Why Have Home Runs Gone Down?

[Triad]

We are led to believe that home runs have decreased because of the crackdown on steroids and other performance enhancing drugs. But wait a minute. Let's isolate just the players with 40-HR seasons since 2005...

2005
51 - Andruw Jones
48 - Alex Rodriguez
47 - David Ortiz
45 - Manny Ramirez
43 - Mark Teixeira
41 - Albert Pujols
40 - Adam Dunn
40 - Paul Konerko

2006
58 - Ryan Howard
54 - David Ortiz
49 - Albert Pujols
46 - Alfonso Soriano
46 - Derrek Lee
45 - Lance Berkman
44 - Jermaine Dye
42 - Travis Hafner
42 - Jim Thome
41 - Carlos Beltran
41 - Andruw Jones
40 - Adam Dunn

2007
54 - Alex Rodriguez
50 - Prince Fielder
47 - Ryan Howard
46 - Carlos Pena
40 - Adam Dunn

2008
48 - Ryan Howard
40 - Adam Dunn

Just looking at these players, none of them have gone up in home runs, and only Adam Dunn has maintained his same level. And it's not a matter of other, younger players replacing them on the leader boards. No one else hit 40 home runs this year.

And age doesn't explain why Pujols, Teixeira, Soriano, Howard, Fielder, Lee, Berkman, Rodriguez, and Ramirez have all gone down in HRs. These guys are still very high quality batters, but it's just that all their HR totals went down at the same time.

I see only five possible reasons:
1) Coincidence. This is the least likely of the bunch, because for it to happen simultaneously across the board, without other players going up is too much of a longshot.
2) All or most of them stopped using steroids/performance enhancing drugs.
3) The balls and bats aren't as juiced.
4) Weather. Haven't looked into this to see if it was really a factor this year, but 2009 and 2010 will make it come into focus more.
5) Better pitching. No indication of this.

So which is it?

My vote is for #3, and I think that's the same reason home runs started going up around 1994.

If we are to believe, as the media and fans claim, that the home run boom of the mid-'90s to mid-00's was a result of steroids/HGH/etc., then those same people would have to conclude that the reason HR are now down is because Pujols, Teixeira, Dye, Berkman, Lee, Ramirez, Jones, Soriano, et al, were using these performance enhancing drugs but no longer are. It's either one way or the other. You can't say that steroids made totals go up, but then something else suddenly caused all these sluggers except Adam Dunn to lose their power. I think this should vindicate McGwire, Palmeiro and Bonds.

Thoughts?

[bigheadache]

In 2005, Berkman missed the first 6 weeks recovering from knee surgery. In 2006, he was heatlhy and great. Last year, he had a sore foot which bothered him the first half of the season. Only batting 220 before the all star break. This year, he started off great, but went into a tailspin in late June. He went 6 weeks without a homerun and never really recovered. As far as I know there was no injury, but it sure is strange how he went from MVP type numbers to no better than league average overnight. In the 4 1/2 seasons Berkman played before 2005, he only had one 40+ HR season (42) in 2002. There is really not a history of Berkman hitting 40 HRs on a consistent basis.

[Grandstander]

triad:

My vote is for #3, and I think that's the same reason home runs started going up around 1994.

Do you have some evidence that this was done? I mean evidence of this being planned and executed, not simply a conclusion extracted from a result. (HR went up, therefore the ball was juiced.)

To the contrary, there were numerous times when balls were tested to see if they had been changed and the results suggested each time that they had not been altered in any manner.

Evidence for your conclusion would be things such as identifying which owners met and when, to plan this clandestine alteration. Evidence would include positive results from testing which exposed the balls as having been adjusted. Evidence would include an announcement from MLB, such as they did the two times in MLB when the ball was juiced, 1911 and 1930. (Not 1920, contrary to the false assumption of many.) Evidence wouold include interviews with, or statements from, the workers who actually make the balls. If the process was changed, they would certainly know, yet not a single one has cracked and leaked the secret over the course of a decade and a half.

I find your thesis unsupported and unlikely. When put through the test of "If this is true, what else would have to be true?", we get serial improbabilities.

If all you are relying upon is B followed A, so A caused B, you have no case. There are numerous explanations possible ...steroids, expansion, smaller stadiums, and why not suspect the bats as much as the balls?

It this was some secret plot on the owners part, we would have to assume that it was a unanimous vote in favor because otherwise, any single owner opposed could have easily defeated the plan by threatening to go public with it. How did these 30 owners who seldom agrere on much, all come together for this deception?

