Friday morning, May 16th, on the Mike and Mike Radio Show on ESPN Radio, Peter Gammons was asked a simple question regarding an outstanding statistic.
Mike Greenberg's replacement that day, Erik Kuselias, reported that at the current rate Major League Baseball will produce 1,000 fewer home runs than two years ago. He then asked the baseball expert why this was ocurring.
In a laughable response, Gammons answered that the main differences were strategically motivated. Teams are thinking smarter and focusing on developing young pitching and that baseball nutrition was also undergoing a revision. Teams have been steering their players toward more versatile hitting bodies modeled after the winningest teams.
Come on. Was this a joke?
The dramatic drop in home runs is a function of fewer steroid and growth hormone users, which in turn, is a function of more stringent testing procedures coupled with stiffer penalties. Among the penalties brought upon accused and convicted players thus far, the most potent has been fan reaction.
Right now Barry Bonds is unemployed, as is Sammy Sosa. Considering the difficulty that several American League teams are having putting runs on the board (this means you, Detroit Tigers), it would seem that these players still have a lot of value as designated hitters. Despite this, these players have been chosen as scapegoats to bear the sins of everyone else that broke the rules during this era.
The main question that needs to be posed is not necessarily directed at the institution of Major League Baseball. Their crimes are well known and they are currently making retribution while working toward a better future.
Instead, the finger needs to be pointed in the direction of the news and sports media who have chosen to ignore the real issues that if covered, would have kept baseball accountable. Instead of opening up the book and brokering a deal with major league baseball and the fans by explaining the full extent of the scandal, the media perpetuates the same fantasy that only a few were users. These are periodically scapegoated in order to appease the fans who know that they were sold a lemon for over ten years.
The real reason for lack of home run production is well-known and the answer points to an answer that few are willing to accept. (WARNING: the next sentence will seem outrageous to those who live in a fantasy world) A majority of players in MLB from the early 1990's to the recent past were users on some level.
The only way to get over this issue is to realize this fact and move on. It is no longer necessary to attack Bonds, for Bonds is simply a more famous person guilty of the same crimes as most others.
Putting your favorite star on a pedestal as if he is the only innocent one only makes it worse.
comments (17) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
Jay,
Dude no disrespect meant but have you ever played baseball before? Hitting a baseball is the single hardest thing to do. Steroids and HGH do not I repeat DO NOT help you hit a baseball (i.e. your hand eye coordination). Barry Bonds is unemployed because he is a worm that no one whats in the clubhouse.
2 months ago
Yes, C.J., I played baseball in high school. I understand your argument, but it shows that you are the type of person very easily generates a comfortable fantasy. Look at the stats. They don't lie. The amount of home runs, scoring, and extra base hits have dropped immensely. Pitching ERAs are much lower than they were 2+ years ago.
HGH and steroids don't make you a better judge of pitch location. At the same time, they do give individuals power to go opposite field for a home run on a ball that in the past they could only swing for a blooper into right.
Barry Bonds is the type of teammate that is needed in Detroit. He would draw a lot of attention away from their guys that are withering under the spotlight. Can you give a source for your Barry Bonds, bad in the clubhouse, statement? All of the guys on Around the Horn seemed to think that he was a good teammate, just bad with the media.
By the way, you misspelled the word "want"
from 2 months ago
Dude,
Seriously high school baseball and the majors are a completely different game. I will give a great example: J. R. House was drafted out of a high school in WV and was considered by a lot of baseball scouts to the next great major league catcher (defense like Girardi and could bat like Piazza). Has not mounted up to the hype in the big leagues. You can talk about and blame steroids all you want (see WANT spelled correctly) but it is not the single number one factor. The truth is pitching is better this year. If steroids caused the numbers you say they did then why is Josh Beckett and Mariano Rivera so freaking unhittable in the postseason?
2 months ago
I guess the NL didn't get the memo?
LAST year the AL hit .255/.327/.404 in April and then warmed up
right now the AL is hitting .257/.320/.392
who is to say that will last all year?
And to repeat, if teyh drop n teh AL is due to stricter steroid testing etc- why hasn't offense dropped in the NL?
from 2 months ago
To CJ, I thought you would have given it up by now.
Once again, you focus your arguments on unrelated subjects. The postseason has nothing to do with the points being discussed. Those pitchers are very good. In the postseason every pitch matters more than during the 162 game season in the steroid era when a lot of weak swings were going over the fence. The postseason is an equalizer pitting the best players against each other. It does not affect the statistical spread that occurs over several years and thousands of games.
"The truth is pitching is better this year." This miraculous 1 year improvement is amazing. What do you think caused so many pitchers to get better all of a sudden, when they were giving up so many more home runs two years ago? Maybe these new rookies are that much better than guys at the end of their careers like John Smoltz, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Roger Clemens,, yeah, that's not a fantasy, its real.
As far as the difference between high school and college... no way, seriously, they are very different? I wouldn't believe it unless I read it on your comment. You have great command of the obvious. According to your logic, only pro players would be able to provide accurate commentary on the game.
I never disagreed that hand eye coordination was very important. I would also agree that it would be unlikely that steroids accounted for all the differences. The issue here is that people who already had great skill in this area were beginning to take substances that enhanced their bodies to make the ball go farther when they did hit it.
also, your story of the West Virginia catcher is sad. Maybe he should have taken steroids like everyone else.
The point is, if you would have actually read my post instead of jumping to defensive conclusions you would have seen that I in no way wish to discredit the achievements of Major League Baseball players who played during the steroid era. Playing professional baseball is extremely difficult. The main point of my article was that the media should report what they know to be true. Lots of players were using. Instead of making scapegoats out of a few, they should point out that it is too difficult and late to pass judgment. Call it what it was, a steroid era, change this problem to prevent it from occurring again in the future, and move on.
2 months ago
So this is the garbage blogging Bob Costas was talking about.
from 2 months ago
Well, you are entitled to your opinions. At least you spelled all of your words right.
I feel that the article has an interesting position that represents an educated viewpoint among scores that believe that only Roger Clemens, Jose Canseco, Barry Bonds, and Sammy Sosa did steroids. I admit, it wasn't easy. I fell back in love with baseball in the summer of '98 while watching the Cubs in St. Louis against my Cardinals. I now know that all was impacted dramatically by steroids. It doesn't change the fact that it was a good show, but it was not what it initially claimed to be.
Either way, you can't talk trash until you've shown something.
Until then, you're just a nobody from nowhere.
from 2 months ago
Why would Costas talk about a blog?
2 months ago
I'm not going to say I never make mistakes while posting, but if I knew that a complete stranger was going to read my first post on a new website, I would try to do a little bit better than, "if teyh drop n teh AL".
I don't want to have to write another post describing statistics to you, but the statistics given described a pace that will arrive at 1,000 fewer home runs that two years ago. Last year's statistics have nothing to do with the situation being described.
If you are trying to argue that early season slumps are commonplace, that argument might work. I then ask this question. How many fewer home runs would have to be hit before you would admit that a significant drop has occurred? I'm going to guess that even 1/2 of that number, 500, would be enough to be statistically significant (In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance).
2 months ago
"I then ask this question. How many fewer home runs would have to be hit before you would admit that a significant drop has occurred?"
Oh the drop in the AL would be significant all right- if sustained for the whole year-
but there has been no such drop in the NL.
Why the AL and not the NL?
Your reason for the drop should be affecting BOTH leagues.
from 2 months ago
Just curious, does the NL have a DH? Cause the AL does, and they are sometimes the users that the writer is talking about. Last year the Yankees led the league with just under 1000 runs, lets wait and see the Mitchell effect. Interesting that they're not talking about how worse the pitching has gotten since steroids.
2 months ago
Their was a drop by both leagues last year.
You are trying to draw a correlation that need not necessarily be true. My original post said nothing about the difference in totals between the two leagues. It only stated that they were on pace for a significant decrease.
2 months ago
Jay, I took the time to write a response to this blog.
http://crashburnalley.com/?p=140
2 months ago
Steroid use started as early as 1988, or at least that is when it exploded on the scene. I would say 80% of players since have experimented, at one time or another since. High school kids are being scouted, and told to gain another 20 lbs everyday. What can we expect, no takers? I would say most have tried it, some more than others. Not sure, but I think the date used in comparison was 2003, the year steroids were specifically banned. I can't believe Gammons would say otherwise, I watched him opine all off season about steroids. Were they talking about Boston alone? His birth control style homer goggles are pretty thick, aren't they?
2 months ago
i agree in part with your article - who actually took steroids is not a story anymore, but how it got so out of control is the issue. but i think the questions you are asking, and blaming the media for ignoring, is only part of the issue - MLB, the owners, the GMs the head coaches are as equally, if not more, guilty than the media. i think peter gammons, and other high profile baseball writers, love baseball so much that they just dont want to think about the bad. maybe they should, but peter gammons is hardly the problem with baseball and steroids.
also, as far as why numbers are down, i think it is much too early to say it is just about steroids. i'm not saying it isn't the reason or at least a factor, but it has only been 2 months. pitchers also used steroids, and i think to believe that players have stopped using performance enhancing drugs just because there is steroid testing is being a little naive.
2 months ago
What's fascinating to me is the perception of how quickly steroids work and then how quickly they wear off. I remember when Bonds had his injuries, the breakdown was blamed on his "steroid use". Then, it came out that many players used steroids to quickly overcome injuries quicker. Which one is it?
Remember when the home run boom started and it was all about the juiced ball? That baseball planted a special baseball in the game to make home runs go up?
Then, it was the smaller stadium trend... now it's steroids.
How about this one? EVERY time there is expansion in baseball, home runs and runs scored in general go up and then after a period of 5-10 years, the production starts to get back to normal. Guess that's too far fetched?
Look through the Mitchell Report... look at the names... some were great home run hitters, some were not (see David Bell). While steroids had some impact... let's keep it in perspective.
about 1 month ago
A very intersting article on a question that no one seems to want to address: is there a decline in homers since the Mitchell report started making headlines? I appreciate writers going further than Bonds and Clemens; I think they were merely the poster boys. McGwire, Sosa (and his corked bat), Palmeiro, and Sheffield come to mind. Aren't Thome's numbers down? How about Andruw Jones? Anyone else? I remember how certain good players had uncharacteristically insane spikes in power like Ken Caminiti and Bret Boone- and then I cannot help but stop and think how both men nearly doubled their HR season best between two years. Actually, I don't have to think about the late Ken Caminiti; he admitted to juicing during his 40 HR MVP season. I am also looking to note who either shaved their heads or got spike cuts during this time- as hair loss (and acne) can be a side effect of steroid use.
On a more serious note, I would very much like to see a stastical analysis of home runs hit over the last 15 years. I would like to see who "suddenly" found the stroke to ecclipse their season best by 10.
And while it's true that a steroid or HGH cannot provide better hand-eye corrdination or make you locate a pitch better, the added power it does provide to those with these skills is documented.
As for Gammons' response, I think he doesn't want to bite the hand- uh, I mean sport that feeds him.
So much for chicks digging the longball! I reckon there are less ladies at the stadiums these days.
write a new comment