Bonds hits number 714!

[clintl]

In my opinion, the whole steroids controversy is overblown in the first place. Baseball simply did not have a rule against taking steroids before 2003, so of course some players were going to take them. It's not cheating if there's no rule. And the fact that there were laws against taking them without a prescription doesn't wash, either - they were taking amphetamines, too, and at least according to accounts I've read, with baseball's blessing. Trainers would actually put out bowls of amphetamines before a game. So that was the game's culture.

Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco, etc. are all products of their era. Now, if you want to compare them to players of other eras, you can apply some kind of scaling factor to their accomplishments. That's fair.

In Bonds' case, he had 411 career HRs at the end of 1998, and the allegations are pretty consistent that it was after that season that he probably started using steroids. My guess is that (assuming the allegations are true, and I think they probably are), that he would have ended up with a HR total pretty close to Frank Robinson's, with a shot at 600. That's a first ballot Hall of Famer, and not too far off from the projections in the Pat Hruby article I linked earlier in the thread.

I am not going to condemn the players who took steroids prior to the 2003 season.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I really can't understand all the Bonds hate. People never, ever scrutinized McGwire this way. And it was pretty obvious he was doing some pretty awful things.

Even if Barry is what all these naysayers want him to be, this villanous caricature of a real slugger, the fact is, he's not anything of the coward all those other guys who have vanished.

This just seems like the ultimate sign of jealousy by a media who wants to be the athletes rather than the geeks writing stories and from fans who wanna be jocks, who have this mystical notion that somehow ridding Barry Bonds records from the books without any proof -- just some federal grand jury witchhunt -- that was leaked to begin with, is just the sort of way to get baseball back to its pure beginnings.

Only, it never had them to begin with.

"".

[Crapshoot]

If you wish to delete Bonds, I wish to delete Ruth and all the pre-segregation players, and anything from the 60's onwards - greenies have been popped throughout the history. My base belief is that it doesn't change much - it won't make you a ballplayer. For example, this year, there is a higher HR pace than there was in the previous 3 seasons (this was true as of April, I'll have to check the numbers lately).

[rkmsuf]

Is it OK not to like Bonds and boo him because you think he is a shithead?

[Klinglerware]

I wouldn't doubt that steroids might have had some effect on the HR/G rate, but I think it has been way overstated in the popular press. If you look at the rates year by year, in the past 20 years the biggest one year increases actually occured in 1993 (34% increase over the year before) in the NL, and 1994 in the AL (22% increase over the year before). I would guess that expansion, the beginning of play in Denver, and a series of new band-box stadiums that were built in this period are strongly correlated with the rate increase. The shrinking strike zone and a new emphasis on strength and conditioning (yes, including steroid use) in the 90s would also factor in.

Again, I'm not discouting the use of steroids as a factor in the general increase in the HR rate from 1986 to 2005, but I think it is a relatively minor one.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Is it OK not to like Bonds and boo him because you think he is a shithead?

Absolutely. I understand why people hate Bonds for his attitutude. I hated Steve Garvey not just for being a Dodger, but for being a complete phony - Don Sutton became my all-time favorite Dodger the day he beat Garvey up.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by clintl

Absolutely. I understand why people hate Bonds for his attitutude. I hated Steve Garvey not just for being a Dodger, but for being a complete phony - Don Sutton became my all-time favorite Dodger the day he beat Garvey up.

Maybe he'd have a better attitude if he wasn't on steriods.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Bullshit, dude. Jose Canseco never got treated like that....and Bonds isn't even cose to the most physically intimidating player that has played in the past 20 years. Did you ever see Ron Gant or Bobby Estalella? There have been many anatomical freaks that have stepped in the batters box. None of them have scared pitchers like Barry.

Jose wasn't a good hitter to begin with, Barry was pre-roids. so I don't even know where that reference comes from other than the fact he was an admitted roid user too. Nor did Ron Grant, Bobby Estalella or Jose Conseco hit 70+ HRs cause of roids (or possibly no roids in the formers) So just because he wasn't the largest guy out there doesn't mean he isn't the guy who can slug one every chance cause of his roided out ass and pitchers know that.

As far as that bs it wasn't illegal in baseball so Barry is okay, murder isn't illegal in baseball per their rules, nor is the guy having a bunch of child porn pinned up in his locker - does that make it okay? No. Baseball rules don't supercede federal and state laws - that's why baseball doesn't have a rule for everything that is illegal in the world. He's a hack, a cheat, just like a bunch of other guys - he had a great career and was a sure fire hall of famer but that wasn't good enough so every criticism he gets - and every discredit he gets was brought on by his steriod using ways that he opted to do himself.

