FanHome - View Single Post - 1000 less total HRs than 2006 at this point in season

Triad · 05-14-2008, 03:06 PM

More home runs are generally hit in June, July and August, and I believe we've had a cold spring so far. The decline only looks to be about 13% from last year, or from 2005, or from 2002, or from 1998. Selectively choosing 2006 as a barometer is a little disingenuous. Trends will have their peaks, but it's better to look as the overall trend. We went down 8% from 2004 to 2005, and down 7% from 2001 to 2002. Were those significant? Fluctuations are normal, based on weather, new stadiums, injuries, player ages, expansion teams (which can affect 3-4 seasons), and other conditions.

In contrast, the cumulative average HR per 162 G per team for 1990-92 was a whopping 36% less than the cumulative average for 1994-1996. Teams averaged 131 HR per season back in 1990-92. This season looks to be about 150. We're still 15% higher than the early '90s.

The top home run hitters are still hitting 50 home runs in a season, even since steroid testing was ramped up a few years ago. Andruw Jones had 51 in 2005. Ryan Howard had 58 and David Ortiz had 54 in 2006. Alex Rodriguez had 54 and Prince Fielder had 50 last year. Lance Berkman and Chase Utley are both on pace for 52 this year (more when you figure in the summer effect).

Contrast that to pre-1995. Between 1978 and 1994, 50 HR in a season happened only once (Prince Fielder's dad). And Willie Mays was the only National League player to hit at least 50 in a non-expansion season from 1950 to 1996. So if steroids were what was causing the top sluggers to hit more home runs in the '90s and early '00s, why are they continuing to hit so many home runs?

Any changes in conditions would probably be affecting the nominal home run hitter, but not so much the most prominent sluggers. The best home run hitters just hit shorter home runs in that case, for the most part.

There are many variables potentially in play here. Whatever caused the upswing in power around 1993 could be the same thing that would cause a downswing in power around 2008-2010. If Major League Baseball introduced juiced balls and back then and bats were being made out of better materials, they could be starting to use the traditional ball and/or bat again. This would be a good PR move for them, as it would be an indication that their "crackdown" on steroids and HGH is effective. All the while, these substances might not be the leading cause of the changes in HR, but might just be mirroring the process. Correlation does not mean causation.

05-14-2008, 03:06 PM	#7 (permalink)
Triad Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Oregon Posts: 252	More home runs are generally hit in June, July and August, and I believe we've had a cold spring so far. The decline only looks to be about 13% from last year, or from 2005, or from 2002, or from 1998. Selectively choosing 2006 as a barometer is a little disingenuous. Trends will have their peaks, but it's better to look as the overall trend. We went down 8% from 2004 to 2005, and down 7% from 2001 to 2002. Were those significant? Fluctuations are normal, based on weather, new stadiums, injuries, player ages, expansion teams (which can affect 3-4 seasons), and other conditions. In contrast, the cumulative average HR per 162 G per team for 1990-92 was a whopping 36% less than the cumulative average for 1994-1996. Teams averaged 131 HR per season back in 1990-92. This season looks to be about 150. We're still 15% higher than the early '90s. The top home run hitters are still hitting 50 home runs in a season, even since steroid testing was ramped up a few years ago. Andruw Jones had 51 in 2005. Ryan Howard had 58 and David Ortiz had 54 in 2006. Alex Rodriguez had 54 and Prince Fielder had 50 last year. Lance Berkman and Chase Utley are both on pace for 52 this year (more when you figure in the summer effect). Contrast that to pre-1995. Between 1978 and 1994, 50 HR in a season happened only once (Prince Fielder's dad). And Willie Mays was the only National League player to hit at least 50 in a non-expansion season from 1950 to 1996. So if steroids were what was causing the top sluggers to hit more home runs in the '90s and early '00s, why are they continuing to hit so many home runs? Any changes in conditions would probably be affecting the nominal home run hitter, but not so much the most prominent sluggers. The best home run hitters just hit shorter home runs in that case, for the most part. There are many variables potentially in play here. Whatever caused the upswing in power around 1993 could be the same thing that would cause a downswing in power around 2008-2010. If Major League Baseball introduced juiced balls and back then and bats were being made out of better materials, they could be starting to use the traditional ball and/or bat again. This would be a good PR move for them, as it would be an indication that their "crackdown" on steroids and HGH is effective. All the while, these substances might not be the leading cause of the changes in HR, but might just be mirroring the process. Correlation does not mean causation.