Games..HRs...HRGame...Chg from prev yr
----..-----..----..-------..----------------
1992..4212...3038..0.721....- 10.3%¹
1993..4538²..4030..0.888....+ 23.2%
1994..3201...3307..1.033....+ 16.3%
1995..4034...4081..1.011....- 2.1%
1996..4539...4962..1.093....+ 8.1%

¹ HRGame in 1991 was 0.804

² 1993 was an expansion year - 2 teams were added to the NL
[/font]

The only clear trend I see in these figures is that there was a big boost in homeruns in the 1993 expansion year. Otherwise, the rate of change was unremarkable from year to year between 1993 and 1996. What does all of this mean? I think it means that I am wasting far too much time on this when there are other things I should be doing, like insulting Gabe.

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

that shoulda read "HR/Game" rather than "HRGame"

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

I feel like such a loser. I have no idea what any of you are talking about. Juicing the ball? So why are they doing stuff like that? The only reason I can think of is that people that own sports franchises are probably all greedy bastards and think that it's more exciting to have people breaking records.

And what the hell is up with the salaries that professional players in various sports are getting? Why don't they pay them half as much and lower ticket prices? I'd never go to any sort of professional sporting event just 'cause they cost so damn much. I probably shouldn't complain since I wouldn't go if the tickets were free.

But I feel bad for all the average Joe's that have to shell out their hard earned bucks to go watch games. Doesn't it bother those of you that do to pay through the nose like that?

---
100 pounds of shit in a 25 pound sack.

quote:

---

And what the hell is up with the salaries that professional players in various sports are getting? Why don't they pay them half as much and lower ticket prices? I'd never go to any sort of professional sporting event just 'cause they cost so damn much. I probably shouldn't complain since I wouldn't go if the tickets were free.
But I feel bad for all the average Joe's that have to shell out their hard earned bucks to go watch games. Doesn't it bother those of you that do to pay through the nose like that?

---

Amen.

"Chasing the fame keeps 'em all in the game
But money's still the way they keep score

And nobody told you that you would get old
Strung out like some Avenue whore..."
............. "Midwest Midnight" - Michael Stanley Band

It isn't about the game anymore, it's about the money.

It's about who spent the most money to get the best behind-home-plate World Series tickets from the most l337 scalper.

It's about what player got busted for coke and steroids and dropped the highest six-figure cash bail.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck. And, yes - I know how hard it is to hit a fastball.

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

Woops, my bad. Despite the goof, there was still a thousand homer difference between the season following the strike and the last complete season before the strike, so my point's the same.

quote:

---

There were 4,030 homeruns in 1993 and 4,962 homeruns in 1996, meaning an increase of 23% between 1993 and 1996 homerun totals. Was this attributable to juiced baseballs? And if so, were the balls juiced deliberately?

Breaking down the numbers further...

[font=courier]
Year..Games..HRs...HR/Game...Chg from prev yr
----..-----..----..-------..----------------
1992..4212...3038..0.721....- 10.3%¹
1993..4538²..4030..0.888....+ 23.2%
1994..3201...3307..1.033....+ 16.3%
1995..4034...4081..1.011....- 2.1%
1996..4539...4962..1.093....+ 8.1%

¹ HRGame in 1991 was 0.804

² 1993 was an expansion year - 2 teams were added to the NL
[/font]

The only clear trend I see in these figures is that there was a big boost in homeruns in the 1993 expansion year. Otherwise, the rate of change was unremarkable from year to year between 1993 and 1996. What does all of this mean? I think it means that I am wasting far too much time on this when there are other things I should be doing, like insulting Gabe.

---

That HR/Game stat more than makes my point. In 1992, HR/Game was .721. In 1996, HR/Game was 1.093. Now, with expansion teams added in between, you would probably expect that ratio to DROP, since more inexperienced players now have a chance to play in the bigs. Instead there's a 50% increase between those two figures.

Do you have a link to where you got those figures by the way? I'd be interested to see what the numbers were in the 70s, 80s, and later 90s. To see homers per year over a longer time period and also to see if a 1000 homerun difference between years is commonplace or not.

Juicing the ball is a process of extreme rape and torture. The batsman is given last rights in front of the Flying Walendas and then...

Ah, hell. Juicing the ball means making it more "springy." It would be like creating a basketball that bounced 20 feet in the air when you dribble it. So in baseball, you can see how this would lead to more homeruns. Or, if you can't, you suck.

I think they juice a ball by having more compacted cork in the center, but that's only an educated guess on my part. Anyone know for sure?

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

But do you know how hard it is to eat a fastball?

---
100 pounds of shit in a 25 pound sack.

I've been working on how hard it is to ball a fast hit. That's what lead to my memory problems and made me think Sosa was Willy Mays and Babe was the strike out king.

It's been so long since I cared about the majors I only remember playground rumors. But damn, do those kids in the minors put on a show. And the outfield grass and peanuts still smell just as good.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

The larger increases occurred before the strike, though. I was just making clear that there was not a sudden 1,000 home run increase from 1993 to 1996. The increase was gradual, with most of the increase occurring before 1996. (Further examination may show a bigger jump after 1996, so none of this disproves your point exactly.)

Actually, the opposite effect has been observed. In most of the expansion years -- 1961, 1962, 1969, 1977, 1993, and 1998 -- overall home run totals have increased by a large amount over the previous year, including 1961 when Maris hit 61 and Mantle hit 54. (Maris never hit more than 40 in any other season. Mantle had 52 in 1956 and 2 40+ seasons, but never hit more than the 54 in 1961.) The exceptions were the 1962 and 1998 expansion years, but 1998 was also the year McGwire hit 70 and Sosa hit 66. The usual explanation given for this phenomenon (more home runs in expansion years) is that in expansion years the pitching quality is diluted, since more pitchers are needed and fewer of them have time to develop in the minor leagues. Sure, there are more young players added who have not yet developed their home run hitting, but the established sluggers feast on the inexperienced pitchers. That's the theory anyway.

