TSwift25 Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Well, we're about a month into the season, and it sure seems that the homerun is back en vogue. Here's the question I propose to you: why? Is baseball juicing the ball to make the steroid era numbers not appear to be such a statistical aberration, therebye saving their own ass? Is the whole steroid era overblown for it's overall effect on increased power numbers? Is it that perhaps what is overlooked is how much steroid use benefitted pitchers, and especially power relief pitchers (many of whom seem to be struggling substantially)? Or, is it just a result of ballparks like Philly, Cincy and Colorado giving any flyball a chance to get out? Think about this, currently, baseball is on pace to set all kinds of single season records for power production and a staggering 12 players are on pace to hit at least 62 homeruns. Now, these past three weeks may simply be an aberration, but 3 weeks in with 17 players having 7 or more homeruns sure seems more like a trend than a fluke to me...thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugg Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Well, we're about a month into the season, and it sure seems that the homerun is back en vogue. Here's the question I propose to you: why? Is baseball juicing the ball to make the steroid era numbers not appear to be such a statistical aberration, therebye saving their own ass? Is the whole steroid era overblown for it's overall effect on increased power numbers? Is it that perhaps what is overlooked is how much steroid use benefitted pitchers, and especially power relief pitchers (many of whom seem to be struggling substantially)? Or, is it just a result of ballparks like Philly, Cincy and Colorado giving any flyball a chance to get out? Think about this, currently, baseball is on pace to set all kinds of single season records for power production and a staggering 12 players are on pace to hit at least 62 homeruns. Now, these past three weeks may simply be an aberration, but 3 weeks in with 17 players having 7 or more homeruns sure seems more like a trend than a fluke to me...thoughts? I would say it's a mix of those 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 I'm inclined to side with you Hugg, but I seriously hope MLB isn't juicing balls. That opens up a much bigger can of worms for integrity issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest markotsay7 Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 I agree with Hugg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_eob Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 I did hear a player mention that the balls being used this year were tightend somewhat, and that it can make a difference on how the ball travels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fritz Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Well, we're about a month into the season, and it sure seems that the homerun is back en vogue. Here's the question I propose to you: why? Is baseball juicing the ball to make the steroid era numbers not appear to be such a statistical aberration, therebye saving their own ass? Is the whole steroid era overblown for it's overall effect on increased power numbers? Is it that perhaps what is overlooked is how much steroid use benefitted pitchers, and especially power relief pitchers (many of whom seem to be struggling substantially)? Or, is it just a result of ballparks like Philly, Cincy and Colorado giving any flyball a chance to get out? Think about this, currently, baseball is on pace to set all kinds of single season records for power production and a staggering 12 players are on pace to hit at least 62 homeruns. Now, these past three weeks may simply be an aberration, but 3 weeks in with 17 players having 7 or more homeruns sure seems more like a trend than a fluke to me...thoughts? I think it's these three. I'm amazed that pitchers have avoided the roid witch hunt considering there are several pitchers that were good/dominant into their late 30s and early 40s *stares at Clemens*. I think the juiced balls are also pretty much a given, but I think this started in the 1990s after the strike because nothing draws people like the HR. Finally, the smaller stadiums. It's pretty hard to come up with many neutral/pitcher-biased stadiums that have been built recently. Safeco and Comerica are the only two that come to my mind, but who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugg Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 The problem with the stadium argument is that HR are considerably up from last year and there's only 1 new stadium. Anyway, here's the 2005 Park Factors. Hitter's Parks Colorado, Coors Field: Batting - 113/Pitching - 112 Philadelphia, Citzen's Bank Park: Batting - 108/Pitching - 107 Cincinnati, Great American Ballpark: Batting - 106/Pitching - 105 Arizona, Chase Field: Batting - 104/Pitching - 104 Atlanta, Turner Field: Batting - 104/Pitching - 104 Texas, Ameriquest Field: Batting - 104/Pitching - 103 Oakland, Network Associates Coliseum: Batting - 103/Pitching - 103 Chicago, U.S. Cellular Field: Batting - 103/Pitching - 102 New York, Yankee Stadium: Batting - 103/Pitching - 102 Toronto, Rogers Centre: Batting - 102/Pitching - 102 St. Louis, Busch Stadium: Batting - 102/Pitching - 101 Neutral Parks Boston, Fenway Park: Batting - 101/Pitching - 101 Chicago, Wrigley Field: Batting - 101/Pitching - 101 Minnesota, Metrodome: Batting - 101/Pitching - 101 Pittsburgh, PNC Park: Batting - 101/Pitching - 101 Milwaukee, Miller Park: Batting - 100/Pitching - 100 Kansas City, Royals Stadium: Batting - 99/Pitching - 99 New York, Shea Stadium: Batting - 99/Pitching - 99 Seattle, Safeco Field: Batting - 99/Pitching - 99 Tampa Bay, Tropicana Field: Batting - 99/Pitching - 99 Pitcher's Parks Houston, Minute Maid Park: Batting - 98/Pitching - 98 San Francisco, AT&T Park: Batting - 98/Pitching - 98 Detroit, Comerica Park: Batting - 98/Pitching - 98 Los Angeles, Angel Stadium: Batting - 96/Pitching - 96 Los Angeles, Dodgers Stadium: Batting - 95/Pitching - 96 Baltimore, Camden Yards: Batting - 94/Pitching - 95 Florida, Dolphins Stadium: Batting - 94/Pitching - 95 Cleveland, Jacobs Field: Batting - 94/Pitching - 94 Washington, RFK Stadium: Batting - 93/Pitching - 94 San Diego, Petco Park: Batting - 90/Pitching - 91 11 hitters parks, 10 neutral parks, 9 pitchers parks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreshFish Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 great thread I still think that the averages and the law of probability will take care of itself. We still have 140 games to go. it would be interesting to look at this at the end of the season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuickGold Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 It's still April. Stats for this season are meaningless until we start getting into June and July. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugg Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 I don't think 322 games played is a small sample size. Home Runs Per Game 1990-2006: 1990 - 1.58 1991 - 1.61 1992 - 1.44 1993 - 1.78 1994 - 2.07 1995 - 2.02 1996 - 2.19 1997 - 2.05 1998 - 2.08 1999 - 2.28 2000 - 2.34 2001 - 2.25 2002 - 2.09 2003 - 2.14 2004 - 2.25 2005 - 2.06 2006 - 2.33 We're talking about the 2nd highest home run per game average in the history of major league baseball. I would say that the reasons for this are something I'd like to know. If the balls are tightened, fine, at least we know what it is. Because if that's not it, everything we think we know about steroids and their impact on the game are pretty much blown out of the water. If they're honestly going to say the balls are the same, then I think the whole argument about records being thrown out is pretty much shot to hell. That or the new testing isn't working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 As I said above, 3 weeks is a small sample size, but three weeks in with 17 players on pace for no less than a 50 homerun season is alarming, and a dozen are on pace for 62. If it were four or five guys, that would be one thing, but this is an offensive explosion of historical proportions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugg Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 After I expanded those numbers back to 1990, I find it interesting that the HR jump happened the year of the strike, not the year after. The theory has always been they tightened the balls to increase HRs and excitement when they came back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchoftheday Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Pitcher's Parks Houston, Minute Maid Park: Batting - 98/Pitching - 98 :blink: news to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugg Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Pitcher's Parks Houston, Minute Maid Park: Batting - 98/Pitching - 98 :blink: news to me That stadium's park factors have dropped every year it's been in existance. 2000 was 107/106 2001 was 105/104 2002 was 104/104 2003 was 104/103 2004 was 100/100 2005 was 98/98 Kind of interesting really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirspud Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 After I expanded those numbers back to 1990, I find it interesting that the HR jump happened the year of the strike, not the year after. The theory has always been they tightened the balls to increase HRs and excitement when they came back. Yeah, everybody and his brother was taking aim at Maris that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fritz Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Pitcher's Parks Houston, Minute Maid Park: Batting - 98/Pitching - 98 :blink: news to me Other than roping it down the leftfield line, it's a pretty tough park to get the ball out of, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuickGold Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 I don't think 322 games played is a small sample size. Dude, how many players have amazing aprils (and even mays) and are sucking it up by the all star break or september? Wait for at least the all star break before comparing this years stats to any other year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
everybody doing the fish Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I for one don't have a problem if MLB was in fact juicing the balls. This home run spike could really help, because fans now see that players can players are still incredible athletes without the use of steroids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeLowell25 Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 I think its a mix of simple hot streaks (its just the start of May) and maybe the WBC had something to do with /some/ of it, since not everyone was in it, obviously. You can see the pitchers that pitched in the WBC are having troubling times, as they said on Baseball Tonight the other day. They're struggling because they got started too far or early, and possibly hitters are getting more into a groove since they got their swing going early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Punisher Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Is baseball juicing the ball to make the steroid era numbers not appear to be such a statistical aberration, therebye saving their own ass? Is it that perhaps what is overlooked is how much steroid use benefitted pitchers, and especially power relief pitchers (many of whom seem to be struggling substantially)? I am going to agree with those two. I would say it's a mix of those 2. I although we all know all steroids do is allow players to stick it out through a LONG LONG season, we will know the final verdict once we are close to the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinmemito Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Pitcher's Parks Houston, Minute Maid Park: Batting - 98/Pitching - 98 :blink: news to me That stadium's park factors have dropped every year it's been in existance. 2000 was 107/106 2001 was 105/104 2002 was 104/104 2003 was 104/103 2004 was 100/100 2005 was 98/98 Kind of interesting really. Probably related to the fact that the Astros have a great pitching staff and their hitters suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.