Everyone fan of his can run around with his dick in their mouth, it doesn't change the fact that everyone knows what he has done is tainted and always will be, not because of jealousy, not because of race, but because he made the choice to use steriods.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

As far as that bs it wasn't illegal in baseball so Barry is okay, murder isn't illegal in baseball per their rules, nor is the guy having a bunch of child porn pinned up in his locker - does that make it okay? No. Baseball rules don't supercede federal and state laws - that's why baseball doesn't have a rule for everything that is illegal in the world.

We all know very, very well that the federal government leaves it to the individual sports organizations to police steroid use and the use of other performance enhancing drugs. When was the last time criminal charges were filed against someone in the sports world failing a test for steroids? As far as I can remember, it's never happened. If it doesn't involve trafficking, the feds ignore it. And baseball had no penalties against it, so it would be unfair (and likely illegal under labor law) to go back and assess penalties retroactively.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by clintl

...And baseball had no penalties against it, so it would be unfair (and likely illegal under labor law) to go back and assess penalties retroactively.

Didn't someone recently point out that Baseball does indeed have a blanket clause that covers all federally illegal substances, and that it was in effect when Bonds allegedly used the cream and the clear?

[clintl]

If MLB did, and it had any teeth (penalties) to it, why would they have needed to negotiate a separate deal with respect to steroids?

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Vince

Didn't someone recently point out that Baseball does indeed have a blanket clause that covers all federally illegal substances, and that it was in effect when Bonds allegedly used the cream and the clear?

I have seen this point made and I think the next logical step is that steroid users deserve the same amount of scorn as those who popped greenies. Baseball players have been using chemical means to attempt to improve their play since speed became commonplace in clubhouses in the sixties. The available substances are better now but the players accused of steroids are vilified yet greenie poppers get a free pass.

I don't understand treating steroid users differently just because they are using more effective stuff than MLB players have been using for the last 40 plus years. I see no difference in the line crossed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

I have seen this point made and I think the next logical step is that steroid users deserve the same amount of scorn as those who popped greenies. Baseball players have been using chemical means to attempt to improve their play since speed became commonplace in clubhouses in the sixties. The available substances are better now but the players accused of steroids are vilified yet greenie poppers get a free pass.

I don't understand treating steroid users differently just because they are using more effective stuff than MLB players have been using for the last 40 plus years. I see no difference in the line crossed.

100% agree. I think people poo-poo greenies because their heroes of their childhood are attached to the stuff: Mantle, Aaron, Mays, etc. It's a performance enhancer and was illegal at the time. These stars aren't as likeable... though I wonder what would happen if it came out that Cal Ripkin, Jr. (or someone similar in popularity) used steroids?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

though I wonder what would happen if it came out that Cal Ripkin, Jr. (or someone similar in popularity) used steroids?

Well, I think in 1998, McGwire and Sosa were in Ripken's class with regard to popularity, so I think we've seen what would happen.

[Bearcat729]

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

... though I wonder what would happen if it came out that Cal Ripkin, Jr. (or someone similar in popularity) used steroids?

I have my suspicions that Ripken would never have broken Gehrig's consecutive game record without using greenies.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by clintl

This is pretty interesting - a pretty solid, well-reasoned attempt to estimate how many homers Barry would have hit by now without steroids if the allegations that he started taking them in 1999 are true.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...e=hruby/060512

Agreed - interesting stuff. I have an issue with the bat speed formula by Adair, in that I'm skeptical that simply increasing your weight leads to a corresponding increase in bat speed. I suspect the formula is knowingly crude and uses weight as a cypher for physical condition, assuming that greater weight = higher muscle mass rather than more fat. But in the case of Bonds, that's a moot point.

A bigger point (which I didn't see addressed in the article or FAQ) is how much pitchers that were juicing may have held down his home run numbers - we know that pitchers juice too (many insiders have suggested at a rate higher than position players) and one would assume that juicing gives pitchers some advantage - perhaps increased arm speed which would lead to greater velocity and ball rotation (leading to more break on breaking pitches). Almost certainly it would allow pitchers quicker recovery time.

So maybe the 616 number is accurate in terms of estimating what Bonds would have had he not cheated, but how many more would he have than that if opposing pitchers weren't cheating as well?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I have my suspicions that Ripken would never have broken Gehrig's consecutive game record without using greenies.

I actually agree. Especially playing SS all those games, I think he needed and used some of that 'pick me up'.

[Solecismic]

I don't care whether he cheated or not, I just don't think 714 means what it used to mean. It's a different game.

755 means a lot. But even if he gets there some day (and I think he's going to make Willie Mays and Pete Rose look like Barry Sanders in comparison while he goes after this record), it won't be the same as when Aaron broke the mark.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't care whether he cheated or not, I just don't think 714 means what it used to mean. It's a different game.

That may be true, but Ruth's era was the greatest offensive era of all time (even edging past the current one, IIRC). I think you have a point with Aaron, since the era he played in was, undoubtably less HR friendly than the 90s-00s or the 20s-30s.

[JS19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't care whether he cheated or not, I just don't think 714 means what it used to mean. It's a different game.

755 means a lot. But even if he gets there some day (and I think he's going to make Willie Mays and Pete Rose look like Barry Sanders in comparison while he goes after this record), it won't be the same as when Aaron broke the mark.

I don't follow what you mean with the whole "I just don't think 714 means what it used to mean". Do you mean that in regards to the steroid allegations, or in some other respect? Obviously we weren't around when the Babe did it, but to me it seems like an amazing accomplishment. Thats a hell of a lot of HRs which not too many other people in baseball will accomplish for a long, long time, IMO.

[ISiddiqui]

I think he meant in terms of history, this being a hitter's era. But the league OPS in the Babe's time was higher than it was/is in Bonds' time. Of course park factors do have to be considered into it.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think he meant in terms of history, this being a hitter's era. But the league OPS in the Babe's time was higher than it was/is in Bonds' time. Of course park factors do have to be considered into it.

Given that Pac Bell was one of the worst hitters for LH hitters from 2001 to 2003 compared to the Porch at Yankee stadium and the ol Polo Ground - well, don't get me started on that (And yes, I recognize that Yankee stadium later played as a pitcher's park).

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JS19

I don't follow what you mean with the whole "I just don't think 714 means what it used to mean". Do you mean that in regards to the steroid allegations, or in some other respect? Obviously we weren't around when the Babe did it, but to me it seems like an amazing accomplishment. Thats a hell of a lot of HRs which not too many other people in baseball will accomplish for a long, long time, IMO.

To be more precise, I don't think being 2nd or 3rd on the list changes what Ruth meant to the game. He's still the guy who changed the game almost single-handedly. He's still larger than life, still the person who brought countless fans to the game.

Aaron breaking the record meant a lot because it brought a lot of closure to the process Jackie Robinson began. The most celebrated career record in the entire sport was beaten by a black man, and, as ISid pointed out, much of it during a period when home runs were not hit as often.

Bonds may or may not break the record. I don't care. And, given baseball's decision to use tiny ballparks and a lower pitching mound and expansion beyond what the depth in pitching talent supports and perhaps juicy baseballs, the record has lost its magic. Babe Ruth is the old home run king. Hank Aaron is the current home run king. We don't need any more.

Barring serious injury, Alex Rodriguez should settle in with 800-900 home runs. Albert Pujols may take that away five years later. Maybe Adam Dunn as well? Who knows? Who cares? The game has changed and the aura of what Ruth and Aaron each accomplished, in different ways, will never be challenged.

I suppose there will be some renewed excitement when baseball decides softball scores are more appropriate, and someone approaches 1,000 home runs in the year 2025. But by then baseball will be trailing Arena Football 3 in popularity and it will have to fight women's tennis for the spotlight on summer weekends.

I don't see Bonds as particularly tainted. Yes, he almost certainly took boatloads of steroids. Who cares? He still hit the home runs and for a long, long time, baseball tacitly approved this type of substance abuse. It's baseball's fault this record-chase is meaningless, not Bonds' fault. They've changed the game, not Bonds. Personally, I don't care if they allow bionic arms and legs. If Tommyjohnsurgery is legal, as I've said in the past, steroid abuse is nothing in comparison.

[JS19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

To be more precise, I don't think being 2nd or 3rd on the list changes what Ruth meant to the game. He's still the guy who changed the game almost single-handedly. He's still larger than life, still the person who brought countless fans to the game.

Aaron breaking the record meant a lot because it brought a lot of closure to the process Jackie Robinson began. The most celebrated career record in the entire sport was beaten by a black man, and, as ISid pointed out, much of it during a period when home runs were not hit as often.

Bonds may or may not break the record. I don't care. And, given baseball's decision to use tiny ballparks and a lower pitching mound and expansion beyond what the depth in pitching talent supports and perhaps juicy baseballs, the record has lost its magic. Babe Ruth is the old home run king. Hank Aaron is the current home run king. We don't need any more.

Barring serious injury, Alex Rodriguez should settle in with 800-900 home runs. Albert Pujols may take that away five years later. Maybe Adam Dunn as well? Who knows? Who cares? The game has changed and the aura of what Ruth and Aaron each accomplished, in different ways, will never be challenged.

I suppose there will be some renewed excitement when baseball decides softball scores are more appropriate, and someone approaches 1,000 home runs in the year 2025. But by then baseball will be trailing Arena Football 3 in popularity and it will have to fight women's tennis for the spotlight on summer weekends.

I don't see Bonds as particularly tainted. Yes, he almost certainly took boatloads of steroids. Who cares? He still hit the home runs and for a long, long time, baseball tacitly approved this type of substance abuse. It's baseball's fault this record-chase is meaningless, not Bonds' fault. They've changed the game, not Bonds. Personally, I don't care if they allow bionic arms and legs. If Tommyjohnsurgery is legal, as I've said in the past, steroid abuse is nothing in comparison.

Ok, I would say that satisfies my curiosity.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

expansion beyond what the depth in pitching talent supports

I think this is patently false. The pitching talent in MLB per potential pitching population is much less than it was in prior eras. Not simply in considering the rapid expansion of the US population (and then filtering out other sports popularity, of course), but also adding pitchers from Latin America and Asia.

The rest (small ballparks, lower pitching mound) I have no problem with, though I want to point out that similar 'problems' could be raised about the 20s and 30s.

However, I do understand Jim's point (probably the highest level of home runs per plate appearance has occured in this era compared to others).

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think this is patently false. The pitching talent in MLB per potential pitching population is much less than it was in prior eras. Not simply in considering the rapid expansion of the US population (and then filtering out other sports popularity, of course), but also adding pitchers from Latin America and Asia.

All meaningless. What matters is the number of pitchers who are capable of pitching to the top hitters. When once you needed seven or eight pitchers, you now need 15 (more trips to the disabled list, larger rotations, specialization in the bullpen).

And it just doesn't seem that there are 450 capable pitchers. Just look at the crapfest even the very rich teams like the Yankees and the Red Sox have at the ends of their rotations and bullpen. Lenny DiNardo? Uh-uh.

What you'd need to do is find some sort of measurement of average standard deviation of each individual pitcher, normalized to some standard (like 162 innings). There's an ideal average standard deviation. I'd be willing to bet we're far over that right now.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

All meaningless. What matters is the number of pitchers who are capable of pitching to the top hitters. When once you needed seven or eight pitchers, you now need 15 (more trips to the disabled list, larger rotations, specialization in the bullpen).

And it just doesn't seem that there are 450 capable pitchers. Just look at the crapfest even the very rich teams like the Yankees and the Red Sox have at the ends of their rotations and bullpen. Lenny DiNardo? Uh-uh.

What you'd need to do is find some sort of measurement of average standard deviation of each individual pitcher, normalized to some standard (like 162 innings). There's an ideal average standard deviation. I'd be willing to bet we're far over that right now.

And you have a far, far larger pool of pitchers. You may have needed 7-8 pitchers back in the 40s, but of a potential pitching population which was far smaller than it is today.

You say look at Lenny DiNardo, but how about looking at Spec Shea of the 1949 (World Series winning) NY Yankees? With his 76 ERA+ that season. How about Al Gettel on the 1951 NL Champs San Fran Giants? The 52 Dodgers (who won the NL West) had a trio of 70 ERA+ pitchers in the bullpen (Clyde King, Clem Labine, and Ray Moore) in addition to their 71 ERA+ starter, Chris Van Cyuk. (All of these teams were pulled randomly from the AL/NL winners of the late 40s, early 50s) Don't act like bad pitchers at the end of a bullpen is something that only recently came about.

If we are talking bets on std devs, I'll bet that we are right around the average historically.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And you have a far, far larger pool of pitchers. You may have needed 7-8 pitchers back in the 40s, but of a potential pitching population which was far smaller than it is today.

But that's irrelevant. All that matters is the number of pitchers who are capable of pitching to Major League hitters. The shape of the curve as it approaches the top is what we're looking at, not the overall curve.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You say look at Lenny DiNardo, but how about looking at Spec Shea of the 1949 (World Series winning) NY Yankees? With his 76 ERA+ that season. How about Al Gettel on the 1951 NL Champs San Fran Giants?

Just looking at Shea, he had a career ERA of +0.03 over the league average throughout an eight-year, 943-inning career. He missed 1950, most likely with an injury he tried to pitch through in 1949, which was one of only two seasons where he was bad.

If you look at him when he was doing well, which was most of his career, you'll see he was a starter. In 1949, he pitched mostly out of the bullpen (3 starts, 17 relief appearances). Back then, relief work is what you gave a starter who wasn't cutting it. The fact that he only pitched 52 innings that season indicates the Yankees weren't counting on him.

Gettel's another guy who had success as a starter early in his career, then started to fall apart. He had about 400 innings of above-average low-rotation experience before the decline. He only pitched 57 innings for the Giants in 1951, with a WHIP of 1.34, which isn't that bad for bottom-of-the-heap.

DiNardo already has 25 innings this year with a 2.05 WHIP.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The 52 Dodgers (who won the NL West) had a trio of 70 ERA+ pitchers in the bullpen (Clyde King, Clem Labine, and Ray Moore) in addition to their 71 ERA+ starter, Chris Van Cyuk. (All of these teams were pulled randomly from the AL/NL winners of the late 40s, early 50s) Don't act like bad pitchers at the end of a bullpen is something that only recently came about.

