Has 500 HRs lost it's luster?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I for one am tired of hearing that hitting 500 HRs has lust it's luster because so many players might hit 500 HRs in the future. The actual facts do NOT bare this out. So far only five players that either played the bulk of their careers or started their careers in the 1990s have hit over 500 HRs (This discounts Eddie Murray, a mostly 1980s player):

Barry Bonds
Sammy Sosa
Ken Griffey ,Jr.
Rafael Palmeiro
Mark McGwire

Right now I see three other current players with at least a fair chance at 500 HRs; A-Rod, Manny, and Sheffield and maybe Thome. Given their ages and injuries, I believe that Frank Thomas and Jeff Bagwell will fall short by a confortable margin

Now, lets contrast this with players that began their careers in the 1950s. EIGHT players who began their careers in the 1950s hit over 500 HRs:

Willie Mays (1951)
Mickey Mantle (1951)
Eddie Matthews (1952)
Ernie Banks (1953)
Hank Aaron (1954)
Harmon Killebrew (1954)
Frank Robinson (1956)
Willie McCovey (1959)

Seven of the eight are grouped within five years and six of the eight are grouped within three years. Given that there were far fewer teams in the 1950s-60s, doesn't it seem that hitting 500 HRs was easier for the 1950s guys?

[Ubiquitous]

I would say the 50's (or I should say the players that played in the 60's) guys are the ones that created the club in the first place. Before that you have what 3 or 4 guys above 500? Not to mention that before 69 and the MAc Encyclopedia most people didn't know the stats or probably really care about them all that much. Sure you could get your hands on the bare essentials but I wonder how many people actually knew the stats? Ted Williams had to have a guy research it for him, so I wonder about the common man.

Anyway clubs are a way of linking people together and excluding others. The 500 club had all these players that for the most part are revered as gods, now some of the riff-raff is getting in and that causes problems for people. You don't want a Jose Canseco or a Dave Kingman rubbing elbows with Willie Mays and Mike Schmidt. You solve that by having a 500 club and presto those players disappear. But like I said due to the changes they are back in and it causes problems because they can't change the club and still keep the greats in. you can't raise the bar to 600 home runs because then you lose all the greats and probably keep most of the players you wanted to exclude.

[Barnstormer]

If you're talking about active guys who at least have a "decent" chance, I think your list is a little short.

But it's a great question. To be fair, we can just look at players who started in the 90s (no Bonds, Sosa, Sheff, Pujols) who have reached or have a decent chance at 500:

1991 Jim Thome, Bagwell
1992: Mike Piazza
1993: Banner year -- Man Ram, J. Edmonds (long shot but not zero shot for 500), Chipper Jones, Shawn Green, Carlos Delgado.
1994: A-Rod
1995: Jason Giambi - 2005 AL Comeback Player of the Year, still only 34, not done yet!
1996: Andruw Jones, Vladimir Guerrero
1997: Todd Helton (possible, still a ways to go), David Ortiz

I won't even count 98 or 99, though there are a few who started in those years who are easily on track for 500 (Troy Glaus, Lance Berkman, Soriano).

So you have 14 possibles, half of them almost sure things, in a 7 year span. Add those who started in the late 80s that you mentioned (Bonds, Sosa, Mac, Raffy, Junior, Sheff), and you have a situation where by 2010, at least half of the 500-HR list will be players who hit their 500th after 1995. In other words the list will have doubled between 1995 and 2010.

I'd say this qualifies as a kind of a "bubble".

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If you're talking about active guys who at least have a "decent" chance, I think your list is a little short.

But it's a great question. To be fair, we can just look at players who started in the 90s (no Bonds, Sosa, Sheff, Pujols) who have reached or have a decent chance at 500:
Bagwell and Thomas will not make it both need more than 50 HR both will be 37 next season. Given their injuries I say no way.

Piazza is a catcher and has begun a severe decline phase. He has 397 HRs through age 36. He won't make it.

Manny will make it for sure if healthy

Chipper Jones has 331 thorigh age 33. Iffy at best given his injuries plus he only hit 21 HRs in 2005.

Edmonds has 331 HRs through age 35. He won't make it.

Giambi has only 313 and will be 35 next season. With no defensive value and his body type he won't even come close to 500 HRs.

Guerrero will make it if he stays healthy.

Andruw Jones has a chance if his 51 HR season is a real power increase. More likely it is a fluke. But he has over 300 HRs at age 28 so he has a strong chance at 500 HRs.

Todd Helton has 271 Hrs through age 31. Not a good chance.

Davis Ortiz has 177 Hrs though age 29. No chance.

Glaus, Soriano, and Berkman, way to soon to say anything. Berkman only has 180 HRs through age 29. Not a real good chance. Soriano won't make it. He only has 162 HRs though age 29. Glaus has 219 Hrs through age 29. I doubt he'll make it.

Of the players you listed I only consider Andrew Jones, Vlad, and and Manny as strong candidates for 500 HRs. Even if all three do make it that's be eight total 500 HR guys but with many more teams than the number of teams in the 1950s. Also the 1950s group is grouped within eight seasons. Bonds debuted in 1986 so you're covering more seasons.

For me a player has a "good" chance for 500 HRs if they have about 280 HRs by age 30.

[Ubiquitous]

I would agree with most of that. Hard to see Bagwell with his shoulder problems and age getting to 500 now. Thomas well he can't stay healthy.

I think the only one right now that has a legit shot is Pujols for youth that is.

I think Sheffield, Ramirez, Arod, Vlad, and possibly Delgado will make it as well.


Hey anyone else notice that BRef has already got the 2005 season up? Probably the fastest I have ever seen them update. That probably means the LAhman database has updated as well.

[Barnstormer]

OK, I agree about Giambi, but still think Chipper and Helton have a 50/50 chance (Helton's HR declined this season, we'll have to see if this is a permanent decline).

While Big Hurt is probably just about done, I think Bagwell has 50 more in him.

Papi is a late bloomer but has had two monster years and is still in his prime - he would need to average 40 HRs for the next 8 seasons, or 33 for the next 10, a long shot perhaps but not impossible.

Two people I named who you didn't address were Shawn Green (303 HR through age 32, never gets injured) and especially Carlos Delgado (369 HR through age 33, also durable). I think the odds are that they will make it.

I'd be interested to see what other people think - maybe start a "who will reach 500" poll?

[Ubiquitous]

Shawn Greens home run total last 3 years, 19, 28, 22. Shawn Green for the most part has played the last several years hurt, his shoulder has been bothering him for a few years now, which is why they moved him to first in 2004. Quite possibly it has never healed right thus sapping his power. I don't know but his power output has dropped tremendously.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

OK, I agree about Giambi, but still think Chipper and Helton have a 50/50 chance (Helton's HR declined this season, we'll have to see if this is a permanent decline).
With Chipper I'm on on the fence. If he can get healthy and have a few more 35-40 HR seasons then he has a good chance. Delgado has a very good chance but playing in Florida will hurt him.

[Blackout]

thanks to steroids 500 is no longer a magical number

[digglahhh]

I think seasonal homerun totals take a greater hit in this era. To get to 500, you need a lot of longevity and consistency. As it stands now, I don't see too many guys reaching 500 who I don't deem Hall worthy.

Of the previous list I see A-Rod, Manny and Vlad as strong candidates, and easy HOFers.

The Joneses have solid shots and are probably HOF material as well.

Sheff has a good shot too

I can't really make heads or tails of Helton now, we have to see which Helton suits up next year. Although, I'd say if you play most of your career in Colorado, I'd like to see more than 500 to merit enshrinement.

[Chisox]

While Big Hurt is probably just about done, I think Bagwell has 50 more in him.

I think you've got that backwards. Bagwell said a couple years ago that he would retire after 2006 due to his shoulder. Thomas's power numbers are there, so I think he'll make it, unless he desides to retire early. With the exception of BA, his rate stats have been around his careers since 2001. From 2001-2004 Thomas averaged 23 HR/Seas, or 92 total, in 344AB (.067) and 98 G a seas. He hit 12 HR in only 34G and 105AB in 2005 or a % of .114

[rainout]

thanks to steroids 500 is no longer a magical number

Instead of just spewing out garbage without thinking, why don't you take the time to read the first post and figure out what his point is? :rolleyes:

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The point I was trying to make was with all the bluster about so many guys that might hit 500 HRs the current generation may not have as many 500 HR hitters as the 1950s generation. Going into the 1951 season there were only three members of the 500 HR club, Ruth, Foxx, and Ott (Williams was nine years away from his 500th HR). Then the 1950s generation added eight players who hit their 500th HRs from the late 1960s to the mid 1970s. So far the current generation has five 500 HR players with three more with stong chances (A-Rod, Manny, and Sheffield). So why does this generation get "ridiculed' with all the "phony" 500 HR guys while the 1950s guys get immortalized?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I would say the 50's (or I should say the players that played in the 60's) guys are the ones that created the club in the first place. Before that you have what 3 or 4 guys above 500? Not to mention that before 69 and the MAc Encyclopedia most people didn't know the stats or probably really care about them all that much. Sure you could get your hands on the bare essentials but I wonder how many people actually knew the stats? Ted Williams had to have a guy research it for him, so I wonder about the common man.

Good point. Would Killebrew and Banks be considered "riff-raff" compared to Mays, Aaron, and Robinson?

[Blackout]

Instead of just spewing out garbage without thinking, why don't you take the time to read the first post and figure out what his point is? :rolleyes:

looks like somebodies suffering from roid rage themselves huh :crazy

what a bitch

[rainout]

looks like somebodies suffering from roid rage themselves huh :crazy

what a bitch

Thread: I'd like to offer some evidence to dispute myth X.

You: "Myth X."


Post first, think never? :waving

[Dodger]

The point I was trying to make was with all the bluster about so many guys that might hit 500 HRs the current generation may not have as many 500 HR hitters as the 1950s generation. Going into the 1951 season there were only three members of the 500 HR club, Ruth, Foxx, and Ott (Williams was nine years away from his 500th HR). Then the 1950s generation added eight players who hit their 500th HRs from the late 1960s to the mid 1970s. So far the current generation has five 500 HR players with three more with stong chances (A-Rod, Manny, and Sheffield). So why does this generation get "ridiculed' with all the "phony" 500 HR guys while the 1950s guys get immortalized?

We probably need to let some time pass to see how many 500 HRs end up from this era. Its sad that the legit guys will be seen as guilty by association, hopefully not. Even if the 500 barrier isn't surpassed by too many more than in the 50s, the 50 HR (and 60 HR) in a season surely has a lot less meaning today.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

We probably need to let some time pass to see how many 500 HRs end up from this era. Its sad that the legit guys will be seen as guilty by association, hopefully not. Even if the 500 barrier isn't surpassed by too many more than in the 50s, the 50 HR (and 60 HR) in a season surely has a lot less meaning today.

I wouldn't say it has less meaning but a different meaning...

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Bonds HR

ages 21-34 = 445

ages 35 - present = 263

We can't really say that a guy "won't make it" if he's a certain age. Anything is possible with HGH not being tested for, and the next best undetectable fountain of youth already on its way.

Nutrition knowledge, injury prevention/rehab has become much better also.

As far as the 500 HR club, it doesn't mean as much as it used to for me anymore. Not at the rate homers are flying out of the yard. 35 dingers used to be a great season, now, its a great total at the all-star break.


Times 50 HR has been hit since :

1995 - present : 19 times

beginning of baseball - 1994 : 18 times (Ruth 4, Mays 2, Mantle 2, Foxx 2)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Bonds HR

ages 21-34 = 445

ages 35 - present = 263

We can't really say that a guy "won't make it" if he's a certain age. Anything is possible with HGH not being tested for, and the next best undetectable fountain of youth already on its way.

Nutrition knowledge, injury prevention/rehab has become much better also.

As far as the 500 HR club, it doesn't mean as much as it used to for me anymore. Not at the rate homers are flying out of the yard. 35 dingers used to be a great season, now, its a great total at the all-star break.


