No one to the hall this year

[M2]

Originally Posted by traderumor

It wouldn't necessarily be 50% to be a "main factor." It depends on how many factors you are proposing are in play. Plus, are all factors equally weighted? In other words, was this a perfect storm, where a number of ingredients mixed to cause an explosion that would not have been as great in isolation?

Fair points.

Originally Posted by traderumor

It is apparent to me that it is going to be very difficult to determine because the evidence is not of a very good quality, regardless of what factor is being considered. Anyone taking a dogmatic stance on their theory (and I'm not implying M2 is doing this) is going to have a hard time finding supporting documentation. Whatever went on, the tracks were covered pretty well, and I imagine those who would stand to lose the most are banking on the thing dying on the vine for lack of interest eventually. Of course, they will have to face their Maker.

Yep, and that's actually where my thinking's at with this. The evidence is dodgy and the supposed smoking guns never really had that much smoke. When you unravel the era, there's a lot more to it than PED. So, for me, PED has become a straw man that's more convenience than substance. What substance it has is hard to pin down.

One other thing that I think gets overlooked in assessing the era is the 1998 Yankees. We essentially saw a team with a perfect plate approach. It wore opposing pitchers to the nub. It was there to be done and they got there first, building a dynastic team in the process. After 1998 it was the industry standard to mimic their plate approach and pitchers - their numbers already thinned by expansion and working in smaller parks against hitters with power in all directions - simply fell behind the curve.

[M2]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Who do you think would have got it? One of the roid guys, sans roids?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...R_season.shtml

Interesting question.

Let's eliminate Mac from the equation because, as far as we know, he played on roids pretty much his whole career. We simply can't know what he'd have done without them.

Then there's the question of A-Rod. Was he juicing in 2001 and 2002? And if he wasn't and he got to face a league full of pitchers who weren't, would he have beaten out Maris?

Guys like Jim Thome, Shawn Green (49 HR in 2001) and Jr. possibly could have made serious runs if they were clean and if they got to face a league full of clean pitchers.

Then there's the two leading candidates: Bonds and Sosa.

Could Bonds have done it without becoming Gigantabarry? It's important to note that Bonds broke the record in 2001 partially because he decided to. He basically played that season with the attitude of "Oh, you want homers? Then I'll give you homers." His homer totals were his way of flipping everyone the bird.

At his core, Bonds is a baseball purist. Once he got the single season HR record, he went back to being the most ridiculous all-around hitter he could be. Could he have hit 80 HR in 2002, 2003 or 2004? Maybe, but he went back to his default wiring.

So could an angry, motivated, unenhanced Barry Bonds have topped 61 HR? I think there's a decent chance he could have. He'd have put that loft on his swing and maybe the balls fall in the stands instead of flying into the bay, but they're still homers. Dude wanted to make a point and he very well might have been able to make it without the juice. Bet he wishes now he'd tried it that way.

Then there's the curious case of Sammy Sosa. He had pretty good power before 1998 and his power spike came at ages 29-33, which is fairly standard stuff. He was athletic, he had a fast bat and he had a fairly powerful build (still does, unlike Bagwell Sammy's still pretty much the same size).

Like I mentioned above, if you had to pick a breakout HR guy from a list of likely candidates prior to 1998, Sosa would have been a decent pick.

He also started doing something different at the plate in 1998: taking pitches. His BB rate jumped to 10.1% from 6.3% and he climbed over 4 pitches per plate appearance for the first time in his career. He cut the number of pitches he swung at by 6%. He literally saw dozens more 2-0 and 3-1 counts. Regardless of whether he bellied up to the juice bar, dude figured out how to hit.

Mix Sosa's established power and ability with a vastly improved plate approach and put him in a league populated with expansion pitchers while he's still in his prime and it's a recipe for a power spike.

And here's a sub-roids question on Sosa: not did he, but if so when did he? Conceivably he could have started in the early 90s. That could have been part of the latent power that got unleashed in '98. Or maybe he started after '98 in order to keep the homers coming. Picking '98 as his only possible starting point with PED actually increases the potential that he achieved something while still clean.

And sub-sub-roids question on Sosa, if he used was it hardcore usage the whole time or was there a period where he only used sparingly? And, if it's the latter, then did he have the nascent ability to beat out Maris without any juice?

Given the vast amount we don't know, the rabbit hole goes pretty deep on this one.

[traderumor]

An often forgotten factor in this whole discussion is that the Reds pitching staffs single handedly made a lot of potential HOFers, a couple per team, during this era. Bill Hall is the first one to come to mind. Lance Berkman of course.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by M2

And no one was using steroids in 1930.

And numbers normalized the following year. 37 and 13 in 2001. Numbers still artificially high.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

And numbers normalized the following year. 37 and 13 in 2001. Numbers still artificially high.