I'm not. I'm just saying that 50 innings from a pitcher on a team with seven active pitchers is not the same as 50 innings today from a pitcher on a team with 12 active pitchers. Not even the same ballpark. Van Cyuk is your best example, and he only pitched in 23 games that year, after which he never pitched again in the Majors.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If we are talking bets on std devs, I'll bet that we are right around the average historically.

My sense, from looking at the numbers rather quickly, is that I'd win this one pretty easily.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But that's irrelevant. All that matters is the number of pitchers who are capable of pitching to Major League hitters. The shape of the curve as it approaches the top is what we're looking at, not the overall curve.

And the number of pitchers capable of pitching to MLB hitters has drastically increased in numbers, unless you think that other countries don't have pitchers who are capable to pitching to MLB hitters. I also wonder why increased trips to the disabled list is something that only affects pitchers and not hitters. Specialization in the bullpen is something that improves pitcher performance, not drags it down as well.

Just looking at Shea, he had a career ERA of +0.03 over the league average throughout an eight-year, 943-inning career. He missed 1950, most likely with an injury he tried to pitch through in 1949, which was one of only two seasons where he was bad.

If you look at him when he was doing well, which was most of his career, you'll see he was a starter. In 1949, he pitched mostly out of the bullpen (3 starts, 17 relief appearances). Back then, relief work is what you gave a starter who wasn't cutting it. The fact that he only pitched 52 innings that season indicates the Yankees weren't counting on him.

Gettel's another guy who had success as a starter early in his career, then started to fall apart. He had about 400 innings of above-average low-rotation experience before the decline. He only pitched 57 innings for the Giants in 1951, with a WHIP of 1.34, which isn't that bad for bottom-of-the-heap.

And yet both of them had crappy ERA+ in those World Series years. Their previous history as starters is irrelevant. What matters is what they did in those years and they weren't that good at all. You think that starters don't get sent to the pen if they are ineffective these days? You think that MLB teams count on players that come up to spell a player for a few starts and go back down?

Compare that to, say, the 2005 Chicago White Sox.

DiNardo already has 25 innings this year with a 2.05 WHIP.

DiNardo's career ERA+ before this year was 138. Albeit in a very few number of innings (though his WHIP was 1.5). Last year in Pawtucket he pitched pretty well, and did nicely when called up by the Red Sox last year. Not like he was chopped liver and they knew it and just threw him to the wolves because there was no one better.

My sense, from looking at the numbers rather quickly, is that I'd win this one pretty easily.

Not a chance.

I offer this study:

http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/SmithD/Expansion.pdf

which was looking at claims that expansion dilutes pitching because there are more players who would be in AAA.

In his conclusions:

5. Convention wisdom about diluted pitching due to expansion is not supported by the data

That paper deals with the expansion dilution of pitching question. I'll try to find studies on larger bullpens' effects.

[ISiddiqui]

This article talks about talent distribution among hitters and pitchers, but the arguments work in this context for pitching talent, IMO.

The Talent Dilution Myth

Baseball’s ‘90’s Expansion Brought in More Mediocre Players, Right? Wrong

by Peter Handrinos


It still sticks to the game like George Brett’s pine tar or Gaylord Perry’s Vaseline. Most baseball critics have parroted the line dozens of times. In many quarters, it’s morphed into just another accepted piece of conventional wisdom on baseball. Whenever some critic wants to bash the National Pastime’s supposed shortcomings, it’s one of the favorite weapons in the arsenal.

It’s the dreaded ‘talent dilution’ myth in the modern game.

We’ve all heard the theory. It’s the notion that the quality of play in the Major Leagues supposedly diminished in the 1990’s and into the new millennium because baseball added four new expansion teams within five years. That added more than 100 new jobs to players who would otherwise be toiling away in the Minors or retired. As the theory goes, the talent pool in Major League Baseball was inevitably watered down (‘diluted’) by the desperate expansion in roster spots for guys who otherwise just didn’t belong.

Interesting concept. Completely wrong, but interesting.

In reality, away from the overactive imaginations of the more stressed out critics, the ‘talent dilution’ theory has always been a myth. To see why it’s so bogus, it’s important to remember that the theory ignores a couple vital ingredients in baseball’s quality of play, and completely misreads another.

First off, the dilution theory ignores the fact that a number of factors determine the quality of play in the Major Leagues. Better weight training, year-round workout routines, precise nutrition, readily available coaching, medical miracles, vast computer databases of every possible action on the diamond, more sophisticated understandings of the game’s basic mechanics- all of these have a tremendous bearing on how well ball players do their job.