Times 50 HR has been hit since :

1995 - present : 19 times

beginning of baseball - 1994 : 18 times (Ruth 4, Mays 2, Mantle 2, Foxx 2)

Why is this so? I've given evidence that the current generation may have fewer 500 HR players than the 1950s players. So shouldn't the 1950s be lowered since it may produce more 500 HR guys. So far the 1950s leads the 1990s 8-5 and the 1990s list includes players that debuted in the 1980s.

[Dodger]

Why is this so? I've given evidence that the current generation may have fewer 500 HR players than the 1950s players. So shouldn't the 1950s be lowered since it may produce more 500 HR guys. So far the 1950s leads the 1990s 8-5 and the 1990s list includes players that debuted in the 1980s.

May is the key word, its likely to be more.

Any 50 and 60 HRs in a season do have a different meaning, LESS.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Why is this so? I've given evidence that the current generation may have fewer 500 HR players than the 1950s players. So shouldn't the 1950s be lowered since it may produce more 500 HR guys. So far the 1950s leads the 1990s 8-5 and the 1990s list includes players that debuted in the 1980s.

I like how you didn't comment on the 50 homer thing. Slick ;)



All time HR list; 5 of the top 12 spots are now taken by players of this era, and 4 of the top 9 are players in this era who are "suspected" of using PED's.

McGriff and Canseco would have gotten to 500 had someone given them a shot for just a little longer.

Aside from Arod, Manny, Bagwell, and Thomas, these players have a shot. Of course anything can happen but this is based on them playing until they're 39 and staying healthy. They could also avg more and retire before 39.


Chipper (avg 30 HR/year = 511)
Thome (avg 20 HR/year = 530)
Delgado (avg 25 HR/year = 519)
Vlad (avg 25 HR/year = 555)
Andruw (avg 20 HR/year = 521)
Helton (avg 29 HR/year = 503)
Rolen (avg 30 HR/year = 501)
Berkman (avg 32 HR/year = 500)
Dunn (avg 25 HR/year = 508)
Lee (avg 30 HR/year = 508)
Green (avg 29 HR/year = 506)
Glaus (avg 26 HR/year = 505)
Tejada (avg 30/year = 516)
Konerko (avg 30/year = 510)

Cabrera - too early to tell
Beltre - if he played in Boston
Abreu - could go either way
Pujols - lock if stays healthy
Floyd - if he played in Minnesota
Burrell - in that park anything is possible

[Barnstormer]

Why is this so? I've given evidence that the current generation may have fewer 500 HR players than the 1950s players. So shouldn't the 1950s be lowered since it may produce more 500 HR guys. So far the 1950s leads the 1990s 8-5 and the 1990s list includes players that debuted in the 1980s.

This is a good point, there is still a way to go and a lot of unknowns before the 90s catch the 50s, even though I think there will be more 500-club players who started their careers in the 90s than in the 50s, we don't have all the evidence in yet. If your point is that 500 HRs still mean something and the 500-club doors have not in fact been opened to just any doped-up player from the 90s, I completely agree.

However, taking the 90s is arbitrary, lets take all those players whose career started from 1985-1994. Then there is a better case to say that in that "generation" we can already safely say there are more 500 HR hitters, even just taking those who you admit to - McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Griffey, Manny, A-Rod, Raffy, Sheffield, with Carlos Delgado as a "strong chance". That's 9, and I would add Thome and Chipper to that group, but you wouldn't, which is fine. But stretch it two more years, to those beginning in 1996, and you add Vladimir and Andruw Jones, making 11 in a 12-year span, just of the ones you have admitted to. Many people would add a few to that group. If you look at it this way, the last 20 years is certainly unique in terms of producing 500-HR hitters. And I would suspect that in terms of producing members of the 400 club, the difference is even more pronounced.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

This is a good point, there is still a way to go and a lot of unknowns before the 90s catch the 50s, even though I think there will be more 500-club players who started their careers in the 90s than in the 50s, we don't have all the evidence in yet. If your point is that 500 HRs still mean something and the 500-club doors have not in fact been opened to just any doped-up player from the 90s, I completely agree.

However, taking the 90s is arbitrary, lets take all those players whose career started from 1985-1994. Then there is a better case to say that in that "generation" we can already safely say there are more 500 HR hitters, even just taking those who you admit to - McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Griffey, Manny, A-Rod, Raffy, Sheffield, with Carlos Delgado as a "strong chance". That's 9, and I would add Thome and Chipper to that group, but you wouldn't, which is fine. But stretch it two more years, to those beginning in 1996, and you add Vladimir and Andruw Jones, making 11 in a 12-year span, just of the ones you have admitted to. Many people would add a few to that group. If you look at it this way, the last 20 years is certainly unique in terms of producing 500-HR hitters. And I would suspect that in terms of producing members of the 400 club, the difference is even more pronounced.

It's possible the current group will have more 500 HR guys. But there is one more caveat. The 1950s only had 16 teams. There are 30 teams today. So in terms of the number of teams, if the current generation produces say 11 500 HR guys, that still less 500 HR guys per team.

[Chisox]

It's possible the current group will have more 500 HR guys. But there is one more caveat. The 1950s only had 16 teams. There are 30 teams today. So in terms of the number of teams, if the current generation produces say 11 500 HR guys, that still less 500 HR guys per team.

I was wondering when that was going to be brought up. There's twice as many players as there was in the '50s. I think 500 HR has lost some value simply because all HR have lost value, though. But, put aside the record season's of '98 and '01, and the season highs look very similar to the '20's and '30s. There are just more players reaching season mile-stones now than ever before, a trend that has continued since the live-ball era started. With the advent of the DH, a new power position has been created, and many players are hitting more HR in there career by being able to DH late in it. Jackson and Murray hit a bunch at DH at the end of their careers. I really think we should be comparing recent elite power hitters to elite '20 and '30 era power hitters, maybe a much more difficult task considering how few there were, but really how many would be hit by Ruth, Ott, Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg in this era, season-wise and career-wise? I really don't think that the season numbers would increase much, but I think the DH would increase career #s.

[leecemark]

--The opposite is actually true. The guys who started in the 50s and reached 500 were not, as a rule, hitting as many HR in a season as the recent/current guys. As someone pointed out earlier, there have been as many 50 HR seasons in the last 10 years as there were in the previous 70 years. It is definately easier to hit HR now.
--What got the earlier group of power hitters to 500 was that they were consistently good/great over long careers. They got started early and didn't break down early or often. Some of them lasted into the DH era, but none needed the DH to get to 500.

[Cubsfan97]

How about 600? Soon 600 will be overpopulated. A list of people who may be in the 600 club by the end of their career I include Bonds since Career isnt over even though hes in the 700 Club

Bonds
Sosa
Pujols
Rodriguez
Manny Ramirez
Vladimir Guererro

Honorable Mentions
Andrew Jones
Aramis Ramirez
Jim Thome
Rafael Palmeiro (if a team signs him)
Ken Griffey Jr.

See how this overpopulates 600.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I like how you didn't comment on the 50 homer thing. Slick ;)
Ok, I'll comment. The game has changed. Yes, there are more HRs today. But what does that mean? Today there are many more sprinters that can run the 100 m under 10 seconds than 40 years ago. The game is mearly different than it was in the 1950s.



All time HR list; 5 of the top 12 spots are now taken by players of this era, and 4 of the top 9 are players in this era who are "suspected" of using PED's.

When Willie McCovey retired the 1950s group had 8 of the top 12 HR all-time leaders.



McGriff and Canseco would have gotten to 500 had someone given them a shot for just a little longer.
But the fact is that McGriff and Canseco didn't reach 500 HRs. So they do not count. Canseco wasn't that close anyway. His constant injuries kept him from 500 HRs.



Aside from Arod, Manny, Bagwell, and Thomas, these players have a shot. Of course anything can happen but this is based on them playing until they're 39 and staying healthy. They could also avg more and retire before 39.

I already address most of these players:



Chipper (avg 30 HR/year = 511) Depends on health
Thome (avg 20 HR/year = 530) His bad back will keep him from 500
Delgado (avg 25 HR/year = 519) good chance
Vlad (avg 25 HR/year = 555) If healthy, yes
Andruw (avg 20 HR/year = 521) If 51 HR season is "real", decent chance
Helton (avg 29 HR/year = 503) Is already declining, no chance
Rolen (avg 30 HR/year = 501) 231 HR through age 30, low chance
Berkman (avg 32 HR/year = 500) only has 180 HR and will be 30 in February, no chance
Dunn (avg 25 HR/year = 508) Too soon to tell
Lee (avg 30 HR/year = 508) His 46 HRs in '05 a career high by 14, a fluke season
Green (avg 29 HR/year = 506) has 19, 28, and 22 HRs the last three seasons. No chance.
Glaus (avg 26 HR/year = 505) Only has 219 and will be 30 next season. Very low chance
Tejada (avg 30/year = 516) only has 216 HRs and will be 30 next season. Not likely to reach 500 HRs
Konerko (avg 30/year = 510). Only has 210 HRs and will be 30 next season. Since he is a first baseman and plays in a good hitters I give he a decent chance.

Cabrera - too early to tell
Beltre - if he played in Boston But he doesn't
Abreu - could go either way No way! Only has 190 HRs and will be 32 in March
Pujols - lock if stays healthy I agree
Floyd - if he played in Minnesota But he doesn't. Has 202 HRs though age 32 plus long injury history.
Burrell - in that park anything is possible Hmmm...if he has more seasons like 2005, maybe.

Again my initial post I made a point that many people want to discount this generation because of the possibility of many 500 HR guys. But if one carefully looks at the facts there will not be as many 500 HRs guys as people believe. Right now I give A-Rod, Manny, and Sheffield as strong chances for 500 HRs. Bagwell and Thomas will not make it. Of the other players listed I see Delgado and and the Jones boys as potential 500 HR hitters. The rest I don't give much chance at all, mostly because of injuries and too few HRs through age 30-32. Most players have their best seasons before age 32. I am on the strong belief that to reach 500 HRs a player needs about 280 HRs by age 30. I checked all the 500 HR hitters and calculated their HR total through their age 30 seasons.

Griffey 438
Foxx 429
Mantle 404
Matthews 399
Robinson 373
Ott 369
Aaron 366
Sosa 340
Killebrew 336
Mays 319
Ruth 309
Banks 298
Bonds 292
Schmidt 283
Jackson 281
Murray 275
McCovey 268
Williams 265
McGwire 238
Palmeiro 194

This is very telling because it shows that most of the 500 HR hitters do most of their damage before age 30. Most of them are way past halfway to 500 HRs by then. It's intersting that of the top 10 in terms of HRs through age 30 only two are current players (Griffey and Sosa).

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ok, I'll comment. The game has changed. Yes, there are more HRs today. But what does that mean? Today there are many more sprinters that can run the 100 m under 10 seconds than 40 years ago. The game is mearly different than it was in the 1950s.


Sprinters? They are better "athletes" in general today because of natural evolution of the human body, nutrition, financially able to train year round, better shoes, surface, etc. The equivalent would be that if they were reaching those better times by the committee moving the distance closer, but still saying its 100m. Or if there was artificial wind behind the runners resulting in faster times, but nobody acknowledges it.

Take what you want from this, but here are the average number of triples and homers per team in the majors every year.

First column is the triples, second is the homers. I'm gonna finish it when I get home from work, but heres what I have. Sorta shows how the game has changed a bit.



2005 – 30 - 167
2004 – 30 - 182
2003 – 31 - 174
2002 – 31 - 169
2001 – 31 - 182
2000 – 32 - 190
1999 – 31 - 184
1998 – 30 - 169
1997 – 31 - 166
1996 – 30 - 177
1995 – 29 - 146
1994 – 25 - 118
1993 – 34 - 144
1992 – 33 - 117
1991 – 34 - 130
1990 – 33 - 128
1989 – 33
1988 – 32
1987 – 34
1986 – 33
1985 – 37
1984 – 38 - 125
1983 – 40 - 127
1982 – 37 - 130
1981 – 25 - 69
1980 – 41 - 118
1979 – 41 - 132
1978 – 39 - 114
1977 – 45 - 140
1976 – 40 - 93
1975 – 37 - 112
1974 – 35 - 110
1973 – 33 - 129
1972 – 31 - 106
1971 – 34 - 119
1970 – 39 -
1969 – 35
1968 – 34 - 100
1967 – 39 - 115
1966 – 41
1965 – 39
1964 – 38
1963 – 39
1962 – 43
1961 – 42
1960 – 41
1959 – 37
1958 – 41
1957 – 42
1956 – 45
1955 – 44
1954 – 49
1953 – 47
1952 – 42
1951 – 45 - 116
1950 – 50 - 130
1949 – 48 - 107
1948 – 52
1947 – 50
1946 – 49
1945 – 46
1944 – 51
1943 – 47
1942 – 45
1941 – 54
1940 – 58
1939 – 57
1938 – 58
1937 – 62
1936 – 61 - 85
1935 – 62 - 83
1934 – 55 - 84
1933 – 60 - 67
1932 – 67 - 85
1931 – 67 - 67
1930 – 80 - 98
1929 – 73 - 84
1928 – 71 - 68
1927 – 72 - 58
1926 – 72 - 54
1925 – 73 - 73
1924 – 73 - 56
1923 – 71 - 61
1922 – 78 - 66
1921 – 85 - 58
1920 – 79 - 39
1919 – 65 - 28
1918 – 55 - 15
1917 – 71 - 21
1916 – 71 - 24
1915 – 74 - 24
1914 – 71 - 26
1913 – 79 - 29
1912 – 85 - 28
1911 – 83 - 32
1910 – 72 - 22
1909 – 63 - 16
1908 – 63 - 17
1907 – 60 - 15
1906 – 63 - 16
1905 – 70 - 21
1904 – 72 - 21
1903 – 73 - 21
1902 – 61 - 22
1901 – 77 - 28

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Sprinters? They are better "athletes" in general today because of natural evolution of the human body, nutrition, financially able to train year round, better shoes, surface, etc. The equivalent would be that if they were reaching those better times by the committee moving the distance closer, but still saying its 100m. Or if there was artificial wind behind the runners resulting in faster times, but nobody acknowledges it.
Evoltution has nothingto do with it. Many has not evolved significantly in 40 years. Ir's a process that tkae tohusands of years for any significant change. My point I was trying to make is just because there are more sub 10 second 100 m runners (or more 500 Hr hitters) doesn't mean the sport or game is "lessened" in some way.

Take what you want from this, but here are the average number of triples and homers per team in the majors every year.

First column is the triples, second is the homers. I'm gonna finish it when I get home from work, but heres what I have. Sorta shows how the game has changed a bit.



2005 – 30 - 167
2004 – 30 - 182
2003 – 31 - 174
2002 – 31 - 169
2001 – 31 - 182
2000 – 32 - 190
1999 – 31 - 184
1998 – 30 - 169
1997 – 31 - 166
1996 – 30 - 177
1995 – 29 - 146
1994 – 25 - 118
1993 – 34 - 144
1992 – 33 - 117
1991 – 34 - 130
1990 – 33 - 128
1989 – 33
1988 – 32
1987 – 34
1986 – 33
1985 – 37
1984 – 38 - 125
1983 – 40 - 127
1982 – 37 - 130
1981 – 25 - 69
1980 – 41 - 118
1979 – 41 - 132
1978 – 39 - 114
1977 – 45 - 140
1976 – 40 - 93
1975 – 37 - 112
1974 – 35 - 110
1973 – 33 - 129
1972 – 31 - 106
1971 – 34 - 119
1970 – 39 -
1969 – 35
1968 – 34 - 100
1967 – 39 - 115
1966 – 41
1965 – 39
1964 – 38
1963 – 39
1962 – 43
1961 – 42
1960 – 41
1959 – 37
1958 – 41
1957 – 42
1956 – 45
1955 – 44
1954 – 49
1953 – 47
1952 – 42
1951 – 45 - 116
1950 – 50 - 130
1949 – 48 - 107
1948 – 52
1947 – 50
1946 – 49
1945 – 46
1944 – 51
1943 – 47
1942 – 45
1941 – 54
1940 – 58
1939 – 57
1938 – 58
1937 – 62
1936 – 61 - 85
1935 – 62 - 83
1934 – 55 - 84
1933 – 60 - 67
1932 – 67 - 85
1931 – 67 - 67
1930 – 80 - 98
1929 – 73 - 84
1928 – 71 - 68
1927 – 72 - 58
1926 – 72 - 54
1925 – 73 - 73
1924 – 73 - 56
1923 – 71 - 61
1922 – 78 - 66
1921 – 85 - 58
1920 – 79 - 39
1919 – 65 - 28
1918 – 55 - 15
1917 – 71 - 21
1916 – 71 - 24
1915 – 74 - 24
1914 – 71 - 26
1913 – 79 - 29
1912 – 85 - 28
1911 – 83 - 32
1910 – 72 - 22
1909 – 63 - 16
1908 – 63 - 17
1907 – 60 - 15
1906 – 63 - 16
1905 – 70 - 21
1904 – 72 - 21
1903 – 73 - 21
1902 – 61 - 22
1901 – 77 - 28



Ok, I'm not sure what your point is? Triples have come way down due to two effects

1) Modern ballparks
2) Better overall outfield defense and modern gloves.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

--The opposite is actually true. The guys who started in the 50s and reached 500 were not, as a rule, hitting as many HR in a season as the recent/current guys. As someone pointed out earlier, there have been as many 50 HR seasons in the last 10 years as there were in the previous 70 years. It is definately easier to hit HR now.
--What got the earlier group of power hitters to 500 was that they were consistently good/great over long careers. They got started early and didn't break down early or often. Some of them lasted into the DH era, but none needed the DH to get to 500.

Yes, it's "easier" because players today are better overall than the players of the past. Why this should be held against them is beyond me. It's like my analogy of sub 10 second 100 meter runners. The fact that there are more of them today doesn't "prove" that the 100 meter sprint is "watered" down. It's more competitive than ever.

The 1950s guys got to 500 because that put up huge numbers in their 20s. Look at the list of HRs through age 30 I posted. Of the top 10 only two are modern players while six of the 1950s hitters are in the top 10. It seems that the 1950s hitters hit more HRs in their 20s but "petered" out in their 30s.

[Ubiquitous]

I think a lot of people are forgetting that before 1961 and 1962 the majors did not play 162 games. 13 players before 1961 hits more then 50+ homers, and another 18 hit 45+ or more, and another 33 hit 41 or more. I'm not saying that they all would have hit 50+ homers but some of them would have.

In the history of the game hitting 50+ has happened 37 times. Its happened 19 times since the strike. If you look at the decade before the creation of the 162 games schedule we see that 3 players hit 50+ homers but another 6 players hit 45+ or more. Do this in 10 year increments and you can see that there is a lot of periods where have 8 more games could very well have changed the total significantly. Or if you want to go on the flipside since the strike 8 of those 19 50+ homer seasons were 52 homers or less. So with a 154 game schedule it is entirely possible that in the modern times up to 8 seasons could have fallen short of the 50 homer plateau.

This doesn't totally negate what happened but it should be considered.

[Chisox]

--The opposite is actually true. The guys who started in the 50s and reached 500 were not, as a rule, hitting as many HR in a season as the recent/current guys. As someone pointed out earlier, there have been as many 50 HR seasons in the last 10 years as there were in the previous 70 years. It is definately easier to hit HR now.

I never compared the 90's to the 50's. I compared the elite '90s to the elite 20's and '30s. The MLB leader in the last 10-12 years doesn't have much more than the MLB leader in the '20s and '30s. Obviously the HR/Seas numbers were down in between. However, there were more players reaching 20/30/40 each season as time wore on, partly due to more power hitters reaching the game, partly due to expansion, partly due to the DH (chronilogical order.)


--What got the earlier group of power hitters to 500 was that they were consistently good/great over long careers. They got started early and didn't break down early or often. Some of them lasted into the DH era, but none needed the DH to get to 500.

I'll agree with the first part, but an argument can be made for Murray and Jackson. Jackson started DH'ing on a regular basis around his 500th HR. If Thomas gets to 500, an argument can certainly be made for him. McGriff isn't at 500 quite, but he certainly benefitted from the DH. I don't even know why we are talking about 500HR members needing the DH to get to 500. My point was is the DH is a power position, therefore overall HR numbers are going up.

[digglahhh]

Very good post, Ubiq

Cubsfan,

Of the possible 600 HR guys who you mentioned who haven't done it already I would only pencil in A-Rod.

Manny has a shot, but the rest seem either extremely presumptious or just silly (Aramis Ramirez, 600HR club...please)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think a lot of people are forgetting that before 1961 and 1962 the majors did not play 162 games. 13 players before 1961 hits more then 50+ homers, and another 18 hit 45+ or more, and another 33 hit 41 or more. I'm not saying that they all would have hit 50+ homers but some of them would have.

In the history of the game hitting 50+ has happened 37 times. Its happened 19 times since the strike. If you look at the decade before the creation of the 162 games schedule we see that 3 players hit 50+ homers but another 6 players hit 45+ or more. Do this in 10 year increments and you can see that there is a lot of periods where have 8 more games could very well have changed the total significantly. Or if you want to go on the flipside since the strike 8 of those 19 50+ homer seasons were 52 homers or less. So with a 154 game schedule it is entirely possible that in the modern times up to 8 seasons could have fallen short of the 50 homer plateau.

This doesn't totally negate what happened but it should be considered.

Great observation! :clapping :clapping :clapping :clapping

[Chisox]

Great observation! :clapping :clapping :clapping :clapping

There certainly are a bunch of 49 HR seasons in history. You've got like 20 tied for 37th, or something like that with a bunch more 48. A lot of the 50 HR seasons were in the low 50's, like Belle's, Anderson's, Vaughn, ect. A-Rod's low 50 was 52, I think, as was Mac's. I'm trying to think who else got to 50 other than McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and Luis. Sosa hit 50 in 2000, and didn't he need the last game of the season to do it?

[Ubiquitous]

43 players have hit between 48 and 52 homers.
Since expanded schedules 11 players have hit between 52 and 50.

Andruw Jones
Jim Thome 2002 52 52
T1 Alex Rodriguez 2001 52 52
T1 Mark McGwire 1996 52 52
T1 Willie Mays 1965 52 52
T1 George Foster 1977 52 52
6 Cecil Fielder 1990 51 51
T7 Greg Vaughn 1998 50 50
T7 Sammy Sosa 2000 50 50
T7 Albert Belle 1995 50 50
T7 Brady Anderson 1996 50 50

[Honus Wagner Rules]

43 players have hit between 48 and 52 homers.
Since expanded schedules 11 players have hit between 52 and 50.

Andruw Jones
Jim Thome 2002 52 52
T1 Alex Rodriguez 2001 52 52
T1 Mark McGwire 1996 52 52
T1 Willie Mays 1965 52 52
T1 George Foster 1977 52 52
6 Cecil Fielder 1990 51 51
T7 Greg Vaughn 1998 50 50
T7 Sammy Sosa 2000 50 50
T7 Albert Belle 1995 50 50
T7 Brady Anderson 1996 50 50

The 1995 Indians played 144 games.

[Chisox]

The 1995 Indians played 144 games.

I notice that 8 of those 11 put up those seasons in the superball era, including Belle's '95. It seems like 11 of 43 is awfully low for 45/44 seasons depending on league compared to the 40+ prior. I would have to assume that most of those 32 others were hit in the 20's and 30's. With the addition of the over 52 club, I would say that the 48+ HR club would be about even between the two eras, then, adjusting for length of era. Why didn't I think of doing this? Good stuff.

[The Big C]

"Manny has a shot, but the rest seem either extremely presumptious or just silly (Aramis Ramirez, 600HR club...please)"


Aramis would have to average about 31 HR a year until he is 38 to get to even the 500 homerun club, and just over 40 HR per year in the same time span to get to 600. Doesn't seem very likely to me either.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ok, I'm not sure what your point is? Triples have come way down due to two effects

1) Modern ballparks
2) Better overall outfield defense and modern gloves.

