Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Putting the Power of the 1990s in Historical Perspective

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

  • Putting the Power of the 1990s in Historical Perspective

    I was bored this morning, so I compiled a fairly detailed look at 40+ home run seasons since 1920 by both decade and year in an effort to put into perspective just how historically out of whack the 1990s were (my final conclusions about how skewed the 90's were are in bold at the end). Here are some things I noticed about each decade, plus a look at the 40 home run sluggers for each season in the next post:

    The 1920s
    No. of 40 Home Run Hitters: 13
    No. of 50 Home Run Hitters: 4
    No. of 60 Home Run hitters: 1
    No. of Seasons Without 40 Home Run Hitter in Either League: 1 (6 times if you don't count Ruth)
    No. of Times When Less Than 40 Home Runs Led a League: 9 (15 times if you don't count Ruth)

    Other Things I Noticed About the 1920s
    - 8/13 40+ home run seasons were done by Babe Ruth (including all 50+ home run seasons)
    - Lou Gehrig was the only other ALer to hit at least 40 home runs in a season in the decade (doing it once - 1927).
    - No NLer hit at least 40 home runs between 1923 (Cy Williams) and 1929 (Chuck Klein and Mel Ott).
    - This decade is not as relevant as the others since the art of the home run is still in its infancy and Babe Ruth is pretty much the only master of it.

    The 1930s
    No. of 40 Home Run Hitters: 18
    No. of 50 Home Run Hitters: 4
    No. of 60 Home Run hitters: 0
    No. of Seasons Without 40 Home Run Hitter in Either League: 2
    No. of Times When Less Than 40 Home Runs Led a League: 11

    Other Things I Noticed About the 1930s
    - Only two NL players hit at least 40 home runs in a season during the decade, and no NLer hit at least 40 home runs in a season for the entire decade after 1930 when both Hack Wilson and Chuck Klein did it. A decade went by until the next NLer hit at least 40 in a season (Johnny Mize in 1940).

    The 1940s
    No. of 40 Home Run Hitters: 9
    No. of 50 Home Run Hitters: 3
    No. of 60 Home Run hitters: 0
    No. of Seasons Without 40 Home Run Hitter in Either League: 5 (4 came during the 4 war years)
    No. of Times When Less Than 40 Home Runs Led a League: 13 (8 came during the 4 war years)

    Other Things I Noticed About the 1940s
    - Difficult to judge the decade due to the effect that the War had on the talent level of the game. I assume there would have been more 40 home run and possibly 50 home run years had players like Hank Greenberg, Ted Williams, Johnny Mize, and Joe DiMaggio not missed multiple seasons during the War. During those 4 years, home run production dropped mightily with the highest home run total being Ted Williams' 36 in 1942, and less than 30 home runs was enough to lead a league on 4 occasions (reaching as low as Nick Etten's AL leading 22 in 1944).

    The 1950s
    No. of 40 Home Run Hitters: 34
    No. of 50 Home Run Hitters: 2
    No. of 60 Home Run hitters: 0
    No. of Seasons Without 40 Home Run Hitter in Either League: 1
    No. of Times When Less Than 40 Home Runs Led a League: 6

    Other Things I Noticed About the 1950s
    - Not much other than it seems like there was a much greater variety of premier power hitters than in the previous three decades when only a small handful of players seemed capable of hitting 40+ home runs in a season, and they were generally of the Hall of Fame ilk. Whereas in the 1950s we begin to see the emergence of more players not bound for the Hall of Fame hitting 40+ in a season (in addition to the Hall of Fame caliber power hitters of the day). I think this is indicative of a greater and growing level of talent throughout the league at this point that probably crescendos during the 1960s.

    The 1960s
    No. of 40 Home Run Hitters: 34
    No. of 50 Home Run Hitters: 3
    No. of 60 Home Run hitters: 1
    No. of Seasons Without 40 Home Run Hitter in Either League: 0
    No. of Times When Less Than 40 Home Runs Led a League: 3

    Other Things I Noticed About the 1960s
    - The frequency of hitting 40 home runs is very similar to what it was during the 1950s.
    - 8/34 40 home run seasons of the decade came during the first expansion year of 1961 when the AL expanded by two teams and 6 ALers hit 40 or more home runs, including 2/3 50+ seasons of the decade.
    - Until 1996, 1961 featured the most 40 home run hitters for a single season - 8 in 1961 and 16 in 1996.
    - The 60's are generally regarded as a golden age of pitching, but power seemed to be as much in vogue as it was in the 1950s. This leads me to think that the combination of stellar pitching with the slugging of the day, probably makes this the most talented period of baseball.

