Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
tadashi
Feb 20, 2006

Fitting that the Tour de France is going on since Barry is also the greatest cyclist who is also the greatest baseball player of all-time.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

tadashi
Feb 20, 2006

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/4845/baseball-between-the-numbers-what-do-statistics-tell-us-about-steroids/


quote:

By this definition, Power Spikes have been neither any more nor
any less frequent in the Juiced Era than in previous periods.

When you account for park and league effects, the power spike during the period when Bonds was setting records and a lot of other players had home run rate spikes (94-04) compared to the previous era (86-93) of baseball is basically the same thing statistically that has happened during various eras in baseball history.

tadashi fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Aug 17, 2018

tadashi
Feb 20, 2006

Ginette Reno posted:

I'm torn on how much steroids help because on the one hand only Bonds did what Bonds did so clearly that wasn't all or even mostly steroids but on the other you've got people like Greg Vaughn and Brady Anderson having 50 home run seasons. So what the hell

Statistical outliers happen all the time, though. MLB players are freak athletes compared to the general population.

Home runs are just one metric to measure outliers, too. Darin Erstad had a .951 OPS in 2000 for a 137 OPS+ but never made it back to the 100 OPS+ plateau again. Plenty of players have the potential to be good, they just don't have the consistency to be good.

tadashi
Feb 20, 2006

Ginette Reno posted:

Of course, but it's just you don't often see those random monster home run years any more. At least not from scrubs. Maybe the balls were juiced too in the 90s, or other explanations exist.

I wonder how much analytics are suppressing numbers. Pitchers have more data than ever to figure out how to get hitters out. And teams know better than ever how to defend. Baseball is so data driven now and teams know exactly what they need to do to have success. That has to have an impact on things. Though I guess you can say hitters have the same data, and are altering their swings/approaches to go for dingers more than ever, so maybe in some sense it balances out.

That's what I'm saying. Brady Anderson wasn't a scrub. Dean Palmer was smaller (by weight but the same height) than he was and he had multiple 35+ HR seasons during that span.

If I'm not mistaken, 1996 is one of the years that baseball writers love to unpack when they're short on ideas just because it's so packed with "Can you believe this guy did this?" moments. Terry Steinbach hit 36 HR after being a 10-15 guy his whole career. 1996 marked a career high in HR for a bunch of players and a lot of players were in their peak seasons for HR. It's a really fun year to fall down the rabbit hole for.

tadashi
Feb 20, 2006

Popete posted:

Yeah I'm not sure I buy into it just being statistical outliers when you're talking about multiple guys hitting 60+ homeruns. It's just not a thing you see happen anymore or before that time.

For the record I don't have strong opinions about the steroid players, they definitely don't deserve as much ire as they have drawn and the league clearly thew them under the bus.

In this line of thinking, the reason we pay so much attention to what happened during the PED era is probably just the raw, and out of context, numbers of home runs.

If earlier eras of baseball had 162 game seasons, we'd have a lot more 60+ HR seasons.

Hack Wilson (56 in '30)
Jimmie Foxx (58 in '32) - he hit 5 HR across the final 5 games of the season
Hank Greenburg (58 in '38)
Ralph Kiner (54 in '49)

So it [airquote]could[/airquote] have happened 3 times in a decade in the '30s if they had more games.

Kiner and Wilson would have been tough to pull-off but, in addition to the extra games, you have to consider that extra games also would mean more stress on pitchers so it's possible their HR pace would have improved.

Expansion pitching is a real thing and you can see it when you look at what happened in the late '70s. It usually comes with inflated batting stats. That doesn't make anybody innocent but it does mean that a whole lot of players who were hitting 50+ HR around the turn off the century weren't just getting extra help in the gym - pitching was bad and just getting hot during a few games a year in Mile High Stadium/Coors field could go a long way.

Also, notice that a lot of the guys who were hitting home runs in the high 50s or low 60s were in batter friendly environments:
Griffey, JR, in the Kingdome
Sosa in Chicago
McGwire was in the NL Central
ARod in New York/AL East
Ortiz in Boston/AL East
Brady Anderson in Baltimore/AL East
Thome in Cleveland

The only outlier, by park factors, I can really find are Greg Vaughn and Andruw Jones. Jones was an established 35+ HR hitter and Vaughn had done the same, so I don't think they are outliers in terms of their own home run hitting ceilings. You can probably find plenty of guys who had a season where their peak HR season was roughly ~20% higher than their average.

Like I said, it doesn't make anyone more or less guilty of doing something wrong, I just think people put way too much emphasis on the PEDs. Especially since players had been using PEDs since the 60s, that we know of.

  • Locked thread