There was no point really. It was simply me being bored and curious. The average number of strikeouts per team could be shown for every year, and the decrease would resemble the HR rate. Its all a matter of style of play. This era's style of play enables more players to achieve homer totals that only the elite used to. Its that simple. They aren't necessarily better players, they are being handed special advantages that others weren't privy to. Does that make sense to you?

note: It does show that the 20's were not the HR dominated decade you propose it to be. The cream was at the top, in the name of Ruth and a couple others just below that, but overall the HR numbers per team are miniscule compared to today.

Its not "better overall outfield defense" either. Its more historical knowledge on positioning. Its scouting and hitting charts letting outfielders know where to shade. Its the bigger gloves, better cleats, the perfectly manicured grass, less ground to cover, flip down shades, etc. As far as "talent", you're giving players today way too much credit compared to older era's players. Its these differences that allow you to think they are more talented, but they're not when everything is broken down to the basics. Give Tris Speaker advanced scouting charts on hitters, ice-rink smooth outfields, better cleats, a lighter uniform, and a bigger glove, and tell me he wouldn't be Andruw Jones. Tris's arm also might be better due to conditioning and human physical evolution. One thing is for sure, if the older players brought their same attitudes and desire to excel, they'd already have a leg up on the majority of todays players.

[rainout]

^ Those are some great points, and another thing not to be overlooked is the development of the science of nutrition, which has supplanted what was 80-100 years ago still mostly folk wisdom and old wives' tales about what an athlete should eat.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Whats pretty crazy is that if someone hits 50 dingers today, we hardly blink an eye. Its a 4 way stop. We pull up, take a looksy, and continue on. We've been splattered with 73, 70, 66, 65, 64, 63, 57, 56, 56, 52, 52, 52 all since 1996. The last time 50 was a pretty big deal was when Cecil hit 51 in '90. Before then, only 8 players in the games history had reached the once "milestone."

[Sultan_1895-1948]

avg number of dongs hit by a mlb team


red = 161 - 200
blue = 121 - 160
green = 81 - 120
orange = 41 - 80
black = 1 - 40


year - hr

2005 – 167
2004 – 182
2003 – 174
2002 – 169
2001 – 182
2000 – 190
1999 – 184
1998 – 169
1997 – 166
1996 – 177
1995 – 164
1994 – 168
1993 – 144
1992 – 117
1991 – 130
1990 – 128
1989 – 119
1988 – 122
1987 – 171
1986 – 147
1985 – 139
1984 – 125
1983 – 127
1982 – 130
1981 – 69
1980 – 118
1979 – 132
1978 – 114
1977 – 140
1976 – 93
1975 – 112
1974 – 110
1973 – 129
1972 – 106
1971 – 119
1970 – 143
1969 – 130
1968 – 100
1967 – 115
1966 – 137
1965 – 134
1964 – 138
1963 – 135
1962 – 150
1961 – 151
1960 – 133
1959 – 140
1958 – 140
1957 – 138
1956 – 143
1955 – 139
1954 – 121
1953 – 130
1952 – 106
1951 – 116
1950 – 130
1949 – 107
1948 – 97
1947 – 98
1946 – 76
1945 – 63
1944 – 65
1943 – 56
1942 – 67
1941 – 83
1940 – 98
1939 – 90
1938 – 92
1937 – 89
1936 – 85
1935 – 83
1934 – 84
1933 – 67
1932 – 85
1931 – 67
1930 – 98
1929 – 84
1928 – 68
1927 – 58
1926 – 54
1925 – 73
1924 – 56
1923 – 61
1922 – 66
1921 – 58
1920 – 39
1919 – 28
1918 – 15
1917 – 21
1916 – 24
1915 – 24
1914 – 26
1913 – 29
1912 – 28
1911 – 32
1910 – 22
1909 – 16
1908 – 17
1907 – 15
1906 – 16
1905 – 21
1904 – 21
1903 – 21
1902 – 22
1901 – 28

[Freakshow]

With regard to this question, we'll know a lot more in a couple of years. Seven players are now in range of #500 for the 2007 season. Listed with their age and current total:

Jeff Bagwell (37) 449
Gary Sheffield (36) 449
Frank Thomas (37) 448
Manny Ramirez (33) 435
Juan Gonzalez (35) 434
Jim Thome (34) 430
Alex Rodriguez (29) 429

If most of these players are in the 500 club three years from now, I think the answer would have to be "yes".

[Honus Wagner Rules]

With regard to this question, we'll know a lot more in a couple of years. Seven players are now in range of #500 for the 2007 season. Listed with their age and current total:

Jeff Bagwell (37) 449
Gary Sheffield (36) 449
Frank Thomas (37) 448
Manny Ramirez (33) 435
Juan Gonzalez (35) 434
Jim Thome (34) 430
Alex Rodriguez (29) 429

If most of these players are in the 500 club three years from now, I think the answer would have to be "yes".
We've gone through this list already. Thomas and Bagwell will NOT make it because of injuries. Bagwell has indicated he will most likely retire after the 2006 season. Manny will make it in early 2007. Juan Gone will not make because of injuries as well. In the past four seasons he has hit 8, 24, 5 and 0 HRs. Thome is already in decline and will be 36 next season. He's iffy at best. A-Rod will fly by 500 HR in early 2007.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

There was no point really. It was simply me being bored and curious. The average number of strikeouts per team could be shown for every year, and the decrease would resemble the HR rate. Its all a matter of style of play. This era's style of play enables more players to achieve homer totals that only the elite used to. Its that simple. They aren't necessarily better players, they are being handed special advantages that others weren't privy to. Does that make sense to you?
I disagree. That fact that there are more good players is the reason for so many HRs. How that can be held as a disadvantage is beyond me? There are more elite players today.



note: It does show that the 20's were not the HR dominated decade you propose it to be. The cream was at the top, in the name of Ruth and a couple others just below that, but overall the HR numbers per team are miniscule compared to today.
There is a reason for this. It took a generation to pass before new young players raised on Babe Ruth to see that the HR was the future of the game. The game matured significantly from the 1920s to the 1930s. When Ruth busted out in 1920 most of the established players couldn't change their game. Let's say your an established player in 1920. Your were raised on the "deadball" style of play your whole life. Bunting, running, sacrificing was your game. All of a sudden, Ruth comes out of nowhere and bang 54 HRs, then 59 HRs. The established deadball style of player could not just change his game. It was too late for that. Gerhig was the first "next generation" slugger. His breakout season in 1927 he hit 47 HRs. This lead to a new bread of player, the slugger. Teams started scouting for the next "Babe Ruth". It is no coincidence that the 1930s saw an explosion of 30+ HR hitters. All of a sudden the 30+ HR hitter was a dime a dozen. It is no coincidence that Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott and Hank Geenberg, players who "grew up" on Babe Ruth, arrived in the majors soon after. Just take a look at HR leader boards of the 1930s. Guys like Goslin, Simmons, and Averill were hitting over 30 HRs a year.



Its not "better overall outfield defense" either. Its more historical knowledge on positioning. Its scouting and hitting charts letting outfielders know where to shade. Its the bigger gloves, better cleats, the perfectly manicured grass, less ground to cover, flip down shades, etc. As far as "talent", you're giving players today way too much credit compared to older era's players. Its these differences that allow you to think they are more talented, but they're not when everything is broken down to the basics. Give Tris Speaker advanced scouting charts on hitters, ice-rink smooth outfields, better cleats, a lighter uniform, and a bigger glove, and tell me he wouldn't be Andruw Jones. Tris's arm also might be better due to conditioning and human physical evolution. One thing is for sure, if the older players brought their same attitudes and desire to excel, they'd already have a leg up on the majority of todays players.

Current players may not be more talented or maybe they are. That is debatable. However, they are more SKILLED. That is not debatable in my view. Tris Speaker was a great deadball era player. But you CANNOT state dogmatically that he would have been a great live ball era player. It's quite possible that his skill set was uniquely tailored for the dead ball era. Or maybe his skill set would have tranfered over to the live ball. We just don't know. I tend to think he would have been at least a good player given his defensive skills but would he have been a dominant hitter? I just don't know. Defensively he already was Andrew Jones. Because a player has more "historical knowledge" by definiton means he is a more skilled player. Lots of players today have strong work ethic as much as old players. Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Sosa, and even the younger players like Albert Pujols and Mark Teixeira (I love this guy) all work very hard to improve their game.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I disagree. That fact that there are more good players is the reason for so many HRs. How that can be held as a disadvantage is beyond me? There are more elite players today.

So you see no changes that have taken place? Or, you see them, but you feel players don't need these advantages; that they would be hitting all these homers if they played in conditions of the 50's?

You're looking at the final product, which came by way of changes, and raving about the results.


Lots of players today have strong work ethic as much as old players. Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Sosa, and even the younger players like Albert Pujols and Mark Teixeira (I love this guy) all work very hard to improve their game.

I agree that many players have a good work ethic. Often times the motivation for this is more money and fame, but thats beside the point. I was referrring to a style of play that we rarely see today. Arod, Bonds and Sosa wouldn't last 10 games if they brought their pampered premadonna attitudes to the '10's and 20's. I admire players like Erstad and Biggio, for their old school, hard nosed approach.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So you see no changes that have taken place? Or, you see them, but you feel players don't need these advantages; that they would be hitting all these homers if they played in conditions of the 50's?

You're looking at the final product, which came by way of changes, and raving about the results.


I recognize that these changes are what make them better. I do NOT deny them. So why is this held agianst them?



I agree that many players have a good work ethic. Often times the motivation for this is more money and fame, but thats beside the point. I was referrring to a style of play that we rarely see today. Arod, Bonds and Sosa wouldn't last 10 games if they brought their pampered premadonna attitudes to the '10's and 20's. I admire players like Erstad and Biggio, for their old school, hard nosed approach.
What makes a player "hard-nosed"? Is it the amount of chew they spit, or the number of walls they crash into, or the number of HBPs? Biggio seems to wear the same "body armor" that Bonds wears. Hmmm....Why is it that when Erstad smashes into a wall he is called "hard-nosed" but when Bonds does it he isn't called "hard-nosed". I have watched Bonds up close since 1993. Say what you will about his personality but the guy plays hard. Always has. I still remember Bonds running after a foul ball in Wrigley Field and smashing his face in a brick wall along the left field foul line. Ouch. He got up, shook it off, and went back to left field. And there weren't any primadonnas in the 1910s or 1920s? I think Babe Ruth invented the "primadonna" athlete. Disobeying his manger, usurping the manager's authority, late for games,..does that sound familiar? I'm sure the players of the 1910s-20s were also motivated by money. There's nothing wrong with that. Baseball was their occupation. Why did the 1919 White Sox fix the World Series? Because they felt underpaid.

[Ubiquitous]

I was going to say pretty much the same thing but then I saw you beat me to it. Well that and I figured there is no point arguing about an era that none of us saw and there is a good chance none of know or have interacted with anybody who was old enough to know what was going on in the 10's and 20's and still alive when we got around to being born. To argue against it is to argue against a myth, a spiritual belief. It cannot be done.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I was going to say pretty much the same thing but then I saw you beat me to it. Well that and I figured there is no point arguing about an era that none of us saw and there is a good chance none of know or have interacted with anybody who was old enough to know what was going on in the 10's and 20's and still alive when we got around to being born. To argue against it is to argue against a myth, a spiritual belief. It cannot be done.

The deadball era gets romanticised and mythologized greatly. Don't get me wrong, I love reading about all the deadball greats, Wagner, Cobb, Speaker, Jackson, Baker, etc. I grew up reading about them. But they played baseball for money just like today's players. They tried to get as much money from the owners as they could. And there is nothing wrong about that. Modern players just have more say in what their salary will be.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And there weren't any primadonnas in the 1910s or 1920s? I think Babe Ruth invented the "primadonna" athlete. Disobeying his manger, usurping the manager's authority, late for games,..does that sound familiar?

First off, Ruth played nearly every game with bandages around his thighs, to protect the strawberry's that never healed. Infields back then were full of rocks. Players back then would split a finger open and continue playing for fear their job would be taken if they took time off. Job security wasn't the way it is today. Did Ruth want as much money as he could get, sure. Ya know why; because he was smart enough to recognize that the Yanks were making huge money from HIM. And he wanted his part of it. He was a tough ballplayer who ran everything out hard, and was never aloof to the media or to the fans. He was in no way a premadonna. He was a showman when the moment called for it, and there is a distinct difference.


Now thats outta the way, lets deal with something else here.

I'm gonna try to break this down as simply as possible with an unbiased assessment.

30, 40, 50, and 60 homer seasons are more common now than ever before. The number of players per team who have a shot at achieving high homer totals has increased.

Your opinion is that these totals are being reached more often because players today are more talented. If we assume that to be true, then we must attempt to explain what happened since 1995. Have there just been more talented players playing in the last 10 years compared to the previous 90+ years of baseball?

Something must have happened in the last ten years. Its pretty far-fetched to think that the talent level raised that much just in the last ten years. Its far more reasonable to acknowledge factors which have allowed homers to increase so much.

Now, I'm not saying that players today aren't talented. Several players today are gifted with abilities that would allow them to excel in any era. What has allowed them to rise above the greatest sluggers in baseball history to such a large degree though, has little to do with the base level of talent. Changes in style and the game have allowed for this. Also, its allowed for todays middle rung guys to put up numbers that only greats used to. I tried to show this through the graph at the bottom of the page.

Main reasons I can think of.

1. PED's and Nutrition

2. Weight training technology/knowledge

3. Smaller Strike Zone - This results in the hitter being ahead in the count more often, and puts added pressure on pitchers, causing them to make more mistake pitches.

4. Pitchers can't come Inside - This is one of those baseball factors that cannot be proven through a formula or a stat. For anyone who has played baseball though, its impact is evident. Being comfortable at the plate is the goal of every hitter and success depends on it. Pitchers are no longer allowed to control the inner half of the plate (2 inches off inside corner to the hitter), and the hitter having helmets/body armor only adds to their comfort.

5. Hitting Approach - Even middle infielders today are taking a slugging approach. They no longer cut down with 2 strikes since strikeouts are not frowned upon as much.

6. Lighter and Harder Bats - MLB does not regulate bat making companies the way they should. Post ball-impact velocity standards are not being met, and MLB shows no interest whatsoever. Bats are dipped in a hardening substance, and are as light as most high schoolers' bats. Players get several bats sent to them, and they pick only the best of the best. The leftovers from the batch are probably used for BP or something, but they definately get the cream of the crop.

7. Livelier Ball - Harder than ever with lower seams than ever. This makes what Clemens, Pedro, and a few other have been able to do, even that much more impressive to me.

8. Level of Pitching - Expansion has hurt the pitching talent; its diluted big time. There are a lot of guys that throw hard nowdays, but there's much more to "pitching" than that. Most rotations have at least 2 if not 3 pitchers who cannot routinely locate more than one pitch.

9. Smaller Ballparks - Pop flies have become homers, and line drives with top spin also leave the yard regularly. The hitter's margin for error has increased a ton over the past several seasons. Sorta makes sense, right; the pitchers main goals are to keep the hitter off balance, disrupt his timing, and keep the ball off the fat part of the barrel as much as possible. Today, a pitcher can succeed at these, and still be taken deep. Out on their front foot, a weak one armed swing, get one toward the end of the bat; they all leave the yard now.

10. Chicks dig the long ball, and so do scouts, media, the average fan, and the people who scratch the paychecks.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

^ Those are some great points, and another thing not to be overlooked is the development of the science of nutrition, which has supplanted what was 80-100 years ago still mostly folk wisdom and old wives' tales about what an athlete should eat.

Good point, that could have a bearing, that would explain the leap in home runs from way back when to the last decade or so.

However there is more than nutrition at work here in this sample comparing not hitters from decades way back but the 1980s compared to 1990s. It's not reasonable to believe that in that short a period that nutrition or bigger stronger hitters is the reason for the home run derby, that began in the early 1990s and exploded in the mid 1990s.

In the entire decade of the 1980s- 1980 to 1989 there were 13 seasons with hitters hitting 40 or more.

In one season, one season only in the 1990s, that season 1996 there were 17 hitters with 40 or more. Hitters don't get that much stronger in a period of that length.

Lets close the gap. 1990-91-92-93, four seasons there was a total of 11 hitters with 40 or more. Not that much later in ONE season 1996 there were 17 hitters with 40 or more. We're talking the same decade here. I omitted 1994-95 since they were short seasons.

Lets look at some teams. There were no more than 2 teams, if memory serves me right it may be only one team in BOTH leagues, in 4 seasons 1990-91-92-93 that hit 200 home runs. In only ONE season 1996, in only ONE league the AL there were 7 teams with 200 home runs.

Hitters with 40+ home run seasons over 4 years- 1990-91-92-93- 11 hitters.
Hitters with 40+ home run seasons in only one season 1996- 17 hitters.

Teams with 200 home runs BOTH leagues in FOUR seasons 1990-91-92-93, no more than two, maybe only one.

Teams with 200 home runs ONE league AL in ONE season 1996, 7 teams.

Look to the ball, some expansion and one of the biggest contributors that funny little strike zone, hitters delight.

The above is to shoot holes in the bigger stronger theory. Are player bigger and stronger than 30, 40 ore more years ago, of course. But... my comparisons are of hitters from the 1980s and even the early 1990s to the later 1990s, hitters don't get that much bigger and stronger over a short period as the above.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

hitters don't get that much bigger and stronger over a short period as the above.

You're right, they don't. Nor are there all of a sudden the "most talented" hitters coming into the majors from 1995-present. Its other factors that play a huge part in them looking as "talented" as they are from 1995-present.

The numbers are pretty incredible when you look at them. They are more glaringly obvious than Bonds' puffy head and body are.

[rainout]

What drives up the homerun totals isn't that more guys hit 50+, it's that a lot more hit 20 and 30 than at anytime ever before. The guy with 22 homers is probably 4th or 5th on the team.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

What drives up the homerun totals isn't that more guys hit 50+, it's that a lot more hit 20 and 30 than at anytime ever before. The guy with 22 homers is probably 4th or 5th on the team.

Excellent point, and its what I tried to show in my graph.

The upper tier guys will always be the upper tier guys, although this era's upper tier have achieved mind boggling numbers due to "factors."

The middle rung guys today are often hitting HR totals that elite players used to hit, and are routinely hitting 25-35 dingers.

The lower level guys today have been bumped up to be able to hit 15-20 homers, when they really should be at 7-12.

Its all skewed, and should be accounted for. The HR has been cheapened, so it makes sense that 500 HR total has either already, or is in the process of "losing it's luster."

[rainout]

Its all skewed, and should be accounted for. The HR has been cheapened, so it makes sense that 500 HR total has either already, or is in the process of "losing it's luster."

Maybe a little bit, but I can't see all that many of those good but not great hitters staying around long enough to rack up those totals. We might see a lot more big seasons but only a few more long consistent careers.

[Ubiquitous]

Uggg! Accidently hit the backspace and lost the entire post!

In short. People are forgetting that WWII killed the power in the 40's. People are forgetting that rule changes in the 60's killed the power in the 60's. People are forgetting that in the 70's and 80's with the cookie cutter stadiums, astroturf, and sinker/slider pitchers speed and slap hitting was king. If WWII and the rule changes hadn't happened you would have seen a ton more power seasons. So the 90's wouldn't be so unusual.

People are forgetting about Coors Field. Which wasn't around 20 years ago.

The three best home runs stadiums of our generation were not even built 30 years ago. With two of them being around only 10 years old. Nobody in the majors was hitting home runs at Coors field 20 years ago. So that hurts the comparison. The three best stadiums of our generation account for 25% of the total, and those stadiums and some of the teams were not even around 30 years ago. That hurts the comparison. It isn't an equal comparison.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

AVG HR PER YEAR (RED = 161 - 200) (BLUE = 121 - 160) (GREEN = 81 - 120) (Orange = 41 - 80) (Black = 1 - 40)

AB/HR (RED =


YEAR ---- HR ----------- AB/HR --------- AB/HR --------------------------- NUMBER OF TIMES---------------------------------
------- MLB AVG ---------- AL ------------- NL ----------- 30+HR ---------- 40+HR ---------- 50+HR ---------- 60+HR ---------- 70+HR

2012 --- 164 -------------- 31 ------------- 36 -------------- 27 ---------------- 6
2011 --- 151 -------------- 34 ------------- 38 -------------- 24 ---------------- 2
2010 --- 153 -------------- 35 ------------- 36 -------------- 18 ---------------- 2 --------------- 1
2009 --- 168 -------------- 30 ------------- 35 -------------- 30 ---------------- 5
2008 --- 162 -------------- 34 ------------- 33 -------------- 28 ---------------- 2
2007 --- 165 -------------- 34 ------------- 33 -------------- 26 ---------------- 5 --------------- 2
2006 --- 180 -------------- 30 ------------- 31 -------------- 34 ---------------- 11 -------------- 2
2005 –-- 167 -------------- 32 ------------- 34 -------------- 27 ---------------- 9 --------------- 1
2004 –-- 182 -------------- 30 ------------- 31 -------------- 37 ---------------- 9
2003 –-- 174 -------------- 31 ------------- 32 -------------- 30 ---------------- 10
2002 –-- 169 -------------- 31 ------------- 33 -------------- 28 ---------------- 8 --------------- 2
2001 –-- 182 -------------- 31 ------------- 29 -------------- 41 ---------------- 12 -------------- 4 --------------- 2 ----------------- 1
2000 –-- 190 -------------- 29 ------------- 29 -------------- 47 ---------------- 16 -------------- 1
1999 –-- 184 -------------- 29 ------------- 30 -------------- 45 ---------------- 13 -------------- 2 --------------- 2
1998 –-- 169 -------------- 31 ------------- 34 -------------- 33 ---------------- 13 -------------- 4 --------------- 2 ----------------- 1
1997 –-- 166 -------------- 31 ------------- 35 -------------- 31 ---------------- 12 -------------- 2
1996 –-- 177 -------------- 28 ------------- 35 -------------- 43 ---------------- 17 -------------- 2
1995 –-- 164 -------------- 32 ------------- 36 -------------- 21 ---------------- 4 --------------- 1
1994 –-- 168 -------------- 31 ------------- 35 -------------- 10 ---------------- 2
1993 –-- 144 -------------- 37 ------------- 39 -------------- 22 ---------------- 5
1992 –-- 117 -------------- 43 ------------- 52 -------------- 10 ---------------- 2
1991 –-- 130 -------------- 39 ------------- 45 -------------- 12 ---------------- 2
1990 –-- 128 -------------- 42 ------------- 43 -------------- 12 ---------------- 2 --------------- 1
1989 –-- 119 -------------- 44 ------------- 48 -------------- 10 ---------------- 1
1988 –-- 122 -------------- 40 ------------- 51 -------------- 5 ----------------- 1
1987 –-- 171 -------------- 29 ------------- 36 -------------- 28 ---------------- 4
1986 –-- 147 -------------- 33 ------------- 43 -------------- 13 ---------------- 1
1985 –-- 139 -------------- 35 ------------- 46 -------------- 13 ---------------- 1
1984 –-- 125 -------------- 39 ------------- 51 -------------- 10 ---------------- 1
1983 –-- 127 -------------- 40 ------------- 47 -------------- 12 ---------------- 1
1982 –-- 130 -------------- 37 ------------- 51 -------------- 16
1981 –-- 69 --------------- 47 ------------- 60 -------------- 1
1980 –-- 118 -------------- 42 ------------- 53 -------------- 9 ----------------- 3
1979 –-- 132 -------------- 38 ------------- 46 -------------- 13 ---------------- 3
1978 –-- 114 -------------- 45 ------------- 51 ---------
1977 –-- 140 -------------- 38 ------------- 40
1976 –-- 93 --------------- 58 ------------- 59
1975 –-- 112 -------------- 44 ------------- 53
1974 –-- 110 -------------- 48 ------------- 51
1973 –-- 129 -------------- 42 ------------- 42
1972 –-- 106 -------------- 52 ------------- 46
1971 –-- 119 -------------- 43 ------------- 47
1970 –-- 143 -------------- 37 ------------- 39
1969 –-- 130 -------------- 39 ------------- 44
1968 –-- 100 -------------- 48 ------------- 61
1967 –-- 115 -------------- 45 ------------- 49
1966 –-- 137 -------------- 39 ------------- 40
1965 –-- 134 -------------- 39 ------------- 42
1964 –-- 138 -------------- 35 ------------- 45
1963 –-- 135 -------------- 36 ------------- 45
1962 –-- 150 -------------- 35 ------------- 38
1961 –-- 151 -------------- 35 ------------- 35
1960 –-- 133 -------------- 38 ------------- 40
1959 –-- 140 -------------- 38 ------------- 36
1958 –-- 140 ----
1957 –-- 138
1956 –-- 143
1955 –-- 139
1954 –-- 121
1953 –-- 130
1952 –-- 106
1951 –-- 116
1950 –-- 130
1949 –-- 107
1948 –-- 97
1947 –-- 98
1946 –-- 76
1945 –-- 63
1944 –-- 65
1943 –-- 56
1942 –-- 67
1941 –-- 83
1940 –-- 98
1939 –-- 90
1938 –-- 92
1937 –-- 89
1936 –-- 85
1935 –-- 83
1934 –-- 84
1933 –-- 67
1932 –-- 85
1931 –-- 67
1930 –-- 98
1929 –-- 84
1928 –-- 68
1927 –-- 58
1926 –-- 54
1925 –-- 73
1924 –-- 56
1923 –-- 61
1922 –-- 66
1921 –-- 58 ------------------- 89 ----------- 92
1920 –-- 39 ------------------ 113 ---------- 161
1919 –-- 28 ------------------ 155 ---------- 180
1918 –-- 15 ------------------ 349 ---------- 243
1917 –-- 21 ------------------ 305 ---------- 204
1916 –-- 24 ------------------ 283 ---------- 171
1915 –-- 24 ------------------ 251 ---------- 181
1914 –-- 26 ------------------ 275 ---------- 152
1913 –-- 29 ------------------ 251 ---------- 132
1912 –-- 28 ------------------ 262 ---------- 143
1911 –-- 32 ------------------ 207 ---------- 130
1910 –-- 22 ------------------ 278 ---------- 189
1909 –-- 16
1908 –-- 17
1907 –-- 15
1906 –-- 16
1905 –-- 21
1904 –-- 21
1903 –-- 21
1902 –-- 22
1901 –-- 28