    The 1970s
    No. of 40 Home Run Hitters: 20
    No. of 50 Home Run Hitters: 1
    No. of 60 Home Run hitters: 0
    No. of Seasons Without 40 Home Run Hitter in Either League: 3
    No. of Times When Less Than 40 Home Runs Led a League: 10

    Other Things I Noticed About the 1970s
    - No one hit at least 40 home runs between 1973 and 1977, and no one in the AL hit at least 40 home runs between 1970 (Frank Howard, Harmon Killebrew, and Carl Yastrzemski) and 1978 (Jim Rice).
    - It seems the level of play in all aspects of the game, took a decided plunge in the 1970's when compared to the play of the previous two decades.

    The 1980s
    No. of 40 Home Run Hitters: 13
    No. of 50 Home Run Hitters: 0
    No. of 60 Home Run hitters: 0
    No. of Seasons Without 40 Home Run Hitter in Either League: 2 (including both leagues during the strike-shortened 1981)
    No. of Times When Less Than 40 Home Runs Led a League: 10 (including both leagues during strike-shortened 1981)

    Other Things I Noticed About the 1980s
    - Just as the 1960's seemed to continue the upward trend of the 1950's, the 1980's seems to have followed the more dubious trend of the 1970's with a further decline the quality of play, and power in particular.
    - First decade since the Deadball Era without a player hitting at least 50 home runs in a season.
    - But all might not be as it seems... It seems to me that 1987 marked the beginning of a minor spike in power that was a precursor to the real boom that followed the 1994/1995 strike. Here's what I'm talking about: In the six-year period of 1980-1986, at least 40 home runs was achieved 7 times, with the most being Mike Schmidt's 48 in 1980. That was the only time that a player hit more than 45 home runs during that 1980-1986 period. However, during the following six-year from 1987-1993, at least 40 home runs was acheived 17 times, a boost of nearly 150% from the previous six-year period. The highest total during the latter period was Cecil Fielder's 51 in 1990, and at least 45 home runs was achieved 8 times during this period, which was 7 times more than it was done in the previous 6 years (and 8 times more in the previous 5 years). So the 1987-1993 period seems like precursor or stepping stone to the real explosion of the mid and late '90s.

    The 1990s
    No. of 40 Home Run Hitters: 71
    No. of 50 Home Run Hitters: 12
    No. of 60 Home Run hitters: 5
    No. of Seasons Without 40 Home Run Hitter in Either League: 0
    No. of Times When Less Than 40 Home Runs Led a League: 2 (both came before the 1994 strike)

    Other Things I Noticed About the 1990s
    - Where oh where to begin...
    - At least 40 home runs was hit 71 times, more than double the next highest decades (the 1950s and the 1960s both had 34 players). The 71 times is also more than the combined total of the previous three decades (67).
    - In the 70 years from 1920-1990, at least 50 home runs was hit just 17 times. Then suddenly in the '90s, it's done 12 times (11 times from 1995-1999). Then we got the 60 home run mark, something that was done just 3 times in 70 years, and then suddenly achieved 5 times in the '90s. Something just doesn't seem right at all about that.
    - Before the mid/late '90s, there had been only three seasons in which two players hit at least 50 home runs (1938 - Hank Greenberg and Jimmie Foxx; 1947 - Johnny Mize and Ralph Kiner; 1961 - Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle). However, there were four such seasons in the 1990s, and all came during the four-season period of 1996-1999.
    - Everything actually seemed fairly normal at the beginning of the decade, even considering the minor spike beginning in 1987 which by itself could just seem like a natural boost from the low period of the mid 1970's - mid 1980's. Things started to seem wacky around 1994. From 1990-1993, at least 40 home run was hit just 13 times, and 50 only once; compared to 58 times for the rest of the decade for 40+ and 11 times for 50+. During the strike shortened 1994, just two players (Matt Williams and Ken Griffey Jr) had reached at least 40 home runs. But with over a month and a half still to play, there were as many as 12-14 other players within very reasonable striking distance of 40 home runs. If 1994 was played out, my guess is that there would have been somewhere between 10-13 player that hit at least 40 home runs, breaking the 8 player record set back in 1961. 1995 was shortened as well by about 20 games, but 4 players still managed to hit at least 40 home runs, topping at Albert Belle's 50. There were probably another 5-7 players within striking distance, so if the season were played out there may have 7-9 players reaching at least 40 home runs.
    - Then things go completely absurd starting in 1996. 16 players hit at least 40 home runs that year and 2 hit at least 50 (Mark McGwire and Brady Anderson). These 16 players doubled the record of 8 set in 1961, which is also the last year that two players hit 50 home runs in a season. 12 players hit at least 40 in 1997, including 2 more of at least 50 (Mark McGwire and Ken Griffey Jr); 13 players hit at least 40 in 1998, including a record 4 players hitting at least 50 (McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Griffey Jr, and Greg Vaughn), and of course there is McGwire hitting a record 70 and Sosa also breaking the record by hitting 66; 13 players again hit at least 40 in 1999, including both McGwire and Sosa each hitting over 60 again.

