We talked a little about this last night when comparing Pujols to Bonds' career numbers. They were pretty similar up till their mid 30's... where Bonds likely started using and his numbers exploded to obscene levels, whereas Pujols has seen the typical "decline" you would expect. Of course, people said that Pujols was a suspected user, thus you can't take his numbers at face value... but implicating him would also basically be implicating Bagwell and others who were "suspected", but never named in any report nor tested positive at any point. In the end, though... with the numbers now as close to the "pre-steroid era" numbers as possible, you have to admit that the statistcal evidence is starting to approach major significance that there was "something" different about the mid 90's-2000's HR/power numbers that seems to no longer exist (despite all the other factors remaining the same - same small ballparks, expanded/watered down rosters, etc.).
Steroids were obviously a factor - but the other elements are not necessarily the same. New parks continue to be built (six since steroid testing went into effect in '04) with fewer bandbox components, while still others have seen their dimensions expanded (including in Houston). And supply usually fills demand (ie expansion eventually levels out) and there's no longer a dilution of talent. It's been 17 years since MLB last expanded?
Eh, those "other" factors weren't all that critical to begin with. Comerica and Safeco were built as extreme pitchers parks, and actually had to have their fences moved in. St. Louis is fair. San Francisco and PNC are pitcher friendly as well. Colorado/Arizona will always be hitter friendly. Miller Park and the Cit become more extreme hitters park when their home teams has poor pitching. Steroids remains the biggest culprit.
Fair point - I'm not really debating the *why* of it all. More just pointing out that if you have 5 hitters over 20 HRS out of 60, that's more impressive than having 5 out of 100. Regardless of the reason, a 20 HR season is less impressive if more players are doing it.
Not sure where to put this, but here are some excerpts from a fangraphs article, http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/luhnows-first-astros-draft-class-has-arrived/ As of May 6, the date when Preston Tucker was called up from Triple-A, the Astros were another team with zero contribution from the Class of 2012. In less than two months, the Astros have gone from tied for last in WAR, all the way up to third place, and looking to go higher. As it goes with, so it feels, all things Astros these days, Houston’s position begins to look more and more advantageous upon closer inspection. The three teams who lead the Astros in WAR from their Classes of 2012 have done so on the shoulders of a single pitcher drafted from college. ... It would appear that the Astros’ takeover will continue whether one wants it to or not. Another article on not having negative players (i.e the Matt Dominguez Effect), http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a...-negative-war-bad-players-roster-depth-062615 And what's most interesting to me are the Astros. They might be the best example of the concept. By negative WAR, or really by avoiding negative WAR, the Astros rank No. 1 in baseball. By positive WAR, they're No. 15, right in the middle of the pack. Obviously, the good players are important, but the Astros have also gotten a lift from the bottom. They haven't had bad players bringing them down. They've been at least adequate all over the place, and when they've needed help, they've been able to dig in the system.
Astros getting more love by the national media that doesn't cater to just the coasts. Here's another article from fangraphs this time talking about the Astros ability to defend grounders: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/where-the-astros-have-been-at-their-best/ But what might you call the Astros’ strength? Some might suggest hitting for power, which, yeah, they’re good at that. But they’re even better at dealing with groundballs. And that’s not the easiest thing to notice. Especially since the Astros aren’t running out a defensive infield with a couple of Andrelton Simmonses. On a game-to-game basis, you might not pick up the subtleties, but if the subtleties keep adding on to one another, eventually a big difference can be observed. And in the numbers, we can observe a big difference. It’s easy to isolate groundballs. Groundballs tend to be the responsibility of the infield. Whatever the Astros have been doing has been working. .... The Astros, as a team, have generated one of the highest rates of grounders in baseball. The Astros, as a team, have been baseball’s best at fielding those grounders and turning them into outs. That’s a very quiet way to vault yourself toward the top of a division. Don’t get me wrong, the Astros have been doing a number of things right. They just haven’t done other things this right. ------ Even with Villar's uncanny ability to look really stupid, he didn't hurt the infield's defense enough that the Astros after a month with Correa is cruising to the best in baseball against grounders. Keuchel is king of weak contact.