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Maybe a little bit, but I can't see all that many of those good but not great hitters staying around long enough to rack up those totals. We might see a lot more big seasons but only a few more long consistent careers.

Interesting. We know that players can stay healthy and stay stronger later in their careers today. Do you think the high salaries will cause players to retire when they have something left in the tank?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=Ubiquitous]Uggg! Accidently hit the backspace and lost the entire post!

Off the subject of baseball for a second, UGGG is an understatement. I have done the same after spending 20 minutes and more hitting that keyboard.:grouchy thats more like it.

[Chisox]

[QUOTE=Ubiquitous]Uggg! Accidently hit the backspace and lost the entire post!

Off the subject of baseball for a second, UGGG is an understatement. I have done the same after spending 20 minutes and more hitting that keyboard.:grouchy thats more like it.

Why don't you just hit ctrl-z to undo your erase?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

First off, Ruth played nearly every game with bandages around his thighs, to protect the strawberry's that never healed. Infields back then were full of rocks. Players back then would split a finger open and continue playing for fear their job would be taken if they took time off. Job security wasn't the way it is today. Did Ruth want as much money as he could get, sure. Ya know why; because he was smart enough to recognize that the Yanks were making huge money from HIM. And he wanted his part of it. He was a tough ballplayer who ran everything out hard, and was never aloof to the media or to the fans. He was in no way a premadonna. He was a showman when the moment called for it, and there is a distinct difference.
I'm sure Miller Huggins and the Yankee management at that time would strongly disagree with you. Ruth frequently violated team rules. Here are some examples I found


...There were also Ruth's off the field indiscretions. His late nights of partying and boozing were further sources of irritation to the franchise, and he had numerous fights with Barrow over curfew violations. Eventually Ruth was forced to write Barrow notes on what time he came in each night (notes Barrow never further verified)...

he 1921 World Series appearance would indirectly lead to problems for Ruth. Seeking to avoid diminishing the meaning of the fall classic, organized baseball instituted a rule in 1911 that prohibited World Series players from playing in exhibition games during the off-season. Ruth, typically, decided this rule did not apply to him, and even though Baseball Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis had warned Ruth about the trip, Ruth went ahead and embarked on his usual lucrative barnstorming tour with two teammates. Landis came down hard on the recalcitrant players, and he suspended Ruth and teammate Bob Meusel for the first six weeks of what was to be a turbulent 1922 season for Ruth.

Later in the season, Ruth had a well publicized fight with manager Miller Huggins, who fined Ruth $5000 and suspended him nine days for numerous curfew violations....

For someone who performed larger than life heroics on the field, Ruth was very often less than the ideal role model in his behavior and personality. He drank too much, had a speech splattered with profanities, chased women while being a married man, drove cars recklessly, was frequently childishly rebellious with a disregard for rules and authority figures, and sometimes had a quick temper with players, umpires, and even fans.

source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth

That sounds like a prima dona to me. Again, there's nothing wrong wit ha player trying to get as much money from the owners as he can. Many of the greatest players of the past held out for more money, including Ty Cobb, Joe DiMaggio, and Sandy Koufax.



Now thats outta the way, lets deal with something else here.

I'm gonna try to break this down as simply as possible with an unbiased assessment.

30, 40, 50, and 60 homer seasons are more common now than ever before. The number of players per team who have a shot at achieving high homer totals has increased.

Your opinion is that these totals are being reached more often because players today are more talented. If we assume that to be true, then we must attempt to explain what happened since 1995. Have there just been more talented players playing in the last 10 years compared to the previous 90+ years of baseball?

Something must have happened in the last ten years. Its pretty far-fetched to think that the talent level raised that much just in the last ten years. Its far more reasonable to acknowledge factors which have allowed homers to increase so much.
Again I didn't say they were more talened but more skilled. All the factors you mentioned bellow hit a critical mass around 1995. When all the factors hit full maturity then the HR boon began.



Now, I'm not saying that players today aren't talented. Several players today are gifted with abilities that would allow them to excel in any era. What has allowed them to rise above the greatest sluggers in baseball history to such a large degree though, has little to do with the base level of talent. Changes in style and the game have allowed for this. Also, its allowed for todays middle rung guys to put up numbers that only greats used to. I tried to show this through the graph at the bottom of the page.
Why is this an issue? There are lots of sprinters today that are faster than Jesse Owens. Does that mean they were greater than Jesse Owens? No, of course not.



Main reasons I can think of.

1. PED's and Nutrition

2. Weight training technology/knowledge

3. Smaller Strike Zone - This results in the hitter being ahead in the count more often, and puts added pressure on pitchers, causing them to make more mistake pitches.

4. Pitchers can't come Inside - This is one of those baseball factors that cannot be proven through a formula or a stat. For anyone who has played baseball though, its impact is evident. Being comfortable at the plate is the goal of every hitter and success depends on it. Pitchers are no longer allowed to control the inner half of the plate (2 inches off inside corner to the hitter), and the hitter having helmets/body armor only adds to their comfort.

5. Hitting Approach - Even middle infielders today are taking a slugging approach. They no longer cut down with 2 strikes since strikeouts are not frowned upon as much.

6. Lighter and Harder Bats - MLB does not regulate bat making companies the way they should. Post ball-impact velocity standards are not being met, and MLB shows no interest whatsoever. Bats are dipped in a hardening substance, and are as light as most high schoolers' bats. Players get several bats sent to them, and they pick only the best of the best. The leftovers from the batch are probably used for BP or something, but they definately get the cream of the crop.

7. Livelier Ball - Harder than ever with lower seams than ever. This makes what Clemens, Pedro, and a few other have been able to do, even that much more impressive to me.

8. Level of Pitching - Expansion has hurt the pitching talent; its diluted big time. There are a lot of guys that throw hard nowdays, but there's much more to "pitching" than that. Most rotations have at least 2 if not 3 pitchers who cannot routinely locate more than one pitch.

9. Smaller Ballparks - Pop flies have become homers, and line drives with top spin also leave the yard regularly. The hitter's margin for error has increased a ton over the past several seasons. Sorta makes sense, right; the pitchers main goals are to keep the hitter off balance, disrupt his timing, and keep the ball off the fat part of the barrel as much as possible. Today, a pitcher can succeed at these, and still be taken deep. Out on their front foot, a weak one armed swing, get one toward the end of the bat; they all leave the yard now.

10. Chicks dig the long ball, and so do scouts, media, the average fan, and the people who scratch the paychecks.

Thank you for proving my point for me. These are the reasons for the offensive explosion since 1995. However, like everything else pitchers are starting to adapt. A new breed of young pitcher, Oswalt, Santana, Peavy, King Felix, etc that are pushing hitters back. HRs were down in 2005. I didn't say players today are more talented. I said today's players are more SKILLED. Skill and talent are not the same thing. Players are born with talent but skill is developed through lots of hardwork and practice. Take Tony Gwynn for example. He literally spend thousands of hours practicing his hitting. He wasn't born a great hitter. He has the talent to potentially be a great hitter but he needed to work hard to bring out his hitting skill. Players, today, are more skilled because the things you listed. Why does it bother you to say that today's players are more skilled? Baseball is a constantly evolving game. The game will never be like the past. In 20 years the game will be different from today. Is that bad? It's a good thing that baseball is not stagnant but constantly changing. Who knows, we may had a dead ball era in the future. Wouldn't that be something? :)

[Ubiquitous]

[QUOTE=SHOELESSJOE3]

Why don't you just hit ctrl-z to undo your erase?


Because it wasn't an erase. I accidentally turned the page back to the previous page. So want I wrote vanished.

[Chisox]

Because it wasn't an erase. I accidentally turned the page back to the previous page. So want I wrote vanished.

Oh. You said backspace, so I thought you were on your keyboard. I've noticed that on long posts, it tends to time-out and I have to over again, so I've gotten somewhat accustomed to copying the text.

I'm going to fix this quote thing once and for all. I'm quoting from you, not myself, as it would show.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=SHOELESSJOE3]

Why don't you just hit ctrl-z to undo your erase?

Thanks CHISOX, I'll give that a try if it happens again.

[History Of Baseball Fan]

was barry bonds found to have been using steroids ??

sammy sosa was caught using a corked bat.

mark mcguire took steroids. and i;m sure bonds has too.

[west coast orange and black]

^^ the irony is killin' me, man.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm sure Miller Huggins and the Yankee management at that time would strongly disagree with you. Ruth frequently violated team rules. Here are some examples I found:


...There were also Ruth's off the field indiscretions. His late nights of partying and boozing were further sources of irritation to the franchise, and he had numerous fights with Barrow over curfew violations. Eventually Ruth was forced to write Barrow notes on what time he came in each night (notes Barrow never further verified)...

he 1921 World Series appearance would indirectly lead to problems for Ruth. Seeking to avoid diminishing the meaning of the fall classic, organized baseball instituted a rule in 1911 that prohibited World Series players from playing in exhibition games during the off-season. Ruth, typically, decided this rule did not apply to him, and even though Baseball Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis had warned Ruth about the trip, Ruth went ahead and embarked on his usual lucrative barnstorming tour with two teammates. Landis came down hard on the recalcitrant players, and he suspended Ruth and teammate Bob Meusel for the first six weeks of what was to be a turbulent 1922 season for Ruth.

Later in the season, Ruth had a well publicized fight with manager Miller Huggins, who fined Ruth $5000 and suspended him nine days for numerous curfew violations....

