I don't have the means, technological knowledge, or motivation to research this, but I'm curious about a lot of things. Were a lot of players brought up in the last few seasons with the expectation that they wouldn't be home run threats (Michael Bourn, Willy Taveras types)? How improved is scouting for pitchers, given the recent trailblazing in technology? What about injuries -- have a lot of HR-type hitters been sidelined? Did the hitters that replaced these injured sluggers even come close to a respectable HR rate? Have "good" pitchers been avoiding more injuries than usual (insert Mark Prior or Mike Hampton joke here)? Are we accounting for the drop in HR rate at the ends of the careers of a lot of sluggers like Bonds, Sosa, Griffey, Sheffield, Thome, etc.? Are there more young players in everyday roles than there were a few years ago? How evolved have bullpens become in regards to preventing home runs?

I think that, before we point to the anti-drug policies as the reason for the lack of power production, these questions (and many others) need to be answered. Of course, a lot of them are probably unanswerable or don't provide enough of a background story to correctly connect the dots, but I think it's intellectually dishonest to just go "Decrease in power AFTER the drug policies were made more strict? CONNECTION!"

obvoiusly, now that pitchers aren't on roids, they can't throw as hard, so the ball doesn't get hit as far. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Thunderclap Newman is awesome. Nice reference.

Just say that guys look like ballplayers again, like they looked when I was growing up, not like musclemen

This to me is a weird statement to make. The players are still big, the only difference is that Barry Bonds is not in the league. Watch ESPN classic, almost nobody in todays game looks like those skinny guys grom the 80's. People are seeing what they want to see.

obvoiusly, now that pitchers aren't on roids, they can't throw as hard, so the ball doesn't get hit as far. Yeah, that's the ticket!

I actually think that has some effect. A small effect, but they all add up.

So why do you say anything?

You know, if I never see another idiotic comment like this, it will be too soon. Every ####### thread, you see at least a half dozen of these moronic throwaway lines. And each one is more tedious, tired and hackneyed than the one before.

I actually don't think it's a terrible argument, such as it is. Pitchers have gotten a huge free pass on the steroid issue. With the exception of Clemens, the outrage about steroids has been mainly directed at sluggers and rarely at power pitchers, which is probably unfair.

Nevertheless, last year was the first season since 1997 when baseball had fewer than 5,000 homers.

It should also be noted, for context's sake, that in 1997 MLB had only 28 franchises playing (no Arizona or Tampa Bay yet), so fewer total games were played. Could someone convert this into home runs per game?

Also, MacPhail's comment about the new Washington park doesn't make sense, since it appears to be somewhat more homer-friendly than RFK was, though it's certainly no Citizens Bank or Great American.

"Thunderclap Newman is awesome. Nice reference"

Ditto. Great album, although the piano solo was the same in every song.

Didn't Pete Townshend write that song?

I don't think pitchers have gotten a pass. They are tested just like the hitters. They have gotten suspended just like the hitters. What's different about the pitchers is they aren't demolishing records like the hitters, so the spotlight isn't shone upon them as brightly the hitters.

As far as testing, sure, they get tested and suspended like the hitters, but it seems like as far as the press is concerned, this is only about home runs. I can understand the argument that it was the home runs that got everyone's attention RE: steroids, so sluggers are under increased scrutiny. However, given what we've seen from the suspensions, most of the players are those for whom power is not the biggest part of their game.

I suppose it depends on how you think steroids have hurt baseball. If you think the primary concern is the sanctity of the records and the increased focus on home runs, then whether or not pitchers (or players who don't hit a lot of home runs) have taken steroids is of little concern, as long as they aren't breaking any records, or the game isn't changing in a significant way. As long as those crazy record-breaking outlier performances aren't there, then steroids aren't a problem.

If the records aren't as important, and your primary concern is just that using steroids is cheating, then it seems like all performances that are enhanced by steroids should be condemned more or less equally. Since the degree to which a player's performance is enhanced by steroids is kind of out of the player's control, I'm not sure the degree to which the player was successful at cheating should really be taken into account. I'm sure every pitcher that took steroids would have loved to be as successful as Roger Clemens.

Condemning hitters for cheating more than pitchers just because a few of them happened to be really, really good at it doesn't seem quite right to me. I think it suggests that it's ok to cheat, as long as you don't do it too well.

14 - salvomania:

No. He produced it, though.

It should also be noted, for context's sake, that in 1997 MLB had only 28 franchises playing (no Arizona or Tampa Bay yet), so fewer total games were played. Could someone convert this into home runs per game?

HR/9 IP -

NL -

1997 - 0.97
1998 - 1.00
1999 - 1.13
2000 - 1.17
2001 - 1.16
2002 - 1.01
2003 - 1.05
2004 - 1.11
2005 - 1.02
2006 - 1.12
2007 - 1.05
2008 - 0.97

AL -

1997 - 1.10
1998 - 1.10
1999 - 1.17
2000 - 1.21
2001 - 1.11
2002 - 1.10
2003 - 1.11
2004 - 1.15
2005 - 1.07
2006 - 1.13
2007 - 1.01
2008 - 0.87

Obviously the 2008 number will go up. It's still too early to say that anything's happening at all, much less that steroids are the reason that something's happening.

One thing I've noticed over the last couple of years which echoes pre-1993 eras:

There seems to be a lot more guys on the left (defensive) side of the defensive spectrum who can't hit. At all. From '93 to c. '05 there appeared to me to be a lot more glove men who could also hit the ball very well; doesn't seem to be that many any more (perhaps there never were that many to begin with). Quick-name the best hitting SSes we have now-I don't think any of them can compare at all to Tejada/Nomar/ARod/Jeter at their respective peaks. Okay we have Hanley, but there doesn't seem to be anybody else at his level (and his D will likely force a move to third soon anyway). A quick check of the other D positions reveals a similar pattern-a few good to great hitters, and a lot of hopeless cases-catchers who aren't any better than Boston's backup Dave Cash.

This of course is precisely how it has been for most of baseball's history; the best hitting glove men (up the middle positions) were notable, and celebrated, precisely because they were so rare. I don't know how 'roids fits into that (if at all), but that may be one of the big reasons for offense going back down. Maybe we were just in one of those weird confluences of fate to have 4 SS who could hit like that. Having said all that I will now on my 4 day weekend decide to actually quantify it a bit...

I think it suggests that it's ok to cheat, as long as you don't do it too well.

- more like,

we don't give a shtt if you cheat as long as you aren't historically great and don't hit more than 50 home runs in a year. we especially don't give a shtt if you are some nobody reliever or some utility guy

No. He produced it, though.

And played bass.

Is it too much to ask to try to imbue at least a tiny bit of insight and intelligence into what one posts?

HAHAHAHAHA

Indeed.