of June is an incredible pace.  Is there any doubt that he's the best player in MLB right now?

Quick....someone do a blood test on him!!!

always thought he's one of the truly good guys out there.  He's one of the few untainted hopes for MLB!

That kind of thinking would seem to be contrary to what you name implies.

Ultimately, it seems that today's cynical nature of our society is having a very difficult time with displays excellence.  Therefore, suspicion permeates and accuasations fly ...

In the instance of Pujols, I do, however, agree with your assessment; but let's not put these guys too high up on pedestals.  Furthermore, if anything is to be banned from baseball, it is the "rush to judgement" which currently prevails.  But no matter what comes to light, baseball IS resilient, after all.

no reason to be cynical about him, I'd rather think of him as one of the major players upholding the sanctity of MLB statistics.  Baseball lives and dies on its statistics (at least for me), and the "steroid boys" have made a mess of the statistical base.  Thus far, only Griffey has come through the steroid era clean with big HR totals, and when all is said and done, I'm hoping that Pujols and Thome will join him.

I am curious to know if you are refering to only home run totals when you say "made a mess of the statistical base".

If you look at total hits as well as slugging percentage for all of MLB throughout the years, you will notice a relatively steady (no significant upward or downward trends) average for those statistics.  This steady rate would give credance to a "statistical base."  If that were the case (and I am not saying that there is one), then according to your statement that "the 'steroid boys' have made a mess of the statistical base", we would see the same steady frequency for HR totals up until about 1980 or so.  Upon which time, we should then see a noticable upward trend up until our present season.  However, thats is not the case at all.  In fact MLB home run totals have been steadily increasing, with no recognizable, statistical up tick throughout the last 25 years or so (i.e. 'the steroid era') Furthermore, the identifiable steady rate for HR increases would seem to lend further support to the statistical base actually being maintained.

Please clairfy the mess you claim has been made ... I am very interested to understand you point of view as it relates to statistics.

percentages would come into play here too.  McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Palmeiro, and to an unknown extent at the moment, A-Rod and Manny.  They clearly have screwed up the HR stats, and in the case of Bonds, the slugging stats too.  BTW, I don't know when the steroid era really began, but Brady Anderson's 50 might be a good starting point.

I remember a time not too long ago when GREAT player like Mike Schmidt would lead the league with 35 homers for the entire YEAR!

From 1969 to 1979, George Foster was the only player to hit 52 homers, one time. 24 players during that span managed 40 or more homers.

From 1980 to 1993, Cecil Fielder was the only player to manage 51 dings. Another 24 hit 40+.

From 1901 through 1997, only two players have ever reached the 60 homer plateau.

From 1994 through 2008, 2 players have hit 70+ homers; 6 players have hit 60+; 23 have hit 50+; and approximately 120 players have hit 40+ home runs.


Total MLB home runs fluctuated between ~2900 and 3400 every year between 1975 and 1994, with an occasional glitch. They were 3306 in 1994; 5064 in 1998; 5693 in 2000; 5451 in 2003; 5386 in 2006; back down to 4878 in 2008.

I'd call all that a significant hit to the statistical base.

Almost every player who has hit 50+ homers in the last 20 years has tested positive, or admitted to using steroids.

interesting.  Thanks.

I prefer to widen the view beyond the past 30+ years and look at the whole of the modern era (110 years) in order to assess all significant hits to the base when it comes to any and all statistics (and HR in this discussion).  When doing so, it clear to see that the HR base (while year-to-year and individual totals fluctuate) is not a fixed steady number.  It actually follows a noticible increase.

From 1900 - 1920, peak home run output was 0.2/game on serveral occasions.

From 1920 - 1941, these totals increased from 0.2/game (1920) to .64/game (1941).  So, 22 years, 320% increase in production.  I am sure there are plenty of good reason why this significant hit to the base occured, but I know for a fact that those stats have not been designated with an asterisks becuase of it.

Home run production dropped during WWII.

From 1945 - 1970, these totals again increased from 0.42/game (1945) to 0.8/game (1970). So, 26 years, 190% increase in production.

From 1970 - 2008, the increase has been from 0.8/game (1970) to 1.02/game (2008).  So, 39 years, 128% increase in production.

Please keep in mind that I am not here defending PED's and their use/place in baseball.  However, I am arguing that their so called "hit to the statistical base" begins to lose traction when one looks at the whole of MLB history.  As you can see there have been identifible jumps before, so it is difficult to single out current PED use as the culprit for any upward trend on MLB home run totals - a trend that began around 1920 and continues to this day.



-- Modified on 7/2/2009 8:32:57 AM

Not bad for a 13th round draft pick (I think) out of a Jr. College. Go El Hombre.

Exactly what are you implying that I made them say?  I was merely pointing out that home run production has continually increased through the history of MLB, and that the current home run production rates appear to follow that existing trend.

Again, please reveal how the proverbial "statistical base" has been messed up in recent years?

I think a better way to gauge home-run production over the decades would be to take the top 20 from each league, each year in that decade, and compare it to the top 20 each decade.

You only have to go to the 80s to see what I am talking about.  A Mike Schmidt leading the league in homers 8 times in his career.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schmimi01.shtml?redir

I think it is safe to say that Mike Schmidt was probably the best home run hitter in his era, and also a clean player.

Now let us look at Barry Bonds.  Why Barry?  I chose him not because he is the HR king, albeit a dirty one, but his career began as Mike Schmidt's ended, and also because, like Mike, he was a National Leaguer throughout and did not benefit much from DH-ing.

Look at the HR totals for Barry.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bondsba01.shtml

They are very comparable to Mike's for much of his career but the difference becomes apparent when you can pinpoint when Barry went on the juice.  Not only did his HR production increase  by a 1/3 or more every year after that, he was able to play longer.

I have to look at Pujols and his production the same way I look at Barry's...with the taint of roids.  Remember these big numbers bring in huge contracts for them.  Until these players are tested every month I look at all ballplayers as cheats, to be quite honest, which is a shame.

-- Modified on 7/2/2009 6:20:05 PM

Let us look at the totals and averages of each player from age 24-32, generally considered the prime time athletic years for a ballplayer.

Schmidt:  http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schmimi01.shtml?redir#1974-1982-sum:batting_standard

Bonds:  http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bondsba01.shtml#1989-1997-sum:batting_standard

You can see that Mike Schmidt barely bests Bonds in his prime years by averaging just 2 more home runs than Barry Bonds (36 vs. 34)

Now, here is where the fun begins.  Let us now look at these two players, post prime average numbers.  First, we look at Mike Schmidt.  Sadly, his career did not last long once he went past his prime, however, when you see his numbers and consider he was a clean player, his post prime numbers are pretty incredible.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schmimi01.shtml?redir#1983-1987-sum:batting_standard

Mike Schmidt was able to average exactly what he did in his prime....36 home runs.

Now let us look at Barry Bonds.  It is known now, that he started using in 1999.  We know the effects of using roids and other PEDs makes you less weak, faster to recover, and more powerful. That is scientific fact.  So to the numbers shall we!!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bondsba01.shtml#1998-2004-sum:batting_standard

WOW!!! On the juice, and in the years considered post-athletic prime, Barry Bonds was able to average 47 home runs!!! Too boot, he was able to carry on his post-prime career much longer than Mike Schmidt (the clean player.)  Barry Bonds, through the use of PEDs, was able to boost his average HR totals by a whopping 38%!!!!  (47 HRs on average post-prime years vs 34 HRs on average prime years)

-- Modified on 7/2/2009 6:44:04 PM

... in relation to the last 30+ years.  Are we to blindly ignore the previous 80+ years of statistics when trying to establish/come to terms with a statistical base?  If so, then I would conceded that the past 15+ years show a considerable shift.  But I hope you would be the first to agree that the whole of statistics must be looked at closely.

Does anyone concede that there were, in fact, significant jumps in HR production in the past as was previous outlined?  If so, what does that mean in relation to the statistical base?

-- Modified on 7/2/2009 8:01:07 PM

I'm not 100% clear rktect7 - are you saying that the incease in home run production in the 90's and 00's is due to a normal upward trend in home run hitting?