[DR3AMR]

Its pretty obvious the steps MLB took to clean up the game are working. Players are scared of getting outed and ruining their reputations. So, they're not taking the risks they once did.

[jtur88]

Maybe it's the strike zone. This is a fluid variable, subject to some arcane instruction given to umpires at the winter meetings, which may or may not be adhered to in practice, either at the outset, or consistently through the season.

Here are some other stats, rendered as the change from 2004 through 2008, expressed as number of playes exceeding a given plateau.

30 HR / 37...27...34...26...26
A similar result, indicating that HR production has declined.

25 OHR / 44...34...38...28...26
Again a decrease in the number of pitchers allowing 25 home runs.

40 Doubles / 20...24...32...32...29
While fewer batters are hitting a lot of homers, more batters are hitting a lot of doubles. Extra-base hits are not down---only Homers.

1.5 G/F ratio / 32...30...36...27...27
Declining numbers of Ground-ball hitters, which should give us more balls hit into the air. This would suggest that the increase in doubles would be fly-balls in the gaps, short of home runs.

140 K / 13...8...12...14...13
80 BB / 25...20...29...24...27
Added together / 38...28...41...38...30
This would reflect a consistency in the number of balls in play.

I do not know the answer to the following questions, so I throw it out for analysis by someone who has the necessary information.

Has the strike zone actually changed in the past five years, particularly with respect to the top of the strike zone? How would batting stats be affected by a higher strike zone? Is a higher pitcher easier to hit for a home run, because the batter can get under it? Or is it harder to hit for a home run, because a batter can't get gravity-assist acceleration on the bat on a high pitch?

[Triad]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Do you have some evidence that this was done? I mean evidence of this being planned and executed, not simply a conclusion extracted from a result. (HR went up, therefore the ball was juiced.)

Sometimes the proof is in the pudding. What other viable explanations are there? That's my point. Inductive reasoning can also have its benefits. If you remove the unlikely explanations, what are we left with?

I will find a study on the elasticity of the balls in the mid to late '90s. Also, several pitchers indicated in the mid '90s that the seams on the ball changed and that it got tighter. Prominent former players have said that the ball beginning in the mid '90s travelled farther. Players said swings that normally would have produced harmless fly outs were going over the fence.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

To the contrary, there were numerous times when balls were tested to see if they had been changed and the results suggested each time that they had not been altered in any manner.

The MLB-sanctioned studies naturally produced that conclusion.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

If the process was changed, they would certainly know, yet not a single one has cracked and leaked the secret over the course of a decade and a half.

Why would MLB want the public to know? It's in their best interests to not raise suspicions of tampering, or even of unintentional alterations. Either way, it makes them look very bad.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I find your thesis unsupported and unlikely. When put through the test of "If this is true, what else would have to be true?", we get serial improbabilities.

I'm not saying it was a conspiracy, but it could have been implemented with good intentions, or the ball could have been changed without knowing beforehand that it would travel farther.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

There are numerous explanations possible ...steroids, expansion, smaller stadiums, and why not suspect the bats as much as the balls?

I am saying that it's likely some combination of the bats and the balls.

Care to explain the steroids theory in light of the data I posted in the opening post?

Expansion has shown to generally only affect league stats for 2-3 years, and then things level out again. It's fairly constant for '61, '62, '69, '77, '93 and '98. Or even 1901, for that matter.

Smaller stadiums? How does that explain that fly balls were going farther? The balls were going more than 10-20 feet farther. And did stadiums suddenly get bigger in the last two years?

I did a study on all 26 pre-existing stadiums of home runs hit from 1990-92 and 1993-95, and home runs went up in 24 of them, most of them noticeably. The data is clearly independent of stadiums.

Originally Posted by jtur88

Maybe it's the strike zone. This is a fluid variable, subject to some arcane instruction given to umpires at the winter meetings, which may or may not be adhered to in practice, either at the outset, or consistently through the season.

That's worth more exploration. Would umpire procedure adjustments not be announced in advance, and would they not be detected by the media? Are there articles wondering about this?

Scoring has been rather consistent the last 7-8 years in both leagues. If the strike zone is expanding, wouldn't scoring go down?

Anyway, it's an interesting thought.

Originally Posted by DR3AMR

Its pretty obvious the steps MLB took to clean up the game are working. Players are scared of getting outed and ruining their reputations. So, they're not taking the risks they once did.

