52 Responses to “What to expect from Adrian Gonzalez”

1. tom Says:
   December 7th, 2010 at 8:57 am

   Your so easy to say the "steroid era", do you realize that in 1973 Bowie Kuenn buried the steroid issue in baseball. Henry Waxman put it out there when they restarted all the hearings this decade. Nobody wants to believe players did just as much then . . . Davey Johnson, until 2010 was the biggest HR jumper in the history of the game and hit 17 road homeruns in 1973, his career high was 17 before that. Than Congress slams the door on PED's, he drops to 15 then out of the game. The 73 Braves had Johnson, Evans, Lum, Oates, Baker, Perez all hit career high in HR's and Evans didn't touch 40 until 1987. Juiced ball or people in 87? Even Aaron had a ridiculous year for a 40 year old. That stats were not just the park either they were great on road too . . . . the PED's don't bother me but people should be aware it started in late 1950's in most major sports.

2. Andy Says:
   December 7th, 2010 at 9:07 am

   It's definitely true that steroids and other banned substances have been used in baseball long before 1993. When I mentioned the "Steroids Era" I am referring to rampant use by a large fraction of players leading to heavily skewed league-wide stats and changes in classic profiles for players in terms of peak years occurring around Age 27.

3. WanderingWinder Says:
   December 7th, 2010 at 10:23 am

   And whether it's steroid-based or not, there simply was a different era of offense beginning in 1993. The stats across the board show significant differences; just as 1920 was the end of the deadball era, '93 marks the beginning of the SE, whether that was caused by steroids or not.

4. CatNamedManny Says:
   December 7th, 2010 at 10:49 am

   Yeah, I think it's an open question whether the higher offenses of the era were actually caused by steroids (after all, the pitchers were using them, too, and the jump in offense coincided with the small-ballpark trend and a change in how baseballs were manufactured, as well as an increase in weight training and a focus on better off-season and in-season conditioning).

   I think for a list like this we need to look at why the players who dropped off quickly did so -- Mattingly, for example, because of his well-documented back problems. It looks like injuries torpedoed Bottomley's career, as well. Would be worth looking at to see if there are any examples in there of a player staying healthy yet failing to be productive through age 36. Injury obviously is an inherent risk in a long-term contract; the real question is straight underperformance.

5. John Autin Says:
   December 7th, 2010 at 11:40 am

   "Gonzalez fits into the middle third of this group with an OPS+ of 141...."

   Yes ... but isn't it simpler and more meaningful to say that Gonzalez ranks 14th out of 21? The 3-groups exercise seems almost contrived to "shade up" Gonzo's standing.

   There is a natural dividing line for the top group, whether you put it between #5 Mize (172) and #6 Bagwell (161), or between #7 McGriff (158) and #8 Clark/Murray (152). But I don't see a natural dividing line anywhere between #10 Mattingly (145) and #21 Hargrove (130).

   Andy, this may seem like a petty quibble (you know me!), but here's why I think it's important: If you divide these 21 players into 3 groups, and group 2 comprises #8 Clark through #15 Teixeira, then the top 3 in that group are frequent MVP contenders, while the rest are not. In that 5-year span, Murray had MVP finishes of 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th; Clark 2nd, 4th and 5th; Mattingly 1st, 2nd and 7th. Gonzalez, Teixeira and Delgado each had just one top-10 finish from ages 24-28.

6. Andy Says:
   December 7th, 2010 at 11:55 am

   I phrased it as I did because Gonzalez is within a few OPS+ points of several guys just ahead of him.

   John, I would recommend you really watch your tone and assumptions you make about others. Despite your obvious baseball intellect, I'm getting really tired of your ivory tower tone, and given how some other readers have started to call you on it as well, you might be wearing out your welcome here. At least I would suggest you stop making statements about what you think other people are thinking. Your own stats and opinions are, as always, quite welcome.

7. John Autin Says:
   December 7th, 2010 at 12:28 pm

   Andy, I don't know what you're so teed off about. Could you please point out explicitly the offensive comments in my post? I don't want to make any assumptions about what you mean.

   And thanks for the advice, but I'm not too worried about my welcome level at B-R blogs. I have made some mistakes here, but I think I've owned up to them and apologized sincerely to each person when I crossed the line. Of the few readers who expressed irritation at me, I'm not aware of any who remain upset with me. I don't think I'm getting voted off the island.