    Final Thoughts

    - 34% of the times that 40 or more home runs was hit came during the 1990's; 27% came just during 1995-1999. It's absurd that almost 1/3 of 80 years worth of production came in only 1/16 of time.

    - Something's is very, very off when things that hadn't been accomplished over decades are done in a 4 or 5 year period. This little exercise has really made me realize just how historically out of whack the mid/late '90s were from the previous 75 years. I really don't think I can place much value anymore on any of the monstrous numbers of the last decade, they just don't make any sense and really border on the unbelievable and obscene. Steroids, smaller parks, juiced baseballs, whatever, it's obvious that something deliberate was going on to create a product that was historically vastly different from what it had been for 75 years. The game of the mid/late '90s was a vastly different and should thus be put in a vastly different perspective. I now believe that the numbers achieved during this era truly deserve an asterisk designation instead of being included among numbers and efforts of the players of the previous 75 years. The numbers of the 1990's are just too far out of whack to be included among the achievements of the previous 75 years.
    Last edited by DoubleX; 08-05-2005, 11:18 AM.

  • #2
    1920's and 30's and any decade before 1960 had 16 teams and about 120 or so starters playing enough time to hit a lot of homers. 1990's had 26, 28, and then 30 teams and over 200 spots playing enough. A more correct way to look at it would be to also show the % of player seasons that did hit over your criteria with some sort of PA baseline. For instance how many players with over 400 PA hit over 40 home runs in the decade?


    Also in the 1930's the NL played with a deader ball then the AL for good chunk of the decade. Which is why the NL does not have the home run hitters like the AL did.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DoubleX
      I now believe that the numbers achieved during this era truly deserve an asterisk designation instead of being included among numbers and efforts of the players of the previous 75 years. The numbers of the 1990's are just too far out of whack to be included among the achievements of the previous 75 years.[/B]
      What about the pitching numbers of the 190x's/early 1910's, should they be asterisked? What about the batting averages of the late 20s/early 30s?
      Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
      Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by RuthMayBond
        What about the pitching numbers of the 190x's/early 1910's, should they be asterisked? What about the batting averages of the late 20s/early 30s?
        I believe there should be some kind of notation for things like batting averagers in the late 20/early 30s. They are historically out of whack and make people who can't look past shiny averages believe that some of the players of that era were better than they probably were.

        As for the deadball era, that's a totally different story and one that I didn't include in this for obvious reasons. Baseball was still very much in its infancy during that time, and then in 1920, baseball changed and remained largely the same for the next 75 years (a lot longer than the twenty year period of 1900-1920). The point of this was to show that after 75 years of power accomplishments remaining fairly constant, with certain numbers being difficult to achieve, especially with any frequency, we have a five year stretch that nearly matches the total output of the 75 years before that.