They're consciously not swinging hard any more? This seems rather far-fetched.

[Grandstander]

Triad:

Sometimes the proof is in the pudding. What other viable explanations are there? That's my point. Inductive reasoning can also have its benefits. If you remove the unlikely explanations, what are we left with?

Those were covered in my post. And the above is precisely what I told is unacceptable as evidence, it is a conclusion sans having the connection made. You are looking at the bowl after the pudding has already been consumed and claiming the proof is in the pudding.

The MLB-sanctioned studies naturally produced that conclusion.

As did all other studies, including independent testing. I mean really, Triad, think about it. If the ball really was juiced, how could they possibly expect to get away with it when so many of them wind up in the hands of the public? Comparing balls drom one year to another is something MLB has no means to obstruct. What a stupid conspiracy it would be if your secret may be detected so readily.

[DR3AMR]

Originally Posted by Triad

They're consciously not swinging hard any more? This seems rather far-fetched.

How did you come to the conclusion I was talking about how hard they swing?

I was talking about them getting vitamin-S out of the game.

[jtur88]

I thought it seemed puzzling that you chose this stat (number of players hitting 40 or more) to illustrate your point. However, in this cases, it is consistent with the total number of homers per team in the past five years:

182...167...180...163...163.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I thought it seemed puzzling that you chose this stat (number of players hitting 40 or more) to illustrate your point. However, in this cases, it is consistent with the total number of homers per team in the past five years:

182...167...180...163...163.

At least somebody is going to make a real argument here!

The reason I chose the players with the most home runs was to ask the question: If those players' home runs are all pretty much down, then is it because these sluggers are not taking steroids anymore, or some other reason?

Originally Posted by DR3MR

I was talking about them getting vitamin-S out of the game.

OK, I think I understand now. So you're saying that Pujols, Ramirez, ARod, Soriano, Teixeira, Fielder, Lee, Berkman and A. Jones were previously on steroids when they were hitting 40+ HR, right?

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Those were covered in my post. And the above is precisely what I told is unacceptable as evidence, it is a conclusion sans having the connection made. You are looking at the bowl after the pudding has already been consumed and claiming the proof is in the pudding.

Ergo, you have no argument. Why do you have to rain on my parade if you have no argument of your own?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Triad

Ergo, you have no argument. Why do you have to rain on my parade if you have no argument of your own?

No, ergo you have no argument. At least not an evidence backed argument.

And that is my argument, that your assertion is one of speculation sans evidence.

And that explains the moisture on your parade. You should reschedule it for a time when you have something more substantial than "Offense went up, therefore the ball was juiced."

In addition, you do not address any of my counterpoints, apart from trying to pretend that they were not there.

A) When it has been studied in a scientific manner, whether authorized by MLB or indepndent of them, all of the results have been the same...no alteration of the ball. How come none of the studies have detected this change?

B) It would be the stupidest conspiracy possible to try and alter the ball without telling the public because MLB has no means to control balls winding up in the hands of the public which is free to conduct testing.

C) In the past, when the ball was altered, MLB did not do it in a clandestine manner, they announced the changes in advance.

D) There are plenty of possible alternative explanations for the increase in offense which do not require any juicing of the ball. They are all superior to the ball juicing theory because they are at least evidence based. We do know that there was widespread steroid use. We do know that there was expansion. We do know that hitter friendly stadiums replaced venues which were less friendly.

E) For your theory to be true, it requires a conspiracy of immense size, involving all of the MLB owners and everyone involved in the manufacture of the ball.....and all of them must remain silent. No maverick owners ratting out his enemies, no disgruntled ex employees getting revenge by revealing the plot.

So, what you are doing is rejecting that which we know in favor of embracing that which we do not know and also is very unlikely because of ease of detection.

So, I'm not buying any of it unless you come up with something which is more than mere postulation in absense of facts.

[jtur88]

It could be that players are being a lot more careful about taking ANY drug, including those that are permitted, just to avoid any untoward appearances. McGwire announced during his 70-HR season that he had taken an approved drug, for something---maybe an allergy or upset stomach or something. This could result in a number of players appearing in a number of games when not feeling 100%, or recovering more slowly from nagguing injuries, but afraid to even take an aspirin in the present atmosphere.

Or maybe, they're afraid to hit #40 because they don't want everygody screaming Steroids, so they put more contact PA's into their season at game-appropriate times.

[bigheadache]

It's that darned humidore. You can no longer go to Colorado and pad your stats.