It is beyond dispute that as the rewards for baseball success have skyrocketed, those quality-building cottage industries have thrived as never before. To compare the quality of new millennium ballplayers to demonstrably smaller, weaker, slower, and less sophisticated baseball players of the past is kind of like saying car performance hasn’t improved in the last few decades. Faded, nostalgia-tinged memories can only stretch the truth so far.

Second, there are far more talented players playing today because the game has become vastly more knowledgeable about player health.

For time out of mind, old-time baseball managers loved to trot out players with little or no thought to their possible physical status. They didn’t have the first clue about physiology or professional training schedules, so pitchers were simply worked until they broke down while field position guys were expected to play through the worse kind of injuries. If a player took anything less than the fullest possible workload, he’d be liable to be benched, demoted to the bush leagues, or traded half way across the country.

That brutally simplistic work ethic may have been very macho and all, but it tended to have predictably negative effects on star players. No one wanted to be the next Wally Pip, so many players literally played until they dropped. And drop they did. Bill James has estimated that as many as 90% of all pitching prospects of past eras were cut down by arm injuries. Players like Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale, who were effectively finished by age 32, may have been the lucky ones. Untold number of would-be stars were undoubtedly cut down in the game before they ever reached the Major Leagues, much less their full potential as Hall of Famers.

That was standard operating procedure in the old days, to simply assume that ball players would be hurt, and that terrible assumption eventually gained the force of a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of player usage.

Nowadays, however, there’s far more healthy stars on the ball fields. Front offices, managers, and trainers know that keeping a talented player healthy is an over-riding priority for their competitive advantage. As a result, they strictly regulate pitch counts while closely monitoring minor injuries before they become major injuries.

Some might say that injury prevention leads to ‘coddled’ modern ball players, but we’ll never know how many player careers have been saved or extended by state-of-the-art biomechanical research. Common sense says- a lot. We do know that superstar pitchers like Kerry Wood, Mariano Rivera, John Smoltz, and Eric Gagne would never have survived in the Major Leagues without the kind of modern reconstructive surgeries that once seemed miraculous but now strikes us as routine.

In light of such vast, basic progress in athletic care, the idea that ‘well, there aren’t as many great players’ out on Major League playing fields then, begins to seem more than a little absurd. In the bad old days, many would-be stars were shut out of the Majors before they even had a chance. In the good new days, in contrasts, fans can enjoy performances from those who’ve been rejuvenated or saved by modern techniques.

Even worse than those elementary mistakes regarding training and good health, the talent dilution myth is faulty for another reason- it completely misreads the ‘quality’ concept by fixating on the number of roster spots. Wrong again.

This has to be emphasized- the talent level of Major League rosters has nothing to do with the number of available jobs. Rather, the overall talent level is a direct function of the number of players competing for each job.

To see why this is true, imagine a random selection of one hundred young players competing for any given job. There’s a certain likelihood that this group will have a terrific ballplayer within it. If that group of job competitors suddenly expands to five hundred, then the odds of finding a star increase. Expand that pool of competitors to a thousand and the likelihood of finding an exceptionally talented player gets even higher still. As Branch Rickey once said, raw quantity is quality when it comes to finding exceptional talent.

The crucial factor in assessing the Major Leagues’ talent level, then, isn’t the basic number of roster spots, but the ratio of young players competing for each roster spot. After all, it’s impossible to have a ‘watering down’ effect if the number would-be competitors increases at an even faster rate than the number of available MLB slots.

Fortunately, astoundingly, that’s exactly what has happened during Fortunately, astoundingly, that’s exactly what has happened during baseball's modern popularity boom.

Consider what’s been happening to youth baseball in America. The U.S. has increased its population by over one hundred million people since 1960, the last year before any expansion with new teams. The U.S. alone is now producing more than enough new players to replenish MLB rosters at just below the 1960’s player/male population rate. According to the US Census, there were about 358,000 American males for every available Major League roster spot. In 2000, the figure was around 375,000 per job.

That surging population, and the nation’s enduring love for the game, might be one reason Little League is thriving as never before in the new millennium. They’re welcoming over three million young players into the baseball world every year, a figure that’s nearly doubled since the 1970s. You might not expect to hear that fact during another traditional round of ‘baseball is losing the kids’ griping, but there it is.

America alone has more than matched expanded Major League rosters with a growing pool of would-be ballplayers, but that happy development doesn’t do justice to the true state of affairs. We can’t forget that, simultaneous with the United States’ baseball boom, the game has been reaching out all over the world as never before. In recent decades, youth participation in the Pastime has exploded in countries throughout the Caribbean, Central America, South America, and the Pacific Rim.

Nowadays, the toughest competitors for the best baseball jobs are as likely to hail from Seoul, Caracas, or San Pedro de Macoris as they are to come from Altoona or Norwalk. We’re already at the point where the modest Dominican Republic, alone, now produces more Major League stars per capita than any state in America. More than a quarter of the players in the National Pastime were born in foreign countries, and almost half- that’s right, half- of all current Minor League prospects get in the game from abroad.