        But thanks though. I make this whole big effort to scrutinze home run trends of the past 75 years and you reply off-topic and start comparing apples to oranges and pears. Please, I'd appreciate keeping the comparison to apples and apples here (or homeruns of the past 80 years to home runs of the past 80 years, and not batting averages of the early 1930s and pitching of the deadball era).
        Last edited by DoubleX; 08-05-2005, 11:26 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Does make you realize how great of a year George Foster had in '77 when he hit 52 with 149 rbi, both are the highest single-season total from '65 to '89. He had a pretty good '78 too, then disappeared off the face of the earth.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by cubbieinexile
            1920's and 30's and any decade before 1960 had 16 teams and about 120 or so starters playing enough time to hit a lot of homers. 1990's had 26, 28, and then 30 teams and over 200 spots playing enough. A more correct way to look at it would be to also show the % of player seasons that did hit over your criteria with some sort of PA baseline. For instance how many players with over 400 PA hit over 40 home runs in the decade?


            Also in the 1930's the NL played with a deader ball then the AL for good chunk of the decade. Which is why the NL does not have the home run hitters like the AL did.
            Thanks, I didn't know that little tidbit. That's exactly the type of conversation I'm trying to foster here.

            And you make a good point about the increasing number of players in the game - more players equals more players to hit home runs (which is probably true to some extent). That might explain part of it, but the disparity between the late 90's and the previous 75 years is too big to just be attributed to more players. The number of players reaching these milestones, the frequency with which the milestones are reached, and the heights and the frequency of the heights being reached, rose way too dramatically in the mid 90's from what had been the norm of the previous decades, to just be attributed to more players. You also have to figure that even in a smaller league, the players who are the big home run hitters would still be there since they are likely among the better players in the league and would thus make the rosters of a smaller league. Expansion has expanded the talent level, dilluting it some, it hasn't really added more talent at the top since the talent at the top would be there anyway; expansion is adding more talent at the bottom. If anything, expansion effects home run totals through dilluted pitching staffs, and not simply because there are more people to hit home runs.

            Your suggestion of using the proportion of players with over 400 PA that hit 40 home runs is a good one, unfortunately that would require for more time and energy that I can spend on this. I've already gone much farther than I should have (in terms of wasting my own time and energy).
            Last edited by DoubleX; 08-05-2005, 11:40 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DoubleX
              Thanks, I didn't know that little tidbit. That's exactly the type of conversation I'm trying to foster here.

              And you make a good point about the increasing number of players in the game - more players equals more players to hit home runs. That definitely explains part of it, but the disparity between the late 90's and the previous 75 years is too big to just be attributed to more players. The number of players reaching these milestones, the frequency with which the milestones are reached, and the heights and the frequency of the heights being reached, rose way too dramatically in the mid 90's from what had been the norm of the previous decades, to just be attributed to more players. Your suggestion of using the proportion of players with over 400 PA that hit 40 home runs is a good one, unfortunately that would require for more time and energy that I can spend on this. I've already gone much farther than I should have (in terms of wasting my own time and energy).

              This I believe strongly is the major factor in the increase in the number of 40+ HR seasons. This is also why it's much more diffucult to win the Triple Crown today. Up until 1961, a player had to beat all players on eight teams to win the Triple Crown. Now, one has to beat out all players on 14 or 16 teams to win the Triple Crown. That is much more difficult.
              Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DoubleX
                Thanks, I didn't know that little tidbit. That's exactly the type of conversation I'm trying to foster here.

                And you make a good point about the increasing number of players in the game - more players equals more players to hit home runs (which is probably true to some extent). That might explain part of it, but the disparity between the late 90's and the previous 75 years is too big to just be attributed to more players. The number of players reaching these milestones, the frequency with which the milestones are reached, and the heights and the frequency of the heights being reached, rose way too dramatically in the mid 90's from what had been the norm of the previous decades, to just be attributed to more players. You also have to figure that even in a smaller league, the players who are the big home run hitters would still be there since they are likely among the better players in the league and would thus make the rosters of a smaller league. Expansion has expanded the talent level, dilluting it some, it hasn't really added more talent at the top since the talent at the top would be there anyway; expansion is adding more talent at the bottom. If anything, expansion effects home run totals through dilluted pitching staffs, and not simply because there are more people to hit home runs.

