Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tougher Steroid testing isn't decreasing HR totals

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tougher Steroid testing isn't decreasing HR totals

    I've seen a lot of posts on this messageboard saying steroid testing caused HR totals to drop last year. But this appears to be bunk. HR totals for 2005, while down a little from 2004, are still consistant with the background range established in 1994.

    HR totals took a big jump in 1994 (both leagues), and have been hovering around that number ever since. The peak years were 1999-2001. 2004 appears to be a bit above average, and 2005 is a little below average, but both years are solidly in the established range.

    Data (total NL HR | NL HR/team | total AL HR | AL HR/team)

    1988 1279 106 1901 136
    1989 1365 113 1718 123
    1990 1521 126 1796 128
    1991 1430 119 1953 140
    1992 1262 105 1776 127
    1993 1956 140 2074 148 (NL goes to 14 teams)
    1994 2177 155 2592 180 (adjusted to 162 games)
    1995 2157 154 2434 174 (adjusted to 162 games)
    1996 2220 158 2742 196
    1997 2163 154 2477 177
    1998 2563 160 2499 179 (NL goes to 16 teams)
    1999 2893 180 2635 188
    2000 3005 187 2688 192
    2001 2952 184 2506 179
    2002 2595 162 2464 176
    2003 2708 169 2499 179
    2004 2846 178 2605 186
    2005 2580 161 2437 174

  • #2
    Well, I think we will probably see a slight drop in HR's again this year, but not by much. The HR's/team in the AL is the lowest since '94, and the lowest since '99 in the NL. There was a larger drop in the NL (18 points), than in the AL (14 points), but then again, Bonds didn't play.

    There are just more and more players out there who go out trying to hit HR's. This is still a good environment for them most places. And HR's won't disappear just because people aren't using steroids, you just won't be seeing 60+ HR's, but because of the increase in players who can hit HR's, there will be more who hit 15, 25, 35, and so on, and it creates the same affect of high HR's/team, even though there is less steroid usage out there.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Edgartohof
      Well, I think we will probably see a slight drop in HR's again this year, but not by much. The HR's/team in the AL is the lowest since '94, and the lowest since '99 in the NL. There was a larger drop in the NL (18 points), than in the AL (14 points), but then again, Bonds didn't play.

      There are just more and more players out there who go out trying to hit HR's. This is still a good environment for them most places. And HR's won't disappear just because people aren't using steroids, you just won't be seeing 60+ HR's, but because of the increase in players who can hit HR's, there will be more who hit 15, 25, 35, and so on, and it creates the same affect of high HR's/team, even though there is less steroid usage out there.
      1) We have 1st hand testimony that steriods and greenies were in widespread use in baseball in the 70s. Kind of strange that it took til 1994 to start adding HR.

      2) Looking at the last 4 years, 2004 is the obvious outlier. So it's not that HR decreased in 2005, it's that they increased in 2004. That doesn't seem to fit with any fear of testing.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Dontworry
        2) Looking at the last 4 years, 2004 is the obvious outlier. So it's not that HR decreased in 2005, it's that they increased in 2004. That doesn't seem to fit with any fear of testing.
        If you hit fewer HR's one year than the previous season, that is a decrease, and in this case is was also less that the year before that, and the year before that, on and on until 1994, so yes there was a decrease - even if you discount '04

        Well, if they weren't afraid of testing, wouldn't you expect the number of HR's to increase?

        And 1 year is not enough to see anything. It will mean more by what happens in '06, the first year after actual punishments were handed down. So don't go making assumptions off of insufficient data.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Edgartohof
          If you hit fewer HR's one year than the previous season, that is a decrease, and in this case is was also less that the year before that, and the year before that, on and on until 1994, so yes there was a decrease - even if you discount '04

          Well, if they weren't afraid of testing, wouldn't you expect the number of HR's to increase?

          And 1 year is not enough to see anything. It will mean more by what happens in '06, the first year after actual punishments were handed down. So don't go making assumptions off of insufficient data.