8. Andy Says:
   December 7th, 2010 at 12:34 pm

   You accused me of contriving to shade up Gonzalez's standing.

9. DavidRF Says:
   December 7th, 2010 at 12:38 pm

   Career projections are tricky, but how about something much simpler. What do Gonzalez's 2009-2010 numbers look like in the much higher run context (Fenway vs Petco) and how many RBI's would he have if he had decent OBP guys batting ahead of him in the lineup?

10. kenh Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    @Wandering Winder

    Of course that era was caused by steroids. This year was the best year for pitching since 1989. There were also significant drops in HR's and batting average.

11. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    I don't see John's post as over the line in any way. Andy described Gonzalez as being in the "middle third." John explained why that could be a misleading interpretation of the data. I don't think he was accusing Andy of purposely fudging his conclusions, just adding more context to the results. John is clearly one of the best posters on this site.

12. Tmckelv Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Anytime I can see any kind of list with Tris Speaker AND Roy White, I am pleased.

13. Andy Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    My work has appropriately been called a lot of things on this blog--dumb, ill-timed, insensitive, misleading, among others. But to be called contrived, which gets at intentionally misleading, perhaps even lacking integrity, is not correct or appropriate.

14. BSK Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Re: Steroids Era

    When looking specifically at OPS+, doesn't the era cut both ways? For instance, their is ample evidence to believe that Palmeiro's numbers, both in individual seasons and the duration of his career, were boosted by steroids. But other guys, who we have no reason to believe were involved (outside of conjecture), were likely hurt with a stat like OPS+ because of the guys who were artificially boosted.

    Now, as to which guys were hurt and which were helped, we'd have a hard time determining that definitively. But it seems like something worth considering when looking at how we evaluate the era, especially w/r/t OPS+. Unless I'm missing something about the stat itself.

    As for Gonzalez, I couldn't be more enthused with his pick up for the Sox. My hunch is he probably has a few more truly elite years left in him, especially when you look at the jump he made over the past two years. And he "seems" like a player who "should" age well, though this is entirely unscientific. Factoring in his defense and the Sox ability to rotate him through DH in the waning years, and I think this was a great deal.

15. Andy Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    BSK, that's a fair point. A reader emailed me in response to this post unhappy that I lumped McGriff in and suggesting that he was hurt by others' steroid use. I guess I was referring more to extending of one's prime years through the use of PEDs.

16. BSK Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Andy-

    No doubt. It's a tricky time to evaluate. Perhaps the trickiest ever (though that might just be a matter of proximity bias). We'll probably never know who was helped by steroids, in what ways, and to what extent. Likewise, we won't know who was harmed, either by indirect comparison or direct competition.

    I didn't take your categorization of those guys as necessarily saying they all benefited from the ERA as much as too simply say it complicates their evaluation. I was simply pointing out it complicates in both directions.

    Who are AGon's "most similar" guys? Anyone from this list?

17. John Autin Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    @13 -- Andy:

    (1) I don’t think I made the accusation to which you seem to have reacted. Note the phrase “seems almost”:
    “The 3-groups exercise seems almost contrived to ‘shade up’ Gonzo’s standing.”

    (2) Even if I had made the direct accusation you perceived, I would not have felt that I was accusing you of being “intentionally misleading” or “lacking integrity.” I don’t consider the act in question -- choosing the dividing line for groups of players -- to reach the level of intellectual dishonesty, especially since the statement in question was a one-off that was not a pillar of some argument.

    If someone told me that I seem almost to have contrived a data grouping in a way that strengthens Lou Whitaker’s HOF credentials, I would not take that the same way as if they had accused me of fudging the data.

18. Andy Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    John, thanks for explaining, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions about the intent of you're comment.

19. BSK Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    To weigh in on that discussion, it is possible to create a contrived perception without actually contriving one. My guess is that is what John was getting at.

    In this case, Andy's statement, which was a factual accounting of the data, offered the possible suggestion of something other than it was intended. To those who read it that way, what they walked away with was a potentially skewed sense of reality. If that is the case, Andy is guilty of no more than not elaborating enough. Which we're pretty much all guilty of all the time.

    What I read that statement to mean was that AGon was in neither the top nor the bottom of the data set. Knowing that he was 7 out of 7 of the middle third doesn't change that for me.