                Your suggestion of using the proportion of players with over 400 PA that hit 40 home runs is a good one, unfortunately that would require for more time and energy that I can spend on this. I've already gone much farther than I should have (in terms of wasting my own time and energy).
                I added this little part to my previous post which you probably didn't see when you responded:

                You also have to figure that even in a smaller league, the players who are the big home run hitters would still be there since they are likely among the better players in the league and would thus make the rosters of a smaller league. Expansion has expanded the talent level, dilluting it some, it hasn't really added more talent at the top since the talent at the top would be there anyway; expansion is adding more talent at the bottom. If anything, expansion effects home run totals through dilluted pitching staffs, and not simply because there are more people to hit home runs.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DoubleX
                  I added this little part to my previous post which you probably didn't see when you responded:

                  You also have to figure that even in a smaller league, the players who are the big home run hitters would still be there since they are likely among the better players in the league and would thus make the rosters of a smaller league. Expansion has expanded the talent level, dilluting it some, it hasn't really added more talent at the top since the talent at the top would be there anyway; expansion is adding more talent at the bottom. If anything, expansion effects home run totals through dilluted pitching staffs, and not simply because there are more people to hit home runs.
                  And to follow-up to that: If the case were simply just the numbers of players, then why were home run totals so far down in the 1970s and 1980s from the 1950s and 1960s, despite the fact that the league had incorporated several more teams, and the fact that pitchers were not nearly as dominant as they were during the 1960s?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    40 Home Run Seasons

                    1920 (1): Babe Ruth (54)
                    1921 (1): Babe Ruth (59)
                    1922 (1): Rogers Hornsby (42)
                    1923 (2): Babe Ruth (41); Cy Williams (41)
                    1924 (1): Babe Ruth (46)
                    1925 (0):
                    1926 (1): Babe Ruth (47)
                    1927 (2): Babe Ruth (60); Lou Gehrig (47)
                    1928 (1): Babe Ruth (54)
                    1929 (3): Babe Ruth (46); Chuck Klein (43); Mel Ott (42)

                    1930 (4): Hack Wilson (56); Babe Ruth (49); Lou Gehrig (41); Chuck Klein (40)
                    1931 (2): Babe Ruth (46); Lou Gehrig (46)
                    1932 (2): Jimmie Foxx (58); Babe Ruth (41)
                    1933 (1): Jimmie Foxx (48)
                    1934 (2): Lou Gehrig (49); Jimmie Foxx (44)
                    1935 (0):
                    1936 (3): Lou Gehrig (49); Hal Trotsky (42); Jimmie Foxx (41)
                    1937 (2): Joe DiMaggio (46); Hank Greenberg (40)
                    1938 (2): Hank Greenberg (58); Jimmie Foxx (50)
                    1939 (0):

                    1940 (2): Johnny Mize (43); Hank Greenberg (41)
                    1941 (0):
                    1942 (0):
                    1943 (0):
                    1944 (0):
                    1945 (0):
                    1946 (1): Hank Greenberg (44)
                    1947 (2): Johnny Mize (51); Ralph Kiner (51)
                    1948 (2): Johnny Mize (40); Ralph Kiner (40)
                    1949 (2): Ralph Kiner (54); Ted Williams (43)

                    1950 (1): Ralph Kiner (47)
                    1951 (2): Ralph Kiner (42); Gil Hodges (40)
                    1952 (0):
                    1953 (5): Eddie Mathews (47); Al Rosen (43); Duke Snider (42); Gus Zernial (42); Roy Campanella (42); Ted Kluszewski (40)
                    1954 (6): Ted Kluszewski (49); Gil Hodges (42); Hank Sauer (41); Willie Mays (41); Duke Snider (40); Eddie Mathews (40)
                    1955 (6): Willie Mays (51); Ted Kluszewski (47); Ernie Banks (44); Duke Snider (42); Eddie Mathews (41); Wally Post (40)
                    1956 (2): Mickey Mantle (52); Duke Snider (43)
                    1957 (4): Hank Aaron (44); Ernie Banks (43); Roy Sievers (42); Duke Snider (40)
                    1958 (3): Ernie Banks (47); Mickey Mantle (42); Rocky Colavito (41)
                    1959 (3): Eddie Mathews (46); Ernie Banks (45); Harmon Killebrew (42); Rocky Colavito (42)