For someone who performed larger than life heroics on the field, Ruth was very often less than the ideal role model in his behavior and personality. He drank too much, had a speech splattered with profanities, chased women while being a married man, drove cars recklessly, was frequently childishly rebellious with a disregard for rules and authority figures, and sometimes had a quick temper with players, umpires, and even fans.

source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth





You should go the the "Babe Ruth General thread" and go to post #82. Bill sorta consolidated things over there, but scroll down just past "2 mules for Mr. Moore" and you'll see that you're not writing things I don't already know.

btw; to me a premadonna shows no generosity or acknowledgment toward fans and other players, and routinely shows up the other team by watching his homers for an extended period of time. This was not Ruth. He generous to teammates, cordial toward other players (except those that called him the N word, and other names, then he'd respond in kind - different era), always had time for fans on and off the field, and never showed any pitchers up. Him wanting a lot of money showed that he was intelligent, and understood his impact on owner's profits.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

----------------------

[White Knight]

avg number of dongs hit by a mlb team


red = 161 - 200
blue = 121 - 160
green = 81 - 120
orange = 41 - 80
black = 1 - 40


year - hr

2005 – 167
2004 – 182
2003 – 174
2002 – 169
2001 – 182
2000 – 190
1999 – 184
1998 – 169
1997 – 166
1996 – 177
1995 – 164
1994 – 168
1993 – 144
1992 – 117
1991 – 130
1990 – 128
1989 – 119
1988 – 122
1987 – 171
1986 – 147
1985 – 139
1984 – 125
1983 – 127
1982 – 130
1981 – 69
1980 – 118
1979 – 132
1978 – 114
1977 – 140
1976 – 93
1975 – 112
1974 – 110
1973 – 129
1972 – 106
1971 – 119
1970 – 143
1969 – 130
1968 – 100
1967 – 115
1966 – 137
1965 – 134
1964 – 138
1963 – 135
1962 – 150
1961 – 151
1960 – 133
1959 – 140
1958 – 140
1957 – 138
1956 – 143
1955 – 139
1954 – 121
1953 – 130
1952 – 106
1951 – 116
1950 – 130
1949 – 107
1948 – 97
1947 – 98
1946 – 76
1945 – 63
1944 – 65
1943 – 56
1942 – 67
1941 – 83
1940 – 98
1939 – 90
1938 – 92
1937 – 89
1936 – 85
1935 – 83
1934 – 84
1933 – 67
1932 – 85
1931 – 67
1930 – 98
1929 – 84
1928 – 68
1927 – 58
1926 – 54
1925 – 73
1924 – 56
1923 – 61
1922 – 66
1921 – 58
1920 – 39
1919 – 28
1918 – 15
1917 – 21
1916 – 24
1915 – 24
1914 – 26
1913 – 29
1912 – 28
1911 – 32
1910 – 22
1909 – 16
1908 – 17
1907 – 15
1906 – 16
1905 – 21
1904 – 21
1903 – 21
1902 – 22
1901 – 28

Any updates for the last seven years?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Interesting that we may be entering an era where we won't see many 500 HR hitters often. After Pujols clears 500 HRs in 2013 who is next? Dunn? Cabrera? Fielder? Though, Dunn has 406 career HRs I have my doubts he'll last long enough to reach 500 HRs IMO.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Interesting that we may be entering an era where we won't see many 500 HR hitters often. After Pujols clears 500 HRs in 2013 who is next? Dunn? Cabrera? Fielder? Though, Dunn has 406 career HRs I have my doubts he'll last long enough to reach 500 HRs IMO.

Add Ryan Howard to the list if he picks up again.

The only club that I believe has yet to lose its fast pass to the HoF is the 300 win club, though 3000 hits is close. 500 home runs has lost some luster, but not all. I believe only Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Rafael Palmeiro are the only members of the group who don't belong. 3000 strikeouts can be done if a pitcher lasts long enough and strikes out hitters somewhat often, about 7.0 K/9IP. 500 steals has never merited HoFers. 500 saves is also a close fast pass for myself.

I think I may start a thread on this in the HoF forum

[White Knight]

Interesting that we may be entering an era where we won't see many 500 HR hitters often. After Pujols clears 500 HRs in 2013 who is next? Dunn? Cabrera? Fielder? Though, Dunn has 406 career HRs I have my doubts he'll last long enough to reach 500 HRs IMO.

Mark Teixeira?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Mark Teixeira?

Another potential candidate. :thumbsup:. He has 338 career HRs through age 32. His decline in his contact hitting skills may be an issue, though. Through age 29 he had a career .290 BA. Since then he has hit just .252.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Any updates for the last seven years?

I forgot to put (projected) next to '94 and '95. No, havent updated yet. If you're looking for a project, be my guest :)

[White Knight]

Another potential candidate. :thumbsup:. He has 338 career HRs through age 32. His decline in his contact hitting skills may be an issue, though. Through age 29 he had a career .290 BA. Since then he has hit just .252.

Yeah, I don't think he can do it, he's gonna need several more years of 30+. A real long shot is Curtis Granderson. With just 210 home runs at 31, I normally wouldn't even mention someone like him in the discussion. However, he leads the Majors the last two years with 84 home runs. If he can maintain 40 for three more seasons, then 30 for three more, well he's got a shot.

[ol' aches and pains]

500 clean home runs would still impress me, if only I knew who was clean and who wasn't.

[White Knight]

500 clean home runs would still impress me, if only I knew who was clean and who wasn't.

Would a clean Dunn with 500 home runs impress you enough for the HOF?

[ol' aches and pains]

Would a clean Dunn with 500 home runs impress you enough for the HOF?

Actually, no, I don't think it would. I can accept Harmon Killebrew and to a lesser degree, Ralph Kiner in the Hall, despite being rather poor on defense. But Dunn may be the worst defensive player I've ever seen. And with a combined batting average of .184 over the last two seasons, he's not doing his HOF case any favors. He has 176 hits in his last 954 at-bats. Would you put him in the Hall?

[White Knight]

Actually, no, I don't think it would. I can accept Harmon Killebrew and to a lesser degree, Ralph Kiner in the Hall, despite being rather poor on defense. But Dunn may be the worst defensive player I've ever seen. And with a combined batting average of .184 over the last two seasons, he's not doing his HOF case any favors. He has 176 hits in his last 954 at-bats. Would you put him in the Hall?

I don't know. It's kinda hard to deny someone with 500 clean home runs the Hall, but I think that's exactly what would happen. Dunn may need 600 to get in. If he gets to 600 with a .220 career average, then you almost have to put him in. I'd still much rather see Johnny Damon with 3,000 hits.

[White Knight]

Actually, no, I don't think it would. I can accept Harmon Killebrew and to a lesser degree, Ralph Kiner in the Hall, despite being rather poor on defense. But Dunn may be the worst defensive player I've ever seen. And with a combined batting average of .184 over the last two seasons, he's not doing his HOF case any favors. He has 176 hits in his last 954 at-bats. Would you put him in the Hall?

I don't know. It's kinda hard to deny someone with 500 clean home runs the Hall, but I think that's exactly what would happen. Dunn may need 600 to get in. If he gets to 600 with a .220 career average, then you almost have to put him in. I'd still much rather see Johnny Damon with 3,000 hits.

[dgarza]

Interesting that we may be entering an era where we won't see many 500 HR hitters often. After Pujols clears 500 HRs in 2013 who is next? Dunn? Cabrera? Fielder? Though, Dunn has 406 career HRs I have my doubts he'll last long enough to reach 500 HRs IMO.
If Adrian Beltre can last long enough, he could get in by the skin of his teeth...

The future could be Ryan Braun and Jay Bruce.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I don't know. It's kinda hard to deny someone with 500 clean home runs the Hall, but I think that's exactly what would happen. Dunn may need 600 to get in. If he gets to 600 with a .220 career average, then you almost have to put him in. I'd still much rather see Johnny Damon with 3,000 hits.
I don't see Dunn lasting more than 2-3 more seasons if his BA continues to fall.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So what if over the next 20 years only 2-3 hitters reach 500 home runs? Will the 500 home runs regain its "luster" then? :think:

[Matthew C.]

If Adrian Beltre can last long enough, he could get in by the skin of his teeth...

The future could be Ryan Braun and Jay Bruce.

Get in to the 500 club or the HOF? If Beltre hits 500 Hr as a perennial GG winning 3B, he will be a shoo-in. I am assuming you are talking about making the 500 club by the skin of his teeth.

[Matthew C.]

Well, an arbitrary number is an arbitrary number is an arbitrary number.

Either way, until some guys who I wouldn't put in the HOF anyway hit 500, I will not say it is too "lusterless." Right now, I am fine with all of the current members overall accomplishments anyway.

[White Knight]

I don't see Dunn lasting more than 2-3 more seasons if his BA continues to fall.

Well, if he can hit 40 home runs while batting .210 and getting 100 walks, I think someone will want him.

[Matthew C.]

So what if over the next 20 years only 2-3 hitters reach 500 home runs? Will the 500 home runs gain it's "luster" then? :think:

I was thinking the same thing, and the answer is "yes."

[dgarza]

Get in to the 500 club or the HOF? If Beltre hits 500 Hr as a perennial GG winning 3B, he will be a shoo-in. I am assuming you are talking about making the 500 club by the skin of his teeth.Talkin bout the 500 Club

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Any updates for the last seven years?

Post #59 is the new project. If anyone has spare time help would be appreciated.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Well, if he can hit 40 home runs while batting .210 and getting 100 walks, I think someone will want him.
That's assuming that Dunn can hit even .210. Through 2010 Dunn had a career .250 BA with a 133 OPS+ which included batting .260+ four times (five times if you include his 66 game rookie season). Since 2011 he's hitting .184 with an 87 OPS+. Dunn's contact ability, which was mediocre to being with, is in severe decline. Not saying it will happen for sure but I can see Dunn being out of baseball by 2015.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

AVG HR PER YEAR (RED = 161 - 200) (BLUE = 121 - 160) (GREEN = 81 - 120) (Orange = 41 - 80) (Black = 1 - 40)

AB/HR (RED =


YEAR ---- HR ----------- AB/HR --------- AB/HR --------------------------- NUMBER OF TIMES---------------------------------
------- MLB AVG ---------- AL ------------- NL ----------- 30+HR ---------- 40+HR ---------- 50+HR ---------- 60+HR ---------- 70+HR