20. topper009 Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Re: Steroids Era

    ALL increases in run scoring throughout the history of baseball can only be attributed to 1 things and 1 thing only, a physical change in the baseball itself. http://highboskage.com/juiced-ball.shtml

    Steroids themselves also do not increase someone's abillity at baseball, its only possible effect is that it helps recover from injuries and allow players to recover quicker and play in more games than without them. How they play in those games is a reflection on their skill at baseball. So you could say it is still an advantage Babe Ruth never had, but so is getting Tommy John surgery, a huge advantage over Sandy Koufax.

21. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    Topper, I think steroids get too much credit (blame?) for the offensive explosion and the many other factors get overlooked, but saying *every* change in scoring is solely due to the ball also seems shortsighted. But I look forward to reading that site, as I'm sure the ball has had some effect and it's the great unknown component since MLB won't admit any change was ever made.

22. Morten Jonsson Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    If we need one single factor that explains absolutely everything, I'm going with sunspots. Changes to the baseball doesn't do it for me, and neither do the Templars, black helicopters, or space aliens. Short of that, I'm going to say that there have been a number of factors that have affected scoring over the years. Moving the pitching rubber back from 50 feet is a good one. Changing the number of balls and strikes. Changing park dimensions over the years. And yes, at times, changing the baseball. That's not to say that the Templars weren't behind all those things, of course.

23. John Autin Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    I don't know which part of the post @20 is more inaccurate, but I'll focus on this one:

    "ALL increases in run scoring throughout the history of baseball can only be attributed to 1 things and 1 thing only, a physical change in the baseball itself."

    1. Scoring rises in the 1920s, i.e., the advent of the "live-ball" era: Numerous factors were involved besides changes in the manufacture of the ball:
    (a) Formally banning the spitball (except for 1 "grandfather" per team), as well as the emery ball and all other forms of marring the ball.
    (b) The new practice of taking a ball out of play when it became discolored.
    (c) Other players seeing the success Ruth had with his max-effort uppercut swing, and emulating him.
    Of all these, I think (c) is given the least recognition in proportion to its actual impact.

    2. Scoring declines during WWII, particularly 1943-45: Besides the degraded wartime spheroid, many of the best players were out of the game for 3 years.

    3. Runs per team-game increase by almost 1/4 run from 1960 to '61. Most people attribute this to the first modern MLB expansion.

    4. Scoring declines during the mid-to-late-60s. Most people see a connection between this and lack of (or unenforced) rules on mound height.

    Those are just some of the most obvious, non-ball-related causes for changes in scoring patters.

24. topper009 Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    OK I was to general with my previous statement but the point is that steroids have nothing to do with increased run scoring. The major reason for all drastic, sudden and consistent changes in run scoring has to do with the actual ball being used or someother obvious rule change like mound height, pitching distance, foul ball strike rules, count changes, etc.

    In post 23, 1a and 1b are exactly a physical change in the ball so Im not sure how that is different, and the only reason 1c is possible is because the ball was now able to be hit over the fences, something that was often literally impossible previously because of how tattered and worn the ball would become.

    3 is just flat wrong, first of all the AL had a .14 run/game increase from 1960-1961. There have been 35 seasons in AL history with at least that large of a run scoring increase. There have not been 35 expansions.

    Please read the article I posted and then try to argue with it. Again, ball changes are the not the only thing, just the major thing that causes run scoring

25. BSK Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    Topper-

    Steroids absolutely does make a difference. I'm tired of all the nonsense that says there is no way it has an impact.

    Baseball players workout, right? Generally speaking, working out makes them better at baseball. It makes them stronger or faster or more flexible or quicker or some combination of these. A stronger player, all other things being equal, is going to generate more bat speed and hit the ball harder than a weaker version of himself. If steroids allows players to get stronger than they otherwise would, or get to an achievable strength faster, it is going to impact the numbers.

    Is the impact as profound as has been made out to be? Likely not. Do steroids turn a schlub into a HoFer? Almost assuredly not. But if you don't think an already-elite ballplayer is going to play better if he is in better shape, you're simply being daft.

26. BSK Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Topper-

    It's really hard to take that site seriously. It's pretty clear they started with a conclusion and worked backwards to find the evidence that supports it. They offer little in the way of actual analysis of the ball (except to point to yet another site that they run) and basically show some crude numbers that undermine the current theories. It is intellectually dishonest on several levels.

    First off, it is attacking straw men, overstating the arguments being made by relying on the hyperbole put forth by a vocal minority. Secondly, simply refuting other theories is no guarantee that the theory put forth is any more valid.

27. John Autin Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    @18, Andy -- I regret taking issue with a sentence that was not even the focus of your post. My comment didn't do much to advance the discussion. I'm sorry about that.

28. topper009 Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    Well I think its obvious BSK has never played baseball because you would then know that working out does not make you better at hitting. If that was the case then baseball players would look like football players, and power hitting comes from your lower half so having huge arms has really no impact. As I said, steroids help you play in more games, not play better in those games.

    There is also no evidance whatsoever that steroids make you "faster".

29. Mike Felber Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    Also, we can all "contrive" something without lying or trying to mislead-we all try to make the best arguments possible, & have at least some subconscious bias in some situations. It is hard for us to know when we are letting a bias, even if jus' to being right, lets us make an argument that is not just highlighting a truth, but distorting the alleged reality. So "seems" contrived points to this dynamic appearing likely because the evidence is presented in a skewed way, without any nefarious intent.

    I agree with BSK & others above about PEDs. 1st, there have always been some outlier years by players, but not only is there little evidence of any kind of 'roids in the game before Canseco, who introduced much of it, there is minimal indirect evidence. What Aaron did at 40 for 1 year is not an unprecedented improvement over his usually great standard, he did not change his body, & he did not stay at that level.

    Bonds & many others had a HUGE jump in offensive production, mostly HR/power, lasting for a few years, at an age never before seen. Coinciding with a large change in body [& head or face (HgH), in his & Sosa's case]. I sit remotely plausible that in his late 30's, Bonds, not a naturally bi/big boned guy, already a fitness fanatic, discovered a way to greatly increase his power, muscles, & overall size? Big Mac always could rake, but before he got massive, he did not have NEAR the raw power, even with a short swing that did not seem to throw his whole body into it (Ruth, Mantle, Foxx, Allen). Renowned baseball historian Bill Jenkinson (Baseball's Ultimate Power) lists him as an aberration in becoming a top distance hitter only in his 30's.

    And the bulk these guys add may degrade their other skills. They may actually be in worse overall shape. But speed & agility fades earlier anyway, & in baseball power & drawing walks have great value, even if you no longer run, field, or do anything else well. These PEDs not only prevent injury-though you often break down with stereotypical joint issues a few years later-but allow one to be fresher throughout a long season.

    But just being able to swing faster allows you to react a little later, with its large & obvious advantages in recognizing pitches & location. Greater bat speed drives the ball further, AND there is more bulk behind the swing. No player before the PED era had such a huge increase in HR/AB, or BB, let alone for years, at a highly improbable age. And as a long time weightlifter, the sudden large increase in muscle, especially late in a career when someone is already strong, is very suspect & did not occur previously. Few actually believed that being big would work for, rather than against you, until the mid '80's at earliest. And pitchers juicing helped increase Ks, but the "all or nothing" dynamic, & the extra distance a faster ball caused, also facilitated HRs.

30. John Autin Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    @24, Topper -- My point #3 was technically true (the MLB scoring average increased by 0.22 R/G), but misguided. I was thinking that both leagues were subject to the first expansion draft (as in the last 2 MLB expansions), but I have since been reminded that only AL teams lost players that first year.

    My points #1a and 1b were addressed to what I took to be your assertion that the materials and manufacture of the ball were the cause of all major changes in scoring. Apparently, you meant to include the care of the ball. But considering that link you posted with the words "juiced ball", I think my interpretation is understandable. The term "juiced ball" has always been a red flag to my ears.

    Speaking of that site, I've now looked at it just enough to decide that it's not worth any more of my attention. To address just one statement from their front page:

    "The first round of expansions cut run production by 4 to 7 percent."

    This statement is based on 5-year scoring averages before and after the expansion. While there might be some justification for using a 5-year period before expansion as a baseline (though even that strikes me as too long), I can't see the logic in expecting to measure expansion's effects over a 5-year period after the fact. Furthermore, it ignores the other known factors that contributed to the decline in scoring through most of the '60s, including raised pitching mounds and three new, pitcher-friendly parks -- Dodger Stadium in '62 (also used by the Angels for 4 seasons, before they moved into their own pitcher's park), Shea in '64, and the Astrodome in '65. The new AL park in Minnesota was hitter-friendly, but on balance the new stadiums in MLB lowered scoring.

    I would add that the author of that site is unlikely to win a lot of converts by saying, of "the absurd attribution of the effect to steroid use," that "It just demonstrates that there is nothing so stupid that some bozo won't go repeating it."

    I do not claim that steroids (and other PEDs) are solely responsible for the scoring spike that began in 1993. It seems reasonable to infer that a widespread and deliberate change in hitting approach to try to hit more HRs was also at work, as evidenced by the surging K rate. "The steroids era" is a term of convenience for a period when scoring was very high compared to historical norms. Some people won't get that distinction, but most of those people don't want to think seriously about the matter anyway. If I knew of a handier term for the period, I would gladly use it instead.

    But it's hard to take seriously the statement that "Steroids themselves also do not increase someone's ability at baseball." First off, steroids, as I understand it, do make it easier to build and maintain muscle mass, which certainly does help power hitting. (Mark McGwire was already a prodigious home-run hitter from 1986-92, but during the "steroids era," his HR rate increased by over 50%.)

    Furthermore, to the extent that steroids "allow players to recover quicker and play in more games," that also fuels increased scoring. I don't pretend to know exactly when McGwire started using PEDs, but he went from missing an average of 68 games over a 4-year period to missing just 7 games a year from age 33-35. No team has a guy on the bench who can replace the production of McGwire or Bonds in their primes.

    I doubt that we'll ever be able to precisely apportion the rise in scoring in the recent period among the various causes. But I don't doubt that PED use was a significant factor.

31. BSK Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    Hey Topper, is there any room on top of your pretentious and presumptuous high horse for some perspective?

    First off, I grew up playing ball and played through high school, so not only do I have a great deal of familiarity with it, but I have personal experience with how a changing body impacts play.

    And when did I say that being muscle-bound ("look like football players")? For whatever reason, when people hear steroids (which should be more accurately described as PEDs), they imagine juice heads shooting up and bulking up. As we've seen from scandals, not just in baseball but other sports, performance enhancement is far more complicated than that. There are so called "designer drugs", blood doping... a myriad of ways for guys to impact their performance through outside means. Why would sprinters take them (and break records with them) if they had no ability to make you faster? It all depends on how you take them and what you take and what you do in addition to taking them.

    I never said they make you a better ball player. But they do enhance certain abilities that are related to playing baseball and can increase performance. Why do many players hit for more power as they fill out and get stronger? Coincedence? Nope. Will every player play better with added muscle? Nope. Will many? Yep. Do PEDs, taken properly, help gain muscle faster? Certainly. If the entire approach is done well, such as under the guidance of scientists working in a major lab, why would we not believe that it helps players play better? We're willing to say a million other approaches (like practice and regular weight lifting and long toss and every other way players naturally enhance their performance) work but yet want to insist that PEDs have never and will never impact play? Out and out nonsense, if you ask me.

    Note: I'm not wading into the morality or ethics of the issue here, though much of the terms I've used are loaded with a certain about of value judgements. I use them only because they are natural to the conversation. The morality/ethics are separate from the facts in this matter.

    So, Topper, if you have any real evidence outside of a website that looks like it was constructed on Geocities and offers little substantive value, I'm all for looking at it. But if you're going to toss out nonsense and eventually result to ad hominem attacks, check it at the door. Not only are you wrong, but you look like a fool.

32. Mark F Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Wow.
    Andy offers a basic thought that Gonzalez ought to hold his numbers a little (thanks to the Fenway effect "...Boggs, Yaz, Foxx, Rice, and Manny--all guys who were productive for Boston well after Age 28") and suddenly it is a thread filled with PEDs!

    I like the research and also feel that a deeper line-up (think Headley and Venable vs Youkilis and Ellsbury) will help Gonzo for the first few years in Boston. After 32 years of age, I am not so sure he will be at the +130 range...

    Mark

33. John Autin Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    @28 -- Whatever you think you know about the muscle groups involved in power hitting, there's no evidence of your expertise in a blanket statement like "power hitting comes from your lower half so having huge arms has really no impact."

    There are different approaches to hitting, even among MLB power hitters. I'm sure that some players derive most of their power from their lower half. I'm equally sure that strong arms help most power hitters. Just one example: When a hitter is fooled or otherwise caught off balance, the resulting swing derives its power almost solely from the arms and hands. And one of the biggest eyebrow-raisers during the recent era was the increase in HRs hit with off-balance swings.

34. Mike Felber Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    There is good evidence that the ball was likely juiced in '87, which would also account for the only 1 year increase. I would like to throw out this question: I heard that the ball was 1st "corked" (center) in '11. besides banning doctored pitches, fresher balls, & Ruth;s example, it seems that there was no change in the ball's structure in '20. It may be a case that though the balls were allowed to get degraded, the "leach" on power was loosened in '11 but guys did not much notice or take advantage of it, due to being conditioned to the level swing, small ball game. Opinions?

    Topper, steroids allow you to be fresher, stronger, & swing faster, all which can help you play better. What combos & "stacks" a guy does & how his individual physiology reacts to it is unpredictable. Bonds was particularly careful & elaborate in his planning. It is true that MOST power comes from the lower body, but 'roids & HgH help with overall muscle mass & strength, not just arms. And the body works together: of course a stronger upper body helps generate power! If not, there would be top power hitters who looked like bicyclists-big legs but small upper bodies, not weighing that much even with the lower body mass.

    Ballplayers HAD started to look more like football players! Then with mandatory testing the SI story was "the incredible shrinking slugger". Guys like Giambi atrophied back towards their natural state. There is a law of diminishing returns, or worse, in bulking up, otherwise the best HR guys would be look like the biggest body builders or power lifters, ~ 300 lbs lean, or somewhat more with significant fat.

    But within reasonable levels of muscle, adding it helps most swing faster-& did even before 'roids. Allowing more power & later swings, with predictable pitch ID & tracking results.

35. BSK Says:
    December 7th, 2010 at 11:29 pm

    Even if we accept the assertion that most power comes from the lower half... why can't guys use steroids to increase lower body strength? Just a thought...

36. Mike Felber Says:
    December 8th, 2010 at 12:01 am

    BSK, I said exactly that 11 lines above your post.

    Though maximum power is unlikely to come without appreciable upper body mass. This may be less often true for pitchers, though bulking up, usually at least the lower body, usually helps. And there are maybe occasional exceptions for hitters: The Splendid Splinter hit some tape measure shots, & trained with fingertip push ups, so he relied more on leverage, superb mechanics, & forearm/wrist snap. But who is to say if he would have hit it even further if he added 20 or so lbs of muscle?

37. Hartvig Says:
    December 8th, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Mike- To be fair to BSK your posts were only 9 minutes apart and I know that I have composed posts that for one reason or another I didn't immediately submit only to see that after I finally did post that someone has made almost the exact same comment only a few minutes before.

38. jason Says:
    December 8th, 2010 at 9:36 am

    i think he'll hit 50 3 or 4 times with fenway park on his side. prob drop to .270 with 30 hr this year, but increase to .300 with avg 45 hr when he adjusts.

39. Andy Says:
    December 8th, 2010 at 9:43 am

    I would be surprised if we see all that many 45 or 50 homer seasons in the next several years, particularly if the offense in 2010 was part of a larger trend.

40. John Autin Says:
    December 8th, 2010 at 11:54 am

    @38, Jason -- The thing is, Fenway Park won't be on his side when it comes to HR production. Fenway has been consistently negative in HR park effect over the last 5 years, averaging 24th out of the 30 parks. In fact, for HR park effect, Fenway is barely better than the park Gonzalez is leaving; Petco has averaged #25 over the past 5 years. (Source: http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor/_/sort/HRFactor.)

    It's a common and longstanding misperception of Fenway. Every time an established slugger joins the Red Sox, fans start to dream of soaring HR totals. It rarely happens.

    Fenway is a good hitter's park, but the effect is on batting average and doubles; Fenway usually ranks near the top in park effect for those 2 stats.

    The classic example of the Fenway effect is the career of Ted Williams:
    HRs: 248 home, 273 away
    BA: .361 home, .328 away
    2B: 319 home, 206 away.

    The HR-depressing effect of Fenway may be less (or even nonexistent) for RH hitters. But even though Jim Rice and Dwight Evans hit more HRs at home, their Fenway gains from BA and doubles were definitely larger.

41. BSK Says:
    December 8th, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    Mike-

    My post was directed at Toppper, who was arguing that steroids CAN'T help because power is solely driven from the lower half. I hadn't seen your post and wasn't responding to it. Sorry for any confusion.

42. SocraticGadfly Says:
    December 8th, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    Speaking of "this era," how much is due to increased use of maple bats, along with roids, smaller new parks, and tighter strike zones?

43. JohnnyChance Says:
    December 9th, 2010 at 4:04 am

    "Steroids themselves also do not increase someone's abillity at baseball, its only possible effect is that it helps recover from injuries and allow players to recover quicker and play in more games than without them."

    Ohhhhh I see! Bonds didn't actually gain any ability to hit home runs, he just played in more games! Instead of playing in his usual 143 games a year, in '01 he played in 326 so he could rack up 73 HRs!

    Also, as mentioned above "steroids" is used as a broad term, when PEDs is more accurate. And the drugs million dollar athletes invest in, purchase and use are way more effective and sophisticated than the junk those meatheads you see at the gym get.

44. Doug B Says:
    December 9th, 2010 at 8:07 am

    reponse to post #1:

    yeah... Henry Aaron used PED's at age 40. Sure.

    He was 20 pounds heavier at age 40 than at age 25 but it wasn't muscle.

45. Michael E Sullivan Says:
    December 9th, 2010 at 11:29 am

    "There is also no evidance whatsoever that steroids make you "faster"."

    Given the huge number of cyclists and track stars that are supposed to have taken steroids, it's really hard for me to believe that this is the case. You also mention lower half power, where power hitting comes from. Similarly, cyclists and runners don't primarily get their speed and power from their upper body.

    If taking steroids has no affect on lower body power or speed, why would so many of these top athletes whose sports absolutely depend on lower body power and speed, take such risks on them?

    That said, I agree in general, that steroids get way too much of the credit/blame for the offensive explosion of the 90s/2000s. There were a lot of factors, and my bet is that if there were no steroids at all during that time, it *still* would have been a big offense era, just not quite as big. I also agree with those who choke a bit on terms like "Steroid era" given that they were probably also fairly prevalent in the years before what is commonly known as the SE.

46. Andy Says:
    December 9th, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Steroids help the subject bounce back from working out, giving him greater opportunity to exercise--whether it's building muscle mass for power hitting, leg mass for faster running, or more hitting practice. The bottom line is that it can assist indirectly with all of these things. It's entirely in what the subject chooses to do with the added opportunity.

47. zack Says:
    December 9th, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Andy and John should just get a room already..

48. Mike Felber Says:
    December 9th, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    You are absolutely right Harvig, thanks for pointing that out. Though noting I said the same thing was not meant as an attack, & apparently BSK was just addressing one guy with the thought anyway.

    The only part of the park/PED comments I would tweak is that I do think that the latter made a big difference. Amongst a bunch of factors, I think it was easily the largest one. There was no similar sudden dial back of most run producing elements, like parks, strike zones, expansion...But there was a change when testing came in. Even though some still cheat, & not all can be detected, we saw substantial production & physique changes.

    The former undoubtedly disguised & lessened somewhat by pitchers also not using PEDs as much. But the biggest changes are in the outlier performances. Clearly long standing records are no longer shattered like before, including even stuff like K/9 rates. And it is less common to see insane late career peaks, usually of a few years, that never even previously existed.

49. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 9th, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    Where was the change when testing came in? Scoring and HR continued at basically the same rate they had been at.

50. Mike Felber Says:
    December 10th, 2010 at 1:29 am

    Maybe you are right Johnny. About averages not changing much. But the outliers in run production, HRs & walks are much restrained. trouble is, not only do we not know how many still cheat (though surely less), pitchers presumably used & stopped at the same rates.

    Though size of biggest guys & biggest production are significant changes, as many got scared off using, & especially the drugs with the most dramatic effects.

51. Paul E Says:
    December 13th, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    Let's get the other 104 names and settle the whole discussion....I think you'll see a whole bunch of guys who went from .275 20 80 to .310 35 120 at an "inappropriate" age or point in their careers

52. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 15th, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    In that case, you don't even need the names. Just pick out the guys who did that at an inappropriate age and we'll know they're guilty.