                    1960 (3): Ernie Banks (41); Hank Aaron (40); Mickey Mantle (40)
                    1961 (8): Roger Maris (61); Mickey Mantle (54); Harmon Killebrew (46); Jim Gentile (46); Orlando Cepeda (46); Rocky Colavito (45); Norm Cash (41); Willie Mays (40)
                    1962 (3): Willie Mays (49); Harmon Killebrew (48); Hank Aaron (45)
                    1963 (4): Harmon Killebrew (45); Hank Aaron (44); Willie McCovey (44); Dick Stuart (42)
                    1964 (2): Harmon Killebrew (49); Willie Mays (47)
                    1965 (1): Willie Mays (52)
                    1966 (3): Frank Robinson (49); Hank Aaron (44); Dick Allen (40)
                    1967 (2): Carl Yastrzemski (44); Harmon Killebrew (44)
                    1968 (1): Frank Howard (44)
                    1969 (7): Harmon Killebrew (49); Frank Howard (48); Reggie Jackson (47); Willie McCovey (45); Hank Aaron (44); Carl Yastrzemski (40); Rico Petrocelli (40)

                    1970 (6): Johnny Bench (45); Frank Howard (44); Billy Williams (42); Harmon Killebrew (41); Carl Yastrzemski (40); Tony Perez (40)
                    1971 (2): Willie Stargell (48); Hank Aaron (47)
                    1972 (1): Johnny Bench (40)
                    1973 (5): Willie Stargell (44); Davey Johnson (43); Darrell Evans (41); Hank Aaron (40)
                    1974 (0):
                    1975 (0):
                    1976 (0):
                    1977 (2): George Foster (52); Jeff Burroughs (41)
                    1978 (2): Jim Rice (46); George Foster (40)
                    1979 (3): Dave Kingman (48); Gorman Thomas (45); Mike Schmidt (45)

                    1980 (3): Mike Schmidt (48); Ben Oglivie (41); Reggie Jackson (41)
                    1981 (0):
                    1982 (0):
                    1983 (1): Mike Schmidt (40)
                    1984 (1): Tony Armas (43)
                    1985 (1): Darrell Evans (40)
                    1986 (1): Jesse Barfield (40)
                    1987 (4): Andre Dawson (49); Mark McGwire (49); George Bell (47); Dale Murphy (44)
                    1988 (1): Jose Canseco (42)
                    1989 (1): Kevin Mitchell (47)

                    1990 (2): Cecil Fielder (51); Ryne Sandberg (40)
                    1991 (2): Cecil Fielder (44); Jose Canseco (44)
                    1992 (2): Juan Gonzalez (43); Mark McGwire (42)
                    1993 (5): Barry Bonds (46); Juan Gonzalez (46); Ken Griffey Jr (45); Frank Thomas (41); David Justice (40)

                    1994 (2): Matt Williams (43); Ken Griffey Jr (40)
                    1995 (4): Albert Belle (50); Dante Bichette (40); Frank Thomas (40); Jay Buhner (40)

                    1996 (16): Mark McGwire (52); Brady Anderson (50); Ken Griffey Jr (49); Albert Belle (48); Andres Galarraga (47); Juan Gonzalez (47); Jay Buhner (44); Mo Vaughn (44); Barry Bonds (42); Gary Sheffield (42); Todd Hundley (41); Ellis Burks (40); Frank Thomas (40); Ken Caminiti (40); Sammy Sosa (40); Vinny Castilla (40)

                    1997 (12): Mark McGwire (58); Ken Griffey Jr (56); Larry Walker (49); Tino Martinez (44); Jeff Bagwell (43); Juan Gonzalez (42); Andres Galarraga (41); Barry Bonds (40); Jay Buhner (40); Jim Thome (40); Mike Piazza (40); Vinny Castilla (40)

                    1998 (13): Mark McGwire (70); Sammy Sosa (66); Ken Griffey Jr (56); Greg Vaughn (50); Albert Belle (49); Jose Canseco (46); Vinny Castilla (46); Juan Gonzalez (45); Manny Ramirez (45); Andres Galarraga (44); Rafael Palmeiro (43); Alex Rodriguez (42); Mo Vaughn (40)