The vast and growing number of especially well-trained baseball phenoms found throughout the USA and several continents means that the MLB’s pool of available talent is now deeper and richer than ever. What happened in the 1990s is that the expanded Major Leagues simply caught up to rising number of available ballplayers. Rickey’s increased quantity met increased quality.

The great new players, many of them foreign-born, didn’t dilute anything- they’ve been beating out the best of the best and deserve a fair shot on their merits. All that the new teams of the 1990’s did was allow modern stars a fair chance to make it from the ever-improving Minors and on to the Majors’ stages. If they were somehow transported back 30 or 40 years in some kind of time machine, there’s every reason to believe that those same players would have earned stardom in the pre-expansion Majors instead of clogging up the Minors.

So, contrary to the talent dilution myth, there was no terrible price in bringing the Major Leagues to the grateful fans of Denver, Miami, Tampa/St. Petersburg, and Phoenix in the 1990’s. Quite the contrary. The new teams simply allowed more great players to reach contemporary fans.

It will always be fashionable in some quarters to say that, some how, some way, there aren’t ‘enough’ quality Major Leaguers. Everything was better back in the day . . . Still, the basic facts say something different. Not only did baseball avoid falling behind during the 1990’s, it upgraded its quality of play with more hard work, better health, and a deep, global talent pool.

Because so many great young talents loved it, a terrific game grew even stronger. No myth.

http://www.unitedstatesofbaseball.co...p?ENTRY_ID=110

[Solecismic]

But all that has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make. There are too many pitchers being counted on these days who are less capable of pitching to Major League hitting.

It has nothing to do with over-dilution of overall talent, and I agree with Handrinos.

Here's what I did. I took the National League in 1952, since that's where you found your best example. And I took the National League in 2005.

I took the top eight pitchers, by IP, on each 1952 team. That amounted to 91.9% of the innings pitched in the league that year.

I took the top twelve pitchers, by IP, on each 2005 team. That amounted to 88.5% of the innings pitched in the league last tear.

So, you're getting a break in comparison, because I probably should have taken the top 13 on each team in 2005. But I don't want to spent the time to add them.

Then I broke this set down by innings pitched in each ERA+ range. The purpose being to find how much pitchers who are being counted on are making us suffer.

Range 59 or less ERA+
1952 0.5% of all IP
2005 0.6% of all IP

60-69 ERA+
1952 0.6%
2005 7.1%

70-79 ERA+
1952 6.7%
2005 13.3%

80-89 ERA+
1952 12.4%
2005 13.3%

90-99 ERA+
1952 21.3%
2005 15.9%

If you graph this, you'll see that the shape of the curve is vastly different today. I win the bet easily.

IMO, a league should try to limit the number of counted-on innings pitched by pitchers below 80 ERA+. In 1952, that number was 792 out of 11025 total innings (7%). In 2005, that number was 4300 out of 23052 total innings (18%).

Increased specialization and whatever else is going on is leading to too many pitchers throwing important innings who have no business pitching in the Majors.

Now, I wonder how much that extra 10% of innings against 80+ pitchers has contributed to Bonds' home run totals? Probably not that huge a number, as those innings would be replaced by 90+ pitchers.

[bulletsponge]

ohh god, this tread has turned into a baseball nerd numbers game!

im not calling you nerds, just a figure of speech

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

ohh god, this tread has turned into a baseball nerd numbers game!

im not calling you nerds, just a figure of speech

Why not? They are baseball nerds...

Nothing to be ashamed of, and there's no reason why you can't call a spade a spade.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solcesmic

Then I broke this set down by innings pitched in each ERA+ range. The purpose being to find how much pitchers who are being counted on are making us suffer.

If you add up the percentages, you'll see that right around 50% of pitchers are below 100 ERA+ (an average pitcher historically) in 2005. While in 1952, it's around 40%. What that indicates to me is that 1952 was a more pitcher dominated year, as ~60% of pitchers were better than the average historical pitcher. As I said, "I'll bet that we are right around the average historically". And apparently that is the case, as around half (I think it is 50.2%) of the pitchers in 2005 are under the average.

The '52 values is more 'normalized' than the '05 values, but is the historic value more normalized or less? And it seems the mean of '52 is not the mean throughout history, but the '05 mean is right on the historical mean.

It has nothing to do with over-dilution of overall talent, and I agree with Handrinos.

As said by Handrinos:

This has to be emphasized- the talent level of Major League rosters has nothing to do with the number of available jobs. Rather, the overall talent level is a direct function of the number of players competing for each job.

