quote:
obi--the cubs are far too harmless for me to actually hate them.
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%
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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).
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.
quote:
(did you know the Babe was an outstanding pitcher for several years before he became a regular batter?)
Somewhere a Red Sox fan just started crying. :)
quote:
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).
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.