                    1999 (13): Mark McGwire (65); Sammy Sosa (63); Ken Griffey Jr (48); Rafael Palmeiro (47); Chipper Jones (45); Greg Vaughn (45); Carlos Delgado (44); Manny Ramirez (44); Alex Rodriguez (42); Jeff Bagwell (42); Shawn Green (42); Vladimir Guerrero (42); Mike Piazza (40)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think if you did this same study about pitchers, you'd find that the deadball era was also historically out of whack. The best way to do it would probably be finding pitchers with ERAs under 2.00, and you'd probably find that almost 90% of all seasons with ERA below 2.00 happened before 1920. If you think that there should be asterisks next to late 1990s hitting records, you also have to say that there should be asterisks next to pre 1920 pitching records.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 538280
                        I think if you did this same study about pitchers, you'd find that the deadball era was also historically out of whack. The best way to do it would probably be finding pitchers with ERAs under 2.00, and you'd probably find that almost 90% of all seasons with ERA below 2.00 happened before 1920. If you think that there should be asterisks next to late 1990s hitting records, you also have to say that there should be asterisks next to pre 1920 pitching records.
                        Ugh, did you not bother to read my response to RMB, who said almost exactly what you just said? Since I don't want you to burden yourself with scrolling up, I'll copy what I said to RMB for you:

                        As for the deadball era, that's a totally different story and one that I didn't include in this for obvious reasons. Baseball was still very much in its infancy during that time, and then in 1920, baseball changed and remained largely the same for the next 75 years (a lot longer than the twenty year period of 1900-1920). The point of this was to show that after 75 years of power accomplishments remaining fairly constant, with certain numbers being difficult to achieve, especially with any frequency, we have a five year stretch that nearly matches the total output of the 75 years before that.

                        But thanks though. I make this whole big effort to scrutinze home run trends of the past 75 years and you reply off-topic and start comparing apples to oranges and pears. Please, I'd appreciate keeping the comparison to apples and apples here (or homeruns of the past 80 years to home runs of the past 80 years, and not batting averages of the early 1930s and pitching of the deadball era).
                        I started this thread to discuss trends in home run hitting from 1920-1999. If you or anyone else wish to discuss deadball era pitching and how out of whack that is, then I suggest you start a thread dedicated to that subject, because it really has no relevance here. Apples to apples, not apples to oranges, please.
                        Last edited by DoubleX; 08-05-2005, 12:39 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Someone requested the number of 40hr seasons vs. the total number of 400 pa seasons. Instead of 400 pa I used 380 ab+bb, because I'm lazy. The number below represents the number of 380 ab+bb seasons/ the number of 40+ hr seasons.

                          20s: 83.23
                          30s: 61.72
                          40s: 117.77
                          50s: 30.71
                          60s: 39.65
                          70s: 87.3
                          80s: 135.46
                          90s: 26.29
                          00-04: 19.20

                          The drop from 80s to 90s look pretty dramatic. But when you break the 90s in half:
                          90-94: 66.31
                          95-99: 17.16

                          Its almost as if mlb went out of their way to make the game more exciting for the average fan between the 94 and 95 seasons. I wonder why.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mordeci
                            Someone requested the number of 40hr seasons vs. the total number of 400 pa seasons. Instead of 400 pa I used 380 ab+bb, because I'm lazy. The number below represents the number of 380 ab+bb seasons/ the number of 40+ hr seasons.

                            20s: 83.23
                            30s: 61.72
                            40s: 117.77
                            50s: 30.71
                            60s: 39.65
                            70s: 87.3
                            80s: 135.46
                            90s: 26.29
                            00-04: 19.20

                            The drop from 80s to 90s look pretty dramatic. But when you break the 90s in half:
                            90-94: 66.31
                            95-99: 17.16

                            Its almost as if mlb went out of their way to make the game more exciting for the average fan between the 94 and 95 seasons. I wonder why.
                            Nice! This really shows that the number of players in the league has a minimal impact as the larger leagues of the 70s and 80s experienced a huge drop in 40 home run frequency from the 50s and 60s. What the drop shows is not that there were more 40 home run hitters due to the larger league (when actually there weren't), but that the expanded league dilluted the talent level. The premiere home run hitters would have been in the smaller league regardless. The number is so much higher in the 70s and 80s because of the influx of scrubby players. Anywho, something was certainly amist in the mid/late 90s because that jump is HUGE!
                            Last edited by DoubleX; 08-05-2005, 12:44 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This is more of the same crap from MLB. They always try to market to the casual fan, and as a result they lose lots of serious fans. It's the same way with their promos. I don't understand why they don't market to the people who truly care. Over the last few years, MLB has had absolutely no idea of how to market their product.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X