To see why this is true, imagine a random selection of one hundred young players competing for any given job. There’s a certain likelihood that this group will have a terrific ballplayer within it. If that group of job competitors suddenly expands to five hundred, then the odds of finding a star increase. Expand that pool of competitors to a thousand and the likelihood of finding an exceptionally talented player gets even higher still. As Branch Rickey once said, raw quantity is quality when it comes to finding exceptional talent.

Which has been exactly my point. Expand the pool of competitors in pitching by a good deal, due to great increase in US population, MLB opening to Latin America, MLB opening to Asian players, and you'll get even greater talent level than before. Thereby increasing the number of pitchers used from 7 to 12 on a regular roster throughout the season should not result in a dilution of pitching, even with mass substitution and injuries.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Increased specialization and whatever else is going on is leading to too many pitchers throwing important innings who have no business pitching in the Majors.

Now, I wonder how much that extra 10% of innings against 80+ pitchers has contributed to Bonds' home run totals? Probably not that huge a number, as those innings would be replaced by 90+ pitchers.

That's definitely the result of managers using the bullpens differently now (the increased specialization). I agree that has increased the need for more pitchers per team (now 11 or 12 is pretty common, while I remember in the '70s, with four man rotations and more completely games, most teams would have a 9 or 10 man staff).

However, the other side of that coin is that you more frequently had tired pitchers pitching in the late innings who were facing the lineup for the fourth time in the game, so if you went a little deeper into the numbers, I think you might see less of a difference than you think. Managers wouldn't have adopted the specialized bullpen roles if they didn't think it improved the chances of winning.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If you add up the percentages, you'll see that right around 50% of pitchers are below 100 ERA+ (an average pitcher historically) in 2005.

No, that's meaningless as a statistic. ERA+ is defined as "the ratio of the league's ERA (adjusted to the pitcher's ballpark) to that of the pitcher."

The minor leagues are used to restock teams with replacement-level pitching. So about 45% of contributing pitchers (as defined above) being below 100 seems about right. That total was 46% in 1952, 44% in 2005. That hasn't changed.

What has changed is the standard deviation of pitching effectiveness. I think you have to admit I've demonstrated that fairly thoroughly at this point.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The '52 values is more 'normalized' than the '05 values, but is the historic value more normalized or less? And it seems the mean of '52 is not the mean throughout history, but the '05 mean is right on the historical mean.

Just for kicks, I took the most offense-dominated year in NL history, 1930. I went to eight pitchers per team, who contributed 91.7% of the innings pitched (again, well above the 2005 totals).

My numbers:

8.7% of the innings were thrown by players in the 70-79 ERA+ range (none lower)
6.7% of the innings were thrown by players in the 80-89 range.
22.7% of the innings were thrown by players in the 90-99 range.

So I essentially get the same result for the most hitting-dominated single season in history as I did for an average post-war season (until the first of the unwarranted expansions in the '90s).

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As said by Handrinos:

Which has been exactly my point. Expand the pool of competitors in pitching by a good deal, due to great increase in US population, MLB opening to Latin America, MLB opening to Asian players, and you'll get even greater talent level than before. Thereby increasing the number of pitchers used from 7 to 12 on a regular roster throughout the season should not result in a dilution of pitching, even with mass substitution and injuries.

Yet it did. And that's not because of a lack of talent. It's because of the talent curve among very elite pitchers. I'm not saying that an average pitcher today couldn't succeed in 1930.

I'm saying that the balance of the game has been affected because more at bats are coming against pitchers who really can't compete in today's league at an effective level.

Some people may be happy with that balance. I'm not. I'm sick and tired of watching the Lenny Dinardos and the Tanyon Sturtzes out there throwing slop, even on elite teams. Forget about the teams that don't have the cash to put out an elite team.

Baseball either needs to contract or go with the English system and have a premiership of sorts.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Baseball either needs to contract or go with the English system and have a premiership of sorts.

There are lots of options other than those two. Going back to the 4-man rotation and 5-6 man bullpens, for example, like teams used in the '70s. Or raising the mound again. Or, as has usually been done in the past, let the game evolve with the changing demographics and management styles. The era of offense isn't going to last forever, just as it didn't in the '20s and '30s.

[ISiddiqui]

Ok, I guess there are more innings pitched by bad pitchers today. But would that have an effect on Bonds' career Adjusted OPS+? Right now he is 3rd on the all time list, so I don't see how it would have such a great effect on his numbers if he played in Ruth's day, for instance.

And, I agree with clint. No need for expansion as you've already agreed that there is no overall talent dilution. Let it work itself out.

[clintl]

By the way, why doesn't this kind of conversation happen with regard to other sports? I remember back in the '70s and '80s, it was pretty rare for the losing team to score less than 100 points. Now, the winning team scores less 100 points in quite a few (possibly the majority) of games, and no one seems to think that's an issue. So why is the fact that we're in an offensive era in baseball that's not all that different from the '20s and '30s such a big deal?