Still the 29-30 season shows a bigger spike

1929-1930

25 - 1.000
38 - .900
172 qualifiers

36.6% of the qualifiers had a .900 ops or better

1999-2000

29 - 1.000
62 - .900
324 qualifiers

28% of the qualifiers had a .900 ops or better

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Still the 29-30 season shows a bigger spike

1929-1930

25 - 1.000
38 - .900
172 qualifiers

36.6% of the qualifiers had a .900 ops or better

1999-2000

29 - 1.000
62 - .900
324 qualifiers

28% of the qualifiers had a .900 ops or better

Not sure what you are getting at. My post was regarding the extreme drop from 2000 to present, which was in response to the OP stating that numbers are still high in comparison to the steroid era.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Not sure what you are getting at. My post was regarding the extreme drop from 2000 to present, which was in response to the OP stating that numbers are still high in comparison to the steroid era.

My point on your point was already made when I mentioned the drop from 1930 to 1942

The fact is if you want to use .900 as some sort of baseline the 29-30 season has more noise than your years

My main point is there are LOTS of factors not just one and the game has changed numerous times before steroids surfaced

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

My point on your point was already made when I mentioned the drop from 1930 to 1942

The fact is if you want to use .900 as some sort of baseline the 29-30 season has more noise than your years

My main point is there are LOTS of factors not just one and the game has changed numerous times before steroids surfaced

1930 is a huge outlier. 2000 isn't. The whole era is.

[M2]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

1930 is a huge outlier. 2000 isn't. The whole era is.

You're making no sense. In the middle of "the whole era" MLB started testing for PEDs and the numbers still stayed high. 2004-6 (supposedly clean) looked pretty much the same as 2001-3.

So there's lots of factors that contributed to the numbers shooting up and PED testing isn't what made the numbers go down. Not to mention that something is still contributing to this being a high HR era.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by M2

You're making no sense. In the middle of "the whole era" MLB started testing for PEDs and the numbers still stayed high. 2004-6 (supposedly clean) looked pretty much the same as 2001-3.

So there's lots of factors that contributed to the numbers shooting up and PED testing isn't what made the numbers go down. Not to mention that something is still contributing to this being a high HR era.

I wouldn't call 2004 supposedly clean.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

I wouldn't call 2004 supposedly clean.

The biggest jump in slugging percentage from one year was 1976 - 1977 .40 points.

That's the year they went from Spalding balls to Rawlings.

However I'll also note that 2006 is a bigger number all around then 2004

[Ravenlord]

Originally Posted by M2

Interesting question.

Let's eliminate Mac from the equation because, as far as we know, he played on roids pretty much his whole career. We simply can't know what he'd have done without them.

Then there's the question of A-Rod. Was he juicing in 2001 and 2002? And if he wasn't and he got to face a league full of pitchers who weren't, would he have beaten out Maris?

Guys like Jim Thome, Shawn Green (49 HR in 2001) and Jr. possibly could have made serious runs if they were clean and if they got to face a league full of clean pitchers.

Then there's the two leading candidates: Bonds and Sosa.

Could Bonds have done it without becoming Gigantabarry? It's important to note that Bonds broke the record in 2001 partially because he decided to. He basically played that season with the attitude of "Oh, you want homers? Then I'll give you homers." His homer totals were his way of flipping everyone the bird.

At his core, Bonds is a baseball purist. Once he got the single season HR record, he went back to being the most ridiculous all-around hitter he could be. Could he have hit 80 HR in 2002, 2003 or 2004? Maybe, but he went back to his default wiring.

So could an angry, motivated, unenhanced Barry Bonds have topped 61 HR? I think there's a decent chance he could have. He'd have put that loft on his swing and maybe the balls fall in the stands instead of flying into the bay, but they're still homers. Dude wanted to make a point and he very well might have been able to make it without the juice. Bet he wishes now he'd tried it that way.

Then there's the curious case of Sammy Sosa. He had pretty good power before 1998 and his power spike came at ages 29-33, which is fairly standard stuff. He was athletic, he had a fast bat and he had a fairly powerful build (still does, unlike Bagwell Sammy's still pretty much the same size).

Like I mentioned above, if you had to pick a breakout HR guy from a list of likely candidates prior to 1998, Sosa would have been a decent pick.

He also started doing something different at the plate in 1998: taking pitches. His BB rate jumped to 10.1% from 6.3% and he climbed over 4 pitches per plate appearance for the first time in his career. He cut the number of pitches he swung at by 6%. He literally saw dozens more 2-0 and 3-1 counts. Regardless of whether he bellied up to the juice bar, dude figured out how to hit.

Mix Sosa's established power and ability with a vastly improved plate approach and put him in a league populated with expansion pitchers while he's still in his prime and it's a recipe for a power spike.

And here's a sub-roids question on Sosa: not did he, but if so when did he? Conceivably he could have started in the early 90s. That could have been part of the latent power that got unleashed in '98. Or maybe he started after '98 in order to keep the homers coming. Picking '98 as his only possible starting point with PED actually increases the potential that he achieved something while still clean.

And sub-sub-roids question on Sosa, if he used was it hardcore usage the whole time or was there a period where he only used sparingly? And, if it's the latter, then did he have the nascent ability to beat out Maris without any juice?

Given the vast amount we don't know, the rabbit hole goes pretty deep on this one.

sheer brilliance.