Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
Also, workplace safety is regulated by a whole host of federal and state regulators and laws and is probably also dealt with by the CBA. Calling this a work-place safety issue is both incorrect and a strawman. There is absolutely no one clamoring over A-Rod's or Peralta's health right now.
Why did they end the juiced ball? And when?
So is there any evidence of this juiced ball or is just a theory?
Would it? It seems like it would help linemen more than other positions. Other positions would probably emphasize speed and quickness over size.
I wonder if there are diminishing returns from PED use or even legal supplements after awhile. The body can only get so much more stronger, faster ,etc. I don't have a real good explanation though.
Yes, that's not surprising considering baseball players went form not working out much at all to working out with supplements - legal and illegal - in a short period of time.
Strength (muscle mass) is always an advantage. If your legs are stronger, you can run faster; if your arms are stronger you can throw it farther or more accurately (more "zip").
But then there should have been a gradual trailing off, which we don’t see. We see a big jump (again, only for certain players) then...nothing; they stay the same size for 10 years.
Every player (including the pitchers) went from 98 lb. weaklings to Mr. Atlas in 2 seasons? I find that hard to believe.
There was no explosion in any other sport (times/distances in track, scoring/yards in football, scoring in basketball) like the explosion in baseball scoring.
Again, over 2 seasons.
Isn't it bigger players = more home runs = more runs? Again, over 2 seasons. There was no explosion in any other sport (times/distances in track, scoring/yards in football, scoring in basketball) like the explosion in baseball scoring.
My theory is that it wasn't any great conspiracy.
It's hard for me to come to a conclusion other than that the 70's and 80's simply had historically weak hitting. The 70's at least had great pitching; the 80's were abnormally weak there, too. It may indeed have just been a decade of mediocrity.
1993 - Rockies first year. 184 Home Runs in 81 games at Mile High Stadium.
It's difficult to suggest anything other than the ball that makes an instantaneous change in both leagues.
This suggestion makes sense, until you see that the change was essentially identical in the two leagues. There were 1135 home games in the 1993 NL with 1956 HRs (1.72 HRs/game, vs 2.27 HRs/game in Denver - at 81 games, that's 45 extra HRs, a 2.3% difference.) A single stadium just ain't that powerful. It's difficult to suggest anything other than the ball that makes an instantaneous change in both leagues. (Well, or other equipment - obviously changing the mound height can do the same thing, as has been observed)
Other positions would probably emphasize speed and quickness over size.
What leads me to believe the 70's and 80's really did just have a shortage of hitting talent is that it wasn't just the 90's and 2000's that had more great hitters - it was basically EVERY other era. If we stick with the same 140 OPS+ threshhold that we used earlier, the 50's/60's had Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Snider, Killebrew, McCovey (Stargell basically bridged the gap between this generation and Schmidts). The 20's/30's had Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, Foxx, Ott, Heilmann. The deadball era had Cobb, Speaker, Wagner, Jackson, Collins, Crawford. The post sillyball era has Cabrera, Trout, Votto, Pujols, Braun. Even the waterered down WW2 era had Williams, Musial, DiMaggio, Greenberg, Mize.
Steroids improve speed, too. That's why so many Olympic sprinters take them.
That hitting extremes hit higher notes in the 90-2000s may mean there more great hitters, or it may mean there were more shitty pitchers. It's really difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between the two.
Without looking up census stats, the total number of births per year may have passed the peak of the baby boom, just because the country's whole population is so much bigger. But has it increased enough to keep up with the expansion from 24 teams in 1969 to 30 in 1998?
Sillyball certainly coincided with a smaller talent pool.
Actually, statistics would suggest the opposite. When you have a stronger league, then it is much harder for the superstars to stand out. Make the league a bit weaker and the stars stick out like a sore thumb.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.4297 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed