OT: Manny Ramirez's numbers.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

- Griffey? Really? No one thinks he is a juicer? You are all crazy.

While I would never say never about a professional athlete, really? Junior? What about the ever-increasing softness of his physique gives you the impression that he juiced?

[ISiddiqui]

Not only that, but amphetamines are very good for players who need to be "up" for 162 games. People take pride that the baseball season is as long as it is. You have to slog through it. Of course amphetamines are very, very good for doing so.

As for Griffey, Jr. Don't some steroids cause you to break down in the joints earlier because they can't support the muscle mass fully or something?

[kenparker23]

And here we get to the crux of the argument for most people that are up in arms about steroid use in baseball. And the sad part is most of these people ignore the other factors that also coincide with the rise in power - a decreasing strike zone, more hitter-friendly ballparks, improvements in bats, a significant increase in weight-training by baseball players.

Not trying to pin it off all on steroids. Agree with all of the above esp strike zone. Agree to an extent with parks. Dimensions similar in the 70s versus 90s (Coors field notwithstanding). Newer parks like Great American are horrible (for pitchers).

I guess the argument is do you believe players like Bonds, Palmero, Big Mac, Canseco, Sosa, Clemens put up the numbers by using illegal drugs (namely steroids, HGH, masking agents, diuretics)??? Or, do you think the numbers put up is a result of above factors/combination of both??

I believe it was a combination of all of the above. However, one of the above factors (steriods, PEDs) was illegal, and against the law. Steroids were banned in 1991 by Faye Vincent who sent the clubs a memo in 1991. He specifically mentioned steroids in the memo. Small strike zones, small parks, and weight training are not against the law and this is where many folks have a problem.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And here we get to the crux of the argument for most people that are up in arms about steroid use in baseball. And the sad part is most of these people ignore the other factors that also coincide with the rise in power - a decreasing strike zone, more hitter-friendly ballparks, improvements in bats, a significant increase in weight-training by baseball players. But lets all just pin it on steroids, and ignore the fact that pitchers have been using at least as much as hitters.

Originally Posted by kenparker23

Not trying to pin it off all on steroids. Agree with all of the above esp strike zone. Agree to an extent with parks. Dimensions similar in the 70s versus 90s (Coors field notwithstanding). Newer parks like Great American are horrible (for pitchers).

I guess the argument is do you believe players like Bonds, Palmero, Big Mac, Canseco, Sosa, Clemens put up the numbers by using illegal drugs (namely steroids, HGH, masking agents, diuretics)??? Or, do you think the numbers put up is a result of above factors/combination of both??

I believe it was a combination of all of the above. However, one of the above factors (steriods, PEDs) was illegal, and against the law. Steroids were banned in 1991 by Faye Vincent who sent the clubs a memo in 1991. He specifically mentioned steroids in the memo. Small strike zones, small parks, and weight training are not against the law and this is where many folks have a problem.

Smaller parks, absolutely. In some cases (*coughPacBellcough*) the park is actually in violation of major league rules - or was at one time, I don't know if they ever corrected it - but was in violation with the commissioner's blessing.

Strike zones? Supposed to be letters to the knees. Good luck finding an umpire who'll call a pitch above the belt a strike. I recall reading a book by a former AL umpire who, back in the 80s, was part of a movement to call the zone as listed in the rule book and the chief AL umpire basically said "uh, knock that the fuck off."

The impact of steroid use is harder to isolate with those changes, I think. Somebody pointed out earlier that the list I compiled of guys who hit more HR from 31-36 than Manny consisted basically of known or suspected cheats...but a couple of those guys played significant years in the NL after the introduction of Mile High and Enron fields, and one of them played half his games in Pac Bell (AT&T, whatever), which is in violation of Rule 1.04 both to center (399 feet instead of the mandated 400 feet) and right (309 feet instead of the mandated 325).

I don't think it matters for a guy like Bonds - I don't recall ever seeing him hit cheap homers to right there - but that doesn't mean it wouldn't matter for other lefties. I wonder how many more a guy like Ethier would have hit there there last year than in Dodger Stadium (330 to right). It's, I guess, the difference between smaller parks and parks that are violating a rule that was established to prevent a repeat of the "Wally Moon shots" in the old Coliseum (251 to left, if I recall).

[Atocep]

Smaller ballparks is a myth. Ballparks today are actually, on average, slightly larger than they were in the 80s.


EDIT: the numbers I saw were actually from 1990, which was before the new ballparks started rolling out.

MLB   1990    2007  Change
LF   329.6   332.0   2.4
LCF  375.5   376.6   1.2
CF   404.9   404.9  -0.1
RCF  376.0   377.6   1.6
RF   329.1   329.3   0.2

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Smaller ballparks is a myth. Ballparks today are actually, on average, slightly larger than they were in the 80s.


EDIT: the numbers I saw were actually from 1990, which was before the new ballparks started rolling out.

 
MLB   1990    2007  Change
LF   329.6   332.0   2.4
LCF  375.5   376.6   1.2
CF   404.9   404.9  -0.1
RCF  376.0   377.6   1.6
RF   329.1   329.3   0.2

Newer parks have virtually no foul territory. I think that's had a big impact on things. A lot of those popups that just get out of play would have been easy outs a couple decades ago.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Newer parks have virtually no foul territory. I think that's had a big impact on things. A lot of those popups that just get out of play would have been easy outs a couple decades ago.

BP did an essay on this very thing. The numbers show that there is a fairly slight decrease in foul outs, but its actually the older parks that are mostly to blame. The newer parks are getting slightly more foul outs.

 Period    PctFoul  StDev
1985-1992   4.60     0.10
1999-2007   4.36     0.08

Grp    Pct    FO+   
Old   4.16   99.2   
New   4.21  101.9   

FO+ is the percentage relative to the league.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

BP did an essay on this very thing. The numbers show that there is a fairly slight decrease in foul outs, but its actually the older parks that are mostly to blame. The newer parks are getting slightly more foul outs.

Period    PctFoul  StDev
1985-1992   4.60     0.10
1999-2007   4.36     0.08

Grp    Pct    FO+   
Old   4.16   99.2   
New   4.21  101.9   

FO+ is the percentage relative to the league.

That's interesting. What's their definition of old?

It does kind of make sense since a lot of the ballparks that have been replaced are the ones that were a football/baseball mix that had huge foul territories. Jack Murphy, Astrodome, and Three Rivers comes to mind. The old ones that have stayed are mostly baseball only parks like Wrigley and Fenway that have little foul territory.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Smaller parks, absolutely. In some cases (*coughPacBellcough*) the park is actually in violation of major league rules - or was at one time, I don't know if they ever corrected it - but was in violation with the commissioner's blessing.

Strike zones? Supposed to be letters to the knees. Good luck finding an umpire who'll call a pitch above the belt a strike. I recall reading a book by a former AL umpire who, back in the 80s, was part of a movement to call the zone as listed in the rule book and the chief AL umpire basically said "uh, knock that the fuck off."

The impact of steroid use is harder to isolate with those changes, I think. Somebody pointed out earlier that the list I compiled of guys who hit more HR from 31-36 than Manny consisted basically of known or suspected cheats...but a couple of those guys played significant years in the NL after the introduction of Mile High and Enron fields, and one of them played half his games in Pac Bell (AT&T, whatever), which is in violation of Rule 1.04 both to center (399 feet instead of the mandated 400 feet) and right (309 feet instead of the mandated 325).

I don't think it matters for a guy like Bonds - I don't recall ever seeing him hit cheap homers to right there - but that doesn't mean it wouldn't matter for other lefties. I wonder how many more a guy like Ethier would have hit there there last year than in Dodger Stadium (330 to right). It's, I guess, the difference between smaller parks and parks that are violating a rule that was established to prevent a repeat of the "Wally Moon shots" in the old Coliseum (251 to left, if I recall).

AT&T Park is death for most left-handed hitters. I wouldn't bet on very many lefties increasing their home run totals if they played there. Most would probably lose some home runs, to be honest.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sparkle

AT&T Park is death for most left-handed hitters. I wouldn't bet on very many lefties increasing their home run totals if they played there. Most would probably lose some home runs, to be honest.

Yeah, you send a high-archer to dead right field, then yeah you might get a few cheapies, but if you're hitting it at all to right-center....you're screwed.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Smaller ballparks is a myth. Ballparks today are actually, on average, slightly larger than they were in the 80s.

Listen, bub, you've got it all backwards (just like your name suggests). Around here, you establish your visceral position first, then you mis-state the facts as need be to back it up. We will not stand for this sort of "let's see what's actually happening" business around here.

That's your warning shot. Shape up.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Listen, bub, you've got it all backwards (just like your name suggests). Around here, you establish your visceral position first, then you mis-state the facts as need be to back it up. We will not stand for this sort of "let's see what's actually happening" business around here.

That's your warning shot. Shape up.

Are you up real early, or up real late?

Mind my own business? Ok.

[Klinglerware]

It should be noted that the new stadiums do look like they are smaller, on average. I took a look at the data myself:

1990
LF 329.6
LC 375.5
CF 404.9
RC 376
RF 329.1

New Stadiums
LF 332.1
LC 370.6
CF 405.6
RC 374.6
RF 327.9



We see that the gaps and RF line are shorter than the 1990 average (I used the average quoted by Atocep).

New Stadiums without Coors
LF 331.2
LC 369.5
CF 405.1
RC 374.5
RF 326.6


If you remove Coors (an outlier because the dimensions were intentionally huge to counteract the elevation, with little success), the dimensions are a tad bit smaller.

Replaced Stadiums
LF 329.3
LC 373.1
CF 406.2
RC 371.9
RF 326.7

I would suspect that the overall 2007 average Atocep quoted didn't change too much from 1990 because many of the replaced stadiums (averaged here for reference) were bandboxes in their own right.

I only looked at new stadiums built before 2008, in order to apples to apples with the earlier post. You can find the database I used here: Clem's Baseball ~ Stadium Statistics

I'd be interested if someone would take a look at median and standard deviation, as well.