Home runs are up again.

Raymond DiPerna wrote:

> Second, more importantly, I don't share your premise that the record
> books are "screwed up." It's the normal state of affairs. The "record
> books" have always been changing, since the first game was played, and
> will always change. We had the dead ball era. The high offense of the
> '30s. The low offense of the '60s. The average offense of the '80s.
> The high offense of the '90s.

Which means the record books are meaningless. If you're OK with that,
then no problem. It just depends on what your priorities are.
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

cr113.DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:
> Raymond DiPerna wrote:
>
> > Second, more importantly, I don't share your premise that the record
> > books are "screwed up." It's the normal state of affairs. The "record
> > books" have always been changing, since the first game was played, and
> > will always change. We had the dead ball era. The high offense of the
> > '30s. The low offense of the '60s. The average offense of the '80s.
> > The high offense of the '90s.
>
> Which means the record books are meaningless. If you're OK with that,
> then no problem. It just depends on what your priorities are.

It doesn't mean they're "meaningless," only that they have to be looked
at in context. Which is the way it's always been.

Does it bother you that no pitcher can hope to break Cy Young's record
for career wins (511), barring a radical change in the game? If that
doesn't bother you, I don't see why the current home run records would.

--Ray
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

igor eduardo küpfer wrote:
>The record books have as much meaning as you choose to give them. Me, I
> think they're pure numerology. A record book fetishist would say that Hank
> Aaron was a great home run hitter because he holds the home run record. I
> think that's totally backwards: Hank Aaron holds the home run record because
> he was a great home run hitter. If the game changes in such a way that home
> runs become easier to hit, and Aaron's record is eclipsed, that doesn't
> change the fact that Aaron was a great home run hitter. Only someone with a
> slavish devotion to the record books would think that diminishes Aaron's
> achievement.

True, but what if guys like Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, and Harmon
Killebrew all fall out of the top ten?
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> Moving out the fences wouldn't necessarily accomplish what you want
> (less offense), since a park affects offense in a number of different
> ways (background, wind, foul lines, fences, etc). It's not just the
> fence (and, of course, moving the fence back would mean that more
> singles would drop in, etc.).

I've always wondered about that. Suppose you put a fence up at 200 ft.
Obviously run production will be way up. As you move the fence back
runs will come down until you reach a certain point. At some point run
production will go back up because it will take so long to retrieve
hits that get past the outfielders and it will be impossible to hit a
ball over the fence. I wonder how many feet that would be? I would
think it would be a fairly long distance, maybe 400 feet. Don't forget
that the outfielders don't HAVE to move back, so more singles would not
necessarily drop in. I'd like to know if you could turn Coors Field
into a pitchers park.
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

cr113.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:
> After dropping off a little last year I've heard that home runs are up
> again this year. It makes me wonder how much of the increase in home
> runs (over the last 15 years) is due to steroids.

Well, what if the pitchers are on steroids more than the hitters are?
Cracking down on steroids may benefit hitters more. Playing the
causality-speculation game, maybe they're up this year because steroids
have been cracked down on harder.
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

igor eduardo küpfer wrote:
> Dealing with what players actually did, and comparing that to how other
> players did -- that's how you measure greatness. Not by the appearance of a
> player on a list.

Exactly. If the league average was 100 home runs, then a guy who hits
120 wouldn't be very special. So if you want to compare players of
different eras you need to adjust accordingly.

Who was a better home run hitter, Ernie Banks or Mark McGwire for
example?
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

cr113 RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:
> igor eduardo küpfer wrote:
>> Dealing with what players actually did, and comparing that to how other
>> players did -- that's how you measure greatness. Not by the appearance of a
>> player on a list.
>
> Exactly. If the league average was 100 home runs, then a guy who hits
> 120 wouldn't be very special. So if you want to compare players of
> different eras you need to adjust accordingly.
>
> Who was a better home run hitter, Ernie Banks or Mark McGwire for
> example?
>

McGwire. He hit them at an incredible rate, better than Banks even
accounting for era. You have to remember how often he was hurt.
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

>I know it's already too late but I wish the league would do something
>to "normalize" home runs.

Maybe more home runs are being hit because hitters have improved
relative to pitchers. In that case, "normalizing" home runs would
screw up the record books. If you keep tweeking things every year,
then comparisons would become even more meaningless. How do you
compare a 40 home run year with a 30 home run year with a higher mound,
higher fences, and bigger strike zone?
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

cr113 DeleteThis @hotmail.com trolled:
> Raymond DiPerna wrote:

> > Second, more importantly, I don't share your premise that the
> > record books are "screwed up." It's the normal state of
> > affairs. The "record books" have always been changing, since
> > the first game was played, and will always change. We had the
> > dead ball era. The high offense of the '30s. The low offense
> > of the '60s. The average offense of the '80s. The high offense
> > of the '90s.