          I read a serious statistics article elsewhere that implied HR rates hadn't actually increased. They put all of the blame on an increase in at bats. That didn't scan for me, so I generated some numbers.

          Anyway, we see a couple of interesting things:

          1) The HR spike was spread across 1993-94. It's still very pronounced.
          2) The AL has been basically flat since 1994 - the rate isn't moving more than random chance would allow for.
          3) The NL has a plateau from 1994-1998, a bump in 1999-2001, and then falls back to just above 94-98 levels.
          4) There's no particualr sign that testing is affecting HR rates in any way. The rates are consistant with the established levels.
          5) The increase in HR is not due to an increase in PA - there's something going on in 1994 that caused it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dontworry
            4) There's no particualr sign that testing is affecting HR rates in any way.
            What I am saying is that you have to wait and see how the testing will affect the numbers, and even then, don't expect them to go that far. More and more players will continue to hit more and more HR's, so after it dips down due to the steroid testing, I would expect it to increase again, just because that is so much a part of the game today - people want HR's, so that's what they will get. HR's were around before steroids, and they will continue no matter what.

            Comment


            • #7
              Edgartohof: There was a larger drop in the NL (18 points), than in the AL (14 points), but then again, Bonds didn't play.

              december baseball quiz question:
              there were 434 fewer home runs in 2005 than in 2004.
              list eight players who, combined, accounted for more than half of the 434 drop-off.

              1.... 40 barry bonds
              2.... 35 jim thome
              3.... 32 tony batista
              4.... 29 adrian beltre
              5.... 29 scott rolen
              6.... 28 jose valentin
              7.... 24 jeff bagwell
              8.... 24 craig wilson
              8.... 24 steve finley


              but...
              if i recall correctly, the 2004 numbers represented only the 11th largest spike of home runs in baseball history from one season to the next.
              Last edited by west coast orange and black; 01-20-2006, 03:42 PM.
              "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Edgartohof
                What I am saying is that you have to wait and see how the testing will affect the numbers, and even then, don't expect them to go that far. More and more players will continue to hit more and more HR's, so after it dips down due to the steroid testing, I would expect it to increase again, just because that is so much a part of the game today - people want HR's, so that's what they will get. HR's were around before steroids, and they will continue no matter what.
                These are My numbers:

                NL:

                1988 1279 hr 5793 BB 71356 PA 17.9 hr/1000 PA
                1989 1365 hr 6251 BB 72068 PA 18.9 hr/1000 PA
                1990 1521 hr 6221 BB 72189 PA 21.1 hr/1000 PA
                1991 1430 hr 6254 BB 71619 PA 20.0 hr/1000 PA
                1992 1262 hr 5978 BB 71726 PA 17.6 hr/1000 PA
                1993 1956 hr 7104 BB 84593 PA 23.1 hr/1000 PA
                1994 1532 hr 5193 BB 60261 PA 25.4 hr/1000 PA
                1995 1917 hr 6668 BB 75762 PA 25.3 hr/1000 PA
                1996 2220 hr 7501 BB 85212 PA 26.1 hr/1000 PA
                1997 2163 hr 7704 BB 84907 PA 25.5 hr/1000 PA
                1998 2565 hr 8710 BB 97410 PA 26.3 hr/1000 PA
                1999 2893 hr 9602 BB 98612 PA 29.3 hr/1000 PA
                2000 3005 hr 9735 BB 98478 PA 30.5 hr/1000 PA
                2001 2952 hr 8567 BB 96667 PA 30.5 hr/1000 PA
                2002 2595 hr 8921 BB 96715 PA 26.8 hr/1000 PA
                2003 2708 hr 8666 BB 97092 PA 27.9 hr/1000 PA
                2004 2846 hr 8736 BB 97358 PA 29.2 hr/1000 PA
                2005 2580 hr 8396 BB 96516 PA 26.7 hr/1000 PA


                AL:

                1988 1901 hr 7191 BB 84196 PA 22.6 hr/1000 PA
                1989 1718 hr 7277 BB 84281 PA 20.4 hr/1000 PA
                1990 1796 hr 7631 BB 84431 PA 21.3 hr/1000 PA
                1991 1953 hr 7730 BB 85333 PA 22.9 hr/1000 PA
                1992 1776 hr 7704 BB 84851 PA 20.9 hr/1000 PA
                1993 2074 hr 8006 BB 85512 PA 24.3 hr/1000 PA
                1994 1774 hr 5938 BB 61136 PA 29.0 hr/1000 PA
                1995 2164 hr 7572 BB 77094 PA 28.1 hr/1000 PA
                1996 2742 hr 8592 BB 87682 PA 31.1 hr/1000 PA
                1997 2477 hr 7962 BB 86197 PA 28.7 hr/1000 PA
                1998 2499 hr 7737 BB 86135 PA 29.0 hr/1000 PA
                1999 2635 hr 8289 BB 86415 PA 30.5 hr/1000 PA
                2000 2688 hr 8503 BB 87077 PA 30.9 hr/1000 PA
                2001 2506 hr 7239 BB 85373 PA 29.4 hr/1000 PA
                2002 2464 hr 7325 BB 85113 PA 28.9 hr/1000 PA
                2003 2499 hr 7223 BB 85534 PA 29.2 hr/1000 PA
                2004 2605 hr 7486 BB 86217 PA 30.2 hr/1000 PA
                2005 2437 hr 6811 BB 85026 PA 28.7 hr/1000 PA

                Note that the PA totals aren't perfect - I couldn't find them anywhere, so I used AB+BB as a stand-in. If you know of a good source, I'm all ears.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Was the more stringet testing suppose to decrease HR totals or make sure those who are hitting the HRs are legit?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    As long as there are dozens and dozens of guys hitting 20 plus, the guys dropping from 55 to 40 aren't going to influence the total all that much, especially in a per AB ratio.
                    THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                    In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The testing policy is still a joke, and always will be a joke.

                      http://www.anabolicxtreme.com/store/index.html

                      Superdrol is a steroid that shares characteristics of anadrol and masteron, you can buy it legally online because it bypasses the pro hormone act of 2004 or whatever (they discontinued producing it but you can still buy it online at other supplement sites) and is not detectable atm.

                      Not to mention, anablic xtreme recently produced prostanozolol, and the phera phlex they are selling is also either a PH or steroid derivative.

                      ALRI Max LMG and ErgoMax LMG are also still available.

                      If you have a credit card and half a brain you can get past steroid testing.

                      And thats just the legal way to get past it, I'm sure there are designed steroids out there that any kid with a college degree in chemistry could manipulate.

                      And they dont test for amphetamines.
                      Last edited by chisox2k5; 01-23-2006, 07:18 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ^^ though not all-encompassing, mlb does test for amphetamines.
                        "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by west coast orange and black
                          ^^ though not all-encompassing, mlb does test for amphetamines.
                          'Not all-encompassing' is putting it way way WAY too generously.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            maybe so. not sure.
                            but "they don't test for amphetamines" is still way way WAY wrong.
                            "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by west coast orange and black
                              maybe so. not sure.
                              but "they don't test for amphetamines" is still way way WAY wrong.
                              Right you are, but amphetamine testing is brand new for this season. Here's a link to an ESPN.com article from last month about the Players Association approving the new policy and what the new policy entails. In terms of amphetamine testing, according to the article, the new policy:

                              "...includes testing for amphetamines, which many have called an even bigger problem. A first positive test would lead to mandatory additional testing, a second offense would draw a 25-game suspension, and a third offense would get 80 games."

                              Amphetamine use is something that has been quite common in the game for decades. There are stories swirling around about most any player using some kind of upper before a game. Jim Bouton in "Ball Four" talks quite a bit about the use of "Greenies" in baseball in the 60s.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X