The game of baseball up until 1920 or so probably more resembled current high level softball than like the modern game of baseball. Ballplayers in general were ruffians who found they could make a few bucks playing a game, and it beat working in a factory. There was little consistency or quality in the manufacture of equipment - gloves, bats, and balls, and men were physically smaller. The game was to punch a ball in a hole - "hit 'em where they ain't" and then run around the bases at will. And, the game was rife with gamblers and dishonest players; the 1919 Black Sox scandal was just the culmination of years of corruption in the game.

Babe Ruth changed all that. He was 6'2" and around 200# as a rookie, and a superior, natural athlete. As his fame (and his ego) grew, he always wanted to do everything "big", and there was nothing bigger than the home run. He started hitting them at an unheard of pace, because he could. Only a few others also could - like his teammate Gehrig, or Ken Williams, and later guys like Jimmie Foxx and Al Simmons. Home run totals began a big increase in the 20's due to the Babe Ruth factor, and other players tryig to compete with him - and due to the average size and strength of ballplayers beginning to increase. The game itself changed, and more players swung for the fence on purpose, and stolen base totals were cut in half at the same time.

The steady increase in home run totals over the next 50 years of baseball can be attributed to a number of factors - the continuing increase in size and strength of the average player; the desire of players to hit more homers based on the attention, fame, and salary increases that came with higher totals; the improvement in the quality of bats and balls; the continuing improvement of the science of hitting - hitting coaches, training methods, etc.

There have been a few spikes over the years, like 1968 when Yaz was the only AL player to bat .300, and many starters had ERAs under 2.00 (Bob Gibson's record of 1.12 in 300 innings stands as one of the most ridiculously unbeatable records of all time). But we don't asterisk those records because we understand that shit happens, and while the statistics in baseball have remained remarkably consistent over the years, and fluctuations usually quite explainable, sometimes flukes will occur "naturally".

There is nothing natural about home run totals suddenly doubling. Ballplayers took drugs that altered their physical abilities and allowed them to shatter records that had stood for many years. NO athlete starts improving his output in his late 30's, but Barry Bonds did - significantly. Roger Maris lost his hair and almost lost his mind in his pursuit of Babe Ruth's 60 home run mark; it was a physical and mental challenge taht took an enormous toll. Thanks to the miracle of pharmacology, Mark McGwire, and later Barry Bonds, did it almost as an afterthought. Are these two guys, or the group of guys routinely bashing out 50+ homers over the last 20 years, significantly better hitters/ballplayers than Ted Williams, Joe Dimaggio, Henry Aaron, or Willie Mays? Please. They used drugs to enhance their performance, and in doing so, STOLE records away from superior ballplayers.

Baseball is a game where history and statistics are almost as important as today's game. Drug-induced records have no place in the game.

I have been trying to argue the statement that reported PED use has "made a mess of the statistical base."

In determining the validity of this statement, it must first be establish what that base actually looks like.  You clearly state:

"The steady increase in home run totals over the next 50 years of baseball can be attributed to a number of factors - the continuing increase in size and strength of the average player; the desire of players to hit more homers based on the attention, fame, and salary increases that came with higher totals; the improvement in the quality of bats and balls; the continuing improvement of the science of hitting - hitting coaches, training methods, etc."

So is the statistical base an upward trend for HR production?  Your own statement would lend support for this; and I do not belive that an upward trend would be called an aberration, but would be akin to assisting the understanding of a base in relation to overall HR production.  (Upon closer look, the increase during these years show three noticable jumps spanning several years, followed by moderate increases over the next seasons.)

If the above noted factors were true (and I believe your highlights are accurate), which would be more likely: that these factors have continued, that these factors have plateaued, or that these factors have receeded/ceased to be a part of baseball?

It is my opinion these improvement factors have indeed continued.  Therefore, it would stand to reason that HR production would show signs of increasing.  At some point in time, PED's were introduced into MLB, thereby introducing another factor to consider into the mix.  To single out the use of PED's as the sole factor for any increases since their introduction to MLB blindly ignores the other factors which you so eloquently highlighted.