1000 less total HRs than 2006 at this point in season

DR3AMR · 05-12-2008, 10:56 PM

That's the stat for the post-Mitchell Report era. Pretty amazing.

They mentioned it tonight during the game on ESPN. Also said pitch velocity was down a bit (I think like one or two MPH).

Simp · 05-13-2008, 11:13 AM

Maybe my math is screwed up, but we're about 1/4 through the season. So wouldn't that mean HRs will be down by 4,000 by the season's end? Considering there were just under 5,000 HRs hit in 2006, does this mean Mitchell will have reduced HRs to 1,000?!?!?

Simp · 05-13-2008, 11:20 AM

There's been 1,040 HRs hit so far. So at this point in 2006 there was presumably 2,040. So for the last 3/4 of that season there was about 3,000 HRs hit, or 1,000 per quarter. So 40% of the HRs hit that year were in the first quarter? Sounds wacky.

Grandstander · 05-13-2008, 05:40 PM

I believe that what DR3 misheard or misreported here, would have been that MLB is on a pace to hit 1000 fewer homeruns.

MLB is on a pace to hit 4362 homeruns this season, which will be about a thousand fewer. Baseball Reference.com has 5386 homeruns being hit in 2006.

Having cleared that up, I hope, we will still have a massive drop of around 20 % in homeruns over a two year period. And of course the elimination of steroids is immediately the biggest suspect. So, is this a sign that we have entered the post roid age? And are the performance levels taking place now more indicative of real abilitity levels than what we have been seeing in the past decade or so?

DR3AMR · 05-13-2008, 06:43 PM

I could have sworn they said what I stated. You could be right though...

bedir than average · 05-13-2008, 07:52 PM

If Barry Bonds wasn't facing collusion by the owners and playing he would hit those 1000 homers all by himself

:snark

I'm wondering about weather concerns as well.

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.

jtur88 · 05-18-2008, 09:46 AM

Meanwhile, Berkman is on a pace to hit 59, and 13 players are on a pace to hit around 40. In '06, nobody hit 59, and 11 hit 40 (but 16 hit 38).
Does this suggest that the talent pool is running too shallow for the number of teams? The premium players are hitting as many HRs as they did in '06, but the quality thins out below a higher thresahold.

What I find to be a disturbing trend is that very nearly half of all MLB players are pitchers. This can affect a lot of things in a lot of different ways. Pitchers get more rest, position players get less. Fewer pinch-hitters available, and less situational offense-defense platooning.

05-12-2008, 10:56 PM	#1 (permalink)
DR3AMR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Atlanta Posts: 4,189	1000 less total HRs than 2006 at this point in season That's the stat for the post-Mitchell Report era. Pretty amazing. They mentioned it tonight during the game on ESPN. Also said pitch velocity was down a bit (I think like one or two MPH). __________________ Perot Charts - Suicidal Spending

05-13-2008, 06:43 PM	#5 (permalink)
DR3AMR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Atlanta Posts: 4,189	I could have sworn they said what I stated. You could be right though... __________________ Perot Charts - Suicidal Spending

05-13-2008, 07:52 PM	#6 (permalink)
bedir than average Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Starbucks Posts: 8,256	If Barry Bonds wasn't facing collusion by the owners and playing he would hit those 1000 homers all by himself :snark I'm wondering about weather concerns as well. __________________ US Men's National Team World Cup Qualifying \| Democracy in Sports Meets My First Campaign "You're only so sure you're right because they're so sure you're wrong." Orson Scott Card in Xenocide

05-18-2008, 09:46 AM	#8 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 6,844	Meanwhile, Berkman is on a pace to hit 59, and 13 players are on a pace to hit around 40. In '06, nobody hit 59, and 11 hit 40 (but 16 hit 38). Does this suggest that the talent pool is running too shallow for the number of teams? The premium players are hitting as many HRs as they did in '06, but the quality thins out below a higher thresahold. What I find to be a disturbing trend is that very nearly half of all MLB players are pitchers. This can affect a lot of things in a lot of different ways. Pitchers get more rest, position players get less. Fewer pinch-hitters available, and less situational offense-defense platooning. __________________ ------------------ RE-ELECT McCAIN Last edited by jtur88; 05-18-2008 at 09:54 AM.

05-13-2008, 11:13 AM	#2 (permalink)
Simp Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 359	Maybe my math is screwed up, but we're about 1/4 through the season. So wouldn't that mean HRs will be down by 4,000 by the season's end? Considering there were just under 5,000 HRs hit in 2006, does this mean Mitchell will have reduced HRs to 1,000?!?!?

05-13-2008, 11:20 AM	#3 (permalink)
Simp Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 359	There's been 1,040 HRs hit so far. So at this point in 2006 there was presumably 2,040. So for the last 3/4 of that season there was about 3,000 HRs hit, or 1,000 per quarter. So 40% of the HRs hit that year were in the first quarter? Sounds wacky.

05-13-2008, 05:40 PM	#4 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 5,375	I believe that what DR3 misheard or misreported here, would have been that MLB is on a pace to hit 1000 fewer homeruns. MLB is on a pace to hit 4362 homeruns this season, which will be about a thousand fewer. Baseball Reference.com has 5386 homeruns being hit in 2006. Having cleared that up, I hope, we will still have a massive drop of around 20 % in homeruns over a two year period. And of course the elimination of steroids is immediately the biggest suspect. So, is this a sign that we have entered the post roid age? And are the performance levels taking place now more indicative of real abilitity levels than what we have been seeing in the past decade or so?

05-14-2008, 03:06 PM	#7 (permalink)
Triad Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Oregon Posts: 201	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.