> Which means the record books are meaningless. If you're OK with
> that, then no problem. It just depends on what your priorities
> are.

Exactly. All one can do is compare players with their peers.
Statfans are not comparing players when they cross eras. They are
comparing stats.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
Even Nelson Lu has no clue!
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

On 26 Apr 2006 10:34:09 -0700, cr113.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:

>After dropping off a little last year I've heard that home runs are up
>again this year. It makes me wonder how much of the increase in home
>runs (over the last 15 years) is due to steroids. I remember the talk
>10 years ago was that the baseballs were juiced. Maybe they were right.
>More likely it's a combination of different factors. Maybe fences are
>closer in?
>
>I know it's already too late but I wish the league would do something
>to "normalize" home runs. Maybe raise the mound or require minimum
>fence distances. It really screws up the record books. Actually the
>ultimate thing would have been to make year to year adjustments since
>baseball started, but who knew back then how important records would
>become?

How much are they up for it to be meaningful on April 26?

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

Steve <smalpert DeleteThis @hackmit.edu> trolled:

> But I don't think steroids can make you pitch faster - that's more a
> function of mechanics once you have a certain critical muscle mass. I
> would think that steroids makes your arm more durable (i.e. can throw
> more pitches per outing), which is of interest to the pitchers but may
> not affect the hitters. Also, even if you can pitch faster on steroids,
> the pitches that get outs (at least in the majors) are off-speed and
> off-location pitches, and no amount of steroids will improve those.

The steroids would improve your strength and this would improve your
endurance. But the biggest thing the steroids do for a pitcher is
rebuild the muscles in the arm, legs, trunk, etc., faster after a
long, hard, outing.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
Even Nelson Lu has no clue!
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

cr113.DeleteThis@hotmail.com writes:

>I've always wondered about that. Suppose you put a fence up at 200 ft.
>Obviously run production will be way up. As you move the fence back
>runs will come down until you reach a certain point. At some point run
>production will go back up because it will take so long to retrieve
>hits that get past the outfielders and it will be impossible to hit a
>ball over the fence. I wonder how many feet that would be? I would
>think it would be a fairly long distance, maybe 400 feet. Don't forget
>that the outfielders don't HAVE to move back, so more singles would not
>necessarily drop in. I'd like to know if you could turn Coors Field
>into a pitchers park.

I think that it depends on more than just the general distance to the
fences. One of my long time pet theories is that there's an impact from
where the fences are deep. Balls hit to the alleys and down the lines
are a lot more likely to roll a long way than balls hit toward the
outfielders' normal positions, so deep fences there will tend to boost
offense. The fences directly behind the outfielders' normal positions
only stop a few bouncing balls, but they put a fair number of fly balls
beyond the reach of the fielders, so deep fences there will tend to lower
offense.

The length of the outfield grass may also have an effect. Long grass will
slow down rolling and bouncing balls, keeping them from making it all the
way to the wall and thus reducing the offensive boost from deep lines and
alleys. Short grass or astroturf won't slow the balls much, letting them
get past the outfielders for doubles and triples. The opposite may be
true of the grass between the infield and the outfielders' normal
positions. There you probably want a relatively fast surface so that
ground balls that get by the infielders will make it to the outfielders
quickly so that runners can't stretch for an extra base.

So the ideal design for a low offense field would have:

1) Relatively deep fences in straight left, right, and center field (i.e.
right behind the OFs)
2) Relatively shallow fences down the lines and in the alleys
3) Short, fast grass in the shallow outfield
4) Longer, slower grass in the deep outfield

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again. 

Roger Nullset wrote:
> >I know it's already too late but I wish the league would do something
> >to "normalize" home runs.
>
> Maybe more home runs are being hit because hitters have improved
> relative to pitchers. In that case, "normalizing" home runs would
> screw up the record books. If you keep tweeking things every year,
> then comparisons would become even more meaningless. How do you
> compare a 40 home run year with a 30 home run year with a higher mound,
> higher fences, and bigger strike zone?

It depends on your perspective. Suppose Bob hits 50 home runs in a
league that averages 5 home runs per player. And suppose Joe hits 51
home runs in a league where the average home runs per player is 60.
Which is the more impressive feat? I would say Bob because he is so
much better relative to other players. Some might say Joe because he
still hit more than Bob.
 >> Stay informed about: Home runs are up again.