2012 --- 164 -------------- 31 ------------- 36 -------------- 27 ---------------- 6
2011 --- 151 -------------- 34 ------------- 38 -------------- 24 ---------------- 2
2010 --- 153 -------------- 35 ------------- 36 -------------- 18 ---------------- 2 --------------- 1
2009 --- 168 -------------- 30 ------------- 35 -------------- 30 ---------------- 5
2008 --- 162 -------------- 34 ------------- 33 -------------- 28 ---------------- 2
2007 --- 165 -------------- 34 ------------- 33 -------------- 26 ---------------- 5 --------------- 2
2006 --- 180 -------------- 30 ------------- 31 -------------- 34 ---------------- 11 -------------- 2
2005 –-- 167 -------------- 32 ------------- 34 -------------- 27 ---------------- 9 --------------- 1
2004 –-- 182 -------------- 30 ------------- 31 -------------- 37 ---------------- 9
2003 –-- 174 -------------- 31 ------------- 32 -------------- 30 ---------------- 10
2002 –-- 169 -------------- 31 ------------- 33 -------------- 28 ---------------- 8 --------------- 2
2001 –-- 182 -------------- 31 ------------- 29 -------------- 41 ---------------- 12 -------------- 4 --------------- 2 ----------------- 1
2000 –-- 190 -------------- 29 ------------- 29 -------------- 47 ---------------- 16 -------------- 1
1999 –-- 184 -------------- 29 ------------- 30 -------------- 45 ---------------- 13 -------------- 2 --------------- 2
1998 –-- 169 -------------- 31 ------------- 34 -------------- 33 ---------------- 13 -------------- 4 --------------- 2 ----------------- 1
1997 –-- 166 -------------- 31 ------------- 35 -------------- 31 ---------------- 12 -------------- 2
1996 –-- 177 -------------- 28 ------------- 35 -------------- 43 ---------------- 17 -------------- 2
1995 –-- 164 -------------- 32 ------------- 36 -------------- 21 ---------------- 4 --------------- 1
1994 –-- 168 -------------- 31 ------------- 35 -------------- 10 ---------------- 2
1993 –-- 144 -------------- 37 ------------- 39 -------------- 22 ---------------- 5
1992 –-- 117 -------------- 43 ------------- 52 -------------- 10 ---------------- 2
1991 –-- 130 -------------- 39 ------------- 45 -------------- 12 ---------------- 2
1990 –-- 128 -------------- 42 ------------- 43 -------------- 12 ---------------- 2 --------------- 1
1989 –-- 119 -------------- 44 ------------- 48 -------------- 10 ---------------- 1
1988 –-- 122 -------------- 40 ------------- 51 -------------- 5 ----------------- 1
1987 –-- 171 -------------- 29 ------------- 36 -------------- 28 ---------------- 4
1986 –-- 147 -------------- 33 ------------- 43 -------------- 13 ---------------- 1
1985 –-- 139 -------------- 35 ------------- 46 -------------- 13 ---------------- 1
1984 –-- 125 -------------- 39 ------------- 51 -------------- 10 ---------------- 1
1983 –-- 127 -------------- 40 ------------- 47 -------------- 12 ---------------- 1
1982 –-- 130 -------------- 37 ------------- 51 -------------- 16
1981 –-- 69 --------------- 47 ------------- 60 -------------- 1
1980 –-- 118 -------------- 42 ------------- 53 -------------- 9 ----------------- 3
1979 –-- 132 -------------- 38 ------------- 46 -------------- 13 ---------------- 3
1978 –-- 114
1977 –-- 140
1976 –-- 93
1975 –-- 112
1974 –-- 110
1973 –-- 129
1972 –-- 106
1971 –-- 119
1970 –-- 143
1969 –-- 130
1968 –-- 100
1967 –-- 115
1966 –-- 137
1965 –-- 134
1964 –-- 138
1963 –-- 135
1962 –-- 150
1961 –-- 151 ---- 35 ---- 35
1960 –-- 133 ---- 38 ---- 40
1959 –-- 140 ---- 38 ---- 36
1958 –-- 140 ----
1957 –-- 138
1956 –-- 143
1955 –-- 139
1954 –-- 121
1953 –-- 130
1952 –-- 106
1951 –-- 116
1950 –-- 130
1949 –-- 107
1948 –-- 97
1947 –-- 98
1946 –-- 76
1945 –-- 63
1944 –-- 65
1943 –-- 56
1942 –-- 67
1941 –-- 83
1940 –-- 98
1939 –-- 90
1938 –-- 92
1937 –-- 89
1936 –-- 85
1935 –-- 83
1934 –-- 84
1933 –-- 67
1932 –-- 85
1931 –-- 67
1930 –-- 98
1929 –-- 84
1928 –-- 68
1927 –-- 58
1926 –-- 54
1925 –-- 73
1924 –-- 56
1923 –-- 61
1922 –-- 66
1921 –-- 58 ------------------- 89 ----------- 92
1920 –-- 39 ------------------ 113 ---------- 161
1919 –-- 28 ------------------ 155 ---------- 180
1918 –-- 15 ------------------ 349 ---------- 243
1917 –-- 21 ------------------ 305 ---------- 204
1916 –-- 24 ------------------ 283 ---------- 171
1915 –-- 24 ------------------ 251 ---------- 181
1914 –-- 26 ------------------ 275 ---------- 152
1913 –-- 29 ------------------ 251 ---------- 132
1912 –-- 28 ------------------ 262 ---------- 143
1911 –-- 32 ------------------ 207 ---------- 130
1910 –-- 22 ------------------ 278 ---------- 189
1909 –-- 16
1908 –-- 17
1907 –-- 15
1906 –-- 16
1905 –-- 21
1904 –-- 21
1903 –-- 21
1902 –-- 22
1901 –-- 28


Can someone project 1981 please?

[willshad]

I think what will happen is similar to what happened in the 1960s and 1970, where a ton of guys reached the 500 mark at about the same time (Killerbrew, Banks, Matthews. Aaron, Mays, Robinson, Mccovey ) then it kind of slowed down, and became special again. After Pujols, and possibly Dunn, it will be a while before anyone reaches 500. Cabrera is possible, but still way too early to tell. Beltre won't do it.

[willshad]

That's assuming that Dunn can hit even .210. Through 2010 Dunn had a career .250 BA with a 133 OPS+ which included batting .260+ four times (five times if you include his 66 game rookie season). Since 2011 he's hitting .184 with an 87 OPS+. Dunn's contact ability, which was mediocre to being with, is in severe decline. Not saying it will happen for sure but I can see Dunn being out of baseball by 2015.


He might also be VERY close to 500 home runs by 2015.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

He might also be VERY close to 500 home runs by 2015.

That's true assuming he is still playing full time. If Dunn continues to hit .200 or lower he may not be playing full time as much. It will be interesting to see what he does in 2013.

[JR Hart]

If Adrian Beltre can last long enough, he could get in by the skin of his teeth...

The future could be Ryan Braun and Jay Bruce.

Jay Bruce has 134 caeeer HRs . A lot of factors with him.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Paul Konerko has 422 career home runs at age 36. He has a shot.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

Paul Konerko has 422 career home runs at age 36. He has a shot.

I heard last year he had a problem with his wrist and it hurt his power numbers. I'm beggining to wonder how much he has left. I don't know if he has three 25+ homerun years in him.

[ol' aches and pains]

I heard last year he had a problem with his wrist and it hurt his power numbers. I'm beggining to wonder how much he has left. I don't know if he has three 25+ homerun years in him.

I'd love to see Konerko reach 500 home runs, and subsequently the Hall of Fame. Is there a more underrated, under the radar player in MLB than Konerko? He's never been linked or even rumored to be on PED's, and he doesn't embarrass himself with the glove. He'd be a good HOF candidate with 500 homers on his resume.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'd love to see Konerko reach 500 home runs, and subsequently the Hall of Fame. Is there a more underrated, under the radar player in MLB than Konerko? He's never been linked or even rumored to be on PED's, and he doesn't embarrass himself with the glove. He'd be a good HOF candidate with 500 homers on his resume.

I think the HOF would be lowering its standards greatly, if Konerko got in. During this era, 600 is the new 500 benchmark. See post #93

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Of the players under 30 Miguel Cabrera (321 HRs thru age 29) and Prince Fielder (260 HRs thru age 28) have the best shot at 500 home runs IMO. It's starting to shape up that in the next 20 years the 500 home run man is going to be very rare again.

[ol' aches and pains]

I think the HOF would be lowering its standards greatly, if Konerko got in. During this era, 600 is the new 500 benchmark. See post #93

As I posted on the previous page, 500 clean, PED-free home runs is still an impressive accomplishment to me. Of the players who hit 600 in this era, only Griffey and Thome are clean, as far as we know. Thome hit a lot of them as a DH, that leaves exactly one position player from this era who hit 600 clean home runs, assuming Griffey is clean.

The HOF has already lowered its standards. Konerko wouldn't be any worse a candidate then Jim Rice or Andre Dawson, especially if he reaches 500 home runs.

[GiambiJuice]

The HOF has already lowered its standards. Konerko wouldn't be any worse a candidate then Jim Rice or Andre Dawson, especially if he reaches 500 home runs.

Not that WAR is the be all end all, but...

Dawson - 60.6 WAR
Rice - 44.3 WAR
Konerko - 25.3 WAR

Konerko would be a terrible, awful, incomprehensible Hall of Fame selection. (Even more so than Jim Rice was).

[White Knight]

Not that WAR is the be all end all, but...

Dawson - 60.6 WAR
Rice - 44.3 WAR
Konerko - 25.3 WAR

Konerko would be a terrible, awful, incomprehensible Hall of Fame selection. (Even more so than Jim Rice was).

Wait until Dunn gets in, Konerko will look good by comparison.

[GiambiJuice]

Wait until Dunn gets in

0% chance of that happening. Even if Dunn hits 600 homers he aint' getting in.

[White Knight]

0% chance of that happening. Even if Dunn hits 600 homers he aint' getting in.

BS. 600 he gets in first ballot, they would have no choice.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Dunn won't last long enough to reach 600 home runs.

[White Knight]

Dunn won't last long enough to reach 600 home runs.

I doubt it too, but I hope he does. He's an interesting player, and the debates on him going to the Hall would be loads of fun.

[Jackaroo Dave]

Not that WAR is the be all end all, but...

Dawson - 60.6 WAR
Rice - 44.3 WAR
Konerko - 25.3 WAR

Konerko would be a terrible, awful, incomprehensible Hall of Fame selection. (Even more so than Jim Rice was).Konerko shows clearly the value of being average. If you look at the regular ML first basemen still active who broke in before 2005, Konerko is just about right in the middle.

Teixeira has about 20 more WAR in six fewer years, and his HOF prospects don't look that good. Like GiambiJuice, I'm not a warhawk, but a difference like that didn't just fall out of the sky.

That's why I think that above replacement gives a more realistic measure. If you just consider above average, a lot of baby goes out with the bathwater. To be average for a long time, you have to be very good.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

As I posted on the previous page, 500 clean, PED-free home runs is still an impressive accomplishment to me. Of the players who hit 600 in this era, only Griffey and Thome are clean, as far as we know. Thome hit a lot of them as a DH, that leaves exactly one position player from this era who hit 600 clean home runs, assuming Griffey is clean.

The HOF has already lowered its standards. Konerko wouldn't be any worse a candidate then Jim Rice or Andre Dawson, especially if he reaches 500 home runs.

Agreed, they already have. So why not lower them more? It's the "he's the best who's not in" syndrome. The bar keeps getting lower and lower.

PEDs aren't the only reason why home runs are cheaper than ever. It's the setup of the game and the approach taken by hitters because of that setup. Not going to insult your intelligence by explaining, because I'm assuming you know everything I am referring to.

I think people are now starting to view guys like Schmidt, Dawson, and Murphy in a different light.

[JR Hart]

Agreed, they already have. So why not lower them more? It's the "he's the best who's not in" syndrome. The bar keeps getting lower and lower.

PEDs aren't the only reason why home runs are cheaper than ever. It's the setup of the game and the approach taken by hitters because of that setup. Not going to insult your intelligence by explaining, because I'm assuming you know everything I am referring to.

I think people are now starting to view guys like Schmidt, Dawson, and Murphy in a different light.

Hilarious

This board hates Dawson and Murphy. I never thought that I'd see a saber guy like them.

[Steven Gallanter]

Hilarious

This board hates Dawson and Murphy. I never thought that I'd see a saber guy like them.

Dale Murphy is one of my all-time favorites both as a SABR geek and as someone who was lucky enough to see him on WTBS. It is truly odd that he isn't in the HOF.

http://stevegallanter.wordpress.com

[fenrir]

Not really. It's still a very impressive feat for a non steroid user.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Dale Murphy is one of my all-time favorites both as a SABR geek and as someone who was lucky enough to see him on WTBS. It is truly odd that he isn't in the HOF.

http://stevegallanter.wordpress.com

I grew up watcing TBS and WGN. A prisoner to the Braves and Cubs.

I'm by far a saber guy but if you just put eras into perspective. 30 dingers back then was like 40 today. Murphy had a slow build to his prime then a slow fade into his decline. Just missed the HR boom. No doubt in my mind, in these parks and this environment he'd be a 35-45 HR guy consistently

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I grew up watcing TBS and WGN. A prisoner to the Braves and Cubs.

I'm by far a saber guy but if you just put eras into perspective. 30 dingers back then was like 40 today. Murphy had a slow build to his prime then a slow fade into his decline. Just missed the HR boom. No doubt in my mind, in these parks and this environment he'd be a 35-45 HR guy consistently

I grew up watching Murphy. He was a great player in the early 1980's. He did have that 44 HR season in 1987 at age 31. To this day I don't understand what happened to him? He seemed to lose it overnight. I don't remember him having some major injury. In the late 1990's-early 2000's he would have been a 35-45 HR guy. Not so much today.