I have used a number of sources for things I have been posting here, but I got the year-by-year statistics from baseball-reference.com (that page only goes up to 2000. 2001 season stats can be found here).

quote:

---

Ah, hell. Juicing the ball means making it more "springy." It would be like creating a basketball that bounced 20 feet in the air when you dribble it. So in baseball, you can see how this would lead to more homeruns. Or, if you can't, you suck.

I think they juice a ball by having more compacted cork in the center, but that's only an educated guess on my part. Anyone know for sure?

---

There is an interesting article about that subject here.

I would suspect that a major difference between the baseballs in Babe Ruth's day and those today is that the manufacturing process is much more refined than it used to be. Yes, that does give the modern player an advantage, but modern players are also generally larger and better conditioned.

Aside from Babe Ruth, who was baseball's idiot savant (did you know the Babe was an outstanding pitcher for several years before he became a regular batter?), I don't think there are many pre-80s stars who could dominate today's players, at least in terms of batting (I suspect the great pitchers of the past would still be great if they played today). There are still a few -- Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, and Mickey Mantle are the first to come to mind -- who would be among the stars but I don't think their stats would be as impressive if they played today. When Ty Cobb was racking up his .366 career batting average, middle-relievers and closers were a rarity and the starting pitchers had less rest and poorer means of physical rehabilitation. We're likely never to see stats quite like those put up before the modern era...

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

Tommy Herr. Nuf sed.

quote:

---

Year..Games..HRs...HR/Game...Chg from prev yr
----..-----..----..-------..----------------
1992..4212...3038..0.721....- 10.3%¹
1993..4538²..4030..0.888....+ 23.2%
1994..3201...3307..1.033....+ 16.3%
1995..4034...4081..1.011....- 2.1%
1996..4539...4962..1.093....+ 8.1%

---

Looking at Hr/Game, probably the best indicator, there's a 23.1% increase between 1993 and 1996. You're saying it's gradual because a lot of this occured between 1993 and 1994, am I correct?

If so, it's a good point. A couple of possibilities:
1. MLB juiced the ball up between 1993 and 1994, expecting an imminent strike and wanting a (more exciting game and a) stronger fan base that might come back.
2. MLB was juicing up the ball, but for reasons having nothing to do with the strike. Instead they were doing it as part of baseball's general makeover of the 90s that tried to speed up the game and draw back some of the fans who'd left, finding the game boring.
3. The large increase has nothing to do with the ball getting juiced, but only with smaller ballparks, weaker pitching, and bigger players.

1 or 2 I can buy, 3 I just can't. I think that smaller ballparks and weaker pitching probably play a part, but nothing like the explosion we've seen. And though, on average, I'm pretty sure modern players are bigger, I doubt that explains the kind of increases we've seen. Look at a Hack Wilson or a Hank Greenberg. Those were big motherfuckers, and they hit a lot of homeruns. But not 70 or 73. There's something else at play.

I had a beautiful line graph on excel made showing the Hr/Game ratio charted out between 1980 and 2000. It showed a general gentle upward slope over time (good evidence that players are getting better), but also two large garrish jumps around the late 80s and mid 90s. (good evidence of something other than players getting better) Unfortunately, excel justed crashed on me. Actually, that's probably for the best; whenever I try to post images through freeservers.com, they usually show up as beautiful little red x's.

Actually, the opposite effect has been observed. In most of the expansion years -- 1961, 1962, 1969, 1977, 1993, and 1998 -- overall home run totals have increased by a large amount over the previous year, including 1961 when Maris hit 61 and Mantle hit 54. (Maris never hit more than 40 in any other season. Mantle had 52 in 1956 and 2 40+ seasons, but never hit more than the 54 in 1961.) The exceptions were the 1962 and 1998 expansion years, but 1998 was also the year McGwire hit 70 and Sosa hit 66. The usual explanation given for this phenomenon (more home runs in expansion years) is that in expansion years the pitching quality is diluted, since more pitchers are needed and fewer of them have time to develop in the minor leagues. Sure, there are more young players added who have not yet developed their home run hitting, but the established sluggers feast on the inexperienced pitchers. That's the theory anyway.

---

I was saying that I'd expect the HR/Gm ratio to drop, not the total homeruns. With additional teams there's bound to be additional homeruns, I just would have guessed that they occured at a lower clip than the 'veteran' teams make them, thereby lowering the ratio. I hadn't really thought that weaker pitching could compensate for this, but the numbers say they do.

Thanks, those sites are great, particularly the first.

quote:

---

There is an interesting article about {differences in baseballs} here.
I would suspect that a major difference between the baseballs in Babe Ruth's day and those today is that the manufacturing process is much more refined than it used to be. Yes, that does give the modern player an advantage, but modern players are also generally larger and better conditioned.

---

That article was interesting. Though it said more than just the manufacturing process. That bit about the cork from the inside of baseballs from the 60s and 70s and 80s bouncing an average of 62 inches and the cork from baseballs in 1995 and 2000 bouncing an average of 82 inches was telling.

Somewhere a Red Sox fan just started crying. :)

I don't fall into the trap of ancestor worship. But at the same time, I have little doubt that a Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, or Rogers Hornsby would take the current game with the more lively ball to a whole new level.

And now, a moment of silence for Tony Gwynn.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

How about a warm cup of Mochaccino Latte?

---
What others say about boorite!

HOW ABOUT YOU JUST SH-- oh, um...OK.

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."