What is Happening with the 2018 Home Runs? | Exploring Baseball Data with R

https://baseballwithr.wordpress.com/2018/05/28/what-is-happening-with-the-2018-home-runs/?

What is Happening with the 2018 Home Runs?

By Jim Albert on May 28, 2018

MLB Report on Home Run Hitting

Last week, Major League Baseball released a report by a scientific committee (including me) that explored the recent increase in home run hitting.    I encourage you to read our report.  One main conclusion was that the 2017 increase in home run hitting was not due to a change in launch angles or exit velocity, but rather a reduction in the drag that results in better carry of the ball.  Given that report, it is interesting to explore what is happening in the 2018 season (through games of May 27).  Are we seeing a similar carry in the balls as we saw in 2017?  I'll perform a brief exploration here.

Home Run Hitting:  2017 and 2018

The first observation is that there is a significant drop in home run hitting this season.   Below I plot the cumulative rate of home runs on balls in play as a function of the date.  Clearly there is a cold-weather effect — the rate of hitting home runs tends to increase through the season — but the 2018 rate is trailing the 2017 rate.  Currently the 2018 rate is under 4.4 % — the 2017 rate at the end of May is about 4.6 %.

Change in Launch Speed and Launch Angle?

Okay, maybe there is a drop in the home run rate due to a change in launch angle or launch velocity.  For each season below, I compute the median launch angle (LA), launch speed (LS) and proportion of batted balls hit in the "red zone" (this is a region of the LA, LS space where most of the home runs are hit).  Interesting, 2018 batters are hitting balls at a higher launch angle, higher launch speed, and a higher rate of balls hit in the red zone.  On the basis of these statistics, I'd expect an increase, not a decrease in the home run rate.




Year LA LS P
2016 10.7 89.7 0.180
2017 11.4 89.2 0.183
2018 12.2 90.2 0.194

Home Run Prediction Based on 2017 and 2016 Model Fits

We know there is a strong relationship between the launch angle, launch speed, and occurrence of home runs.  Given the launch angle and launch speed, I fit a generalized additive model that predicts the probability of a home run.  I fit two models — one to data from the complete 2016 season and a second to data from the complete 2017 season.  Using these models, I can predict the number of home runs hit in the 2018 season (through May 27) using the observed launch angles and launch velocities.  

Here is what I found:

Using 2017 model, I predict there would be 2294 home runs.
Using 2016 model, I predict there would be 2110 home runs.

We've only observed 1759 home runs (through May 27) — this is 500 home runs lower than I would be predict using the 2017 model that predicts home runs on the basis of launch speed and launch angles.  So really the drop in home run hitting that we see in the above graph really is conservative — if we adjust for the actual launch angles and launch speeds, the drop is lower.

Reduced Carry

One way of looking at the 2018 season change is to focus on the probability of a home run given specific values of the launch angle and exit velocity.  Let's focus on the values Launch Angle = 30 degrees, Launch Speed = 100 mpg — these values are in the red zone where there is a good probability of a home run.  Here are the probabilities of hitting a home run using models fit to the 2018, 2017 and 2016 seasons:




2018 2017 2016
0.409 0.568 0.502

Here are the home run probabilities using data from only the first part of the baseball season (through late May)




2018 2017 2016
0.409 0.481 0.420

Note that the 2018 estimated probabilities are significantly lower than the 2017 values, even when you adjust for the early part of the season.  In other words, the balls with a particular launch angle and launch speed are experiencing more drag in 2018, at least relative to 2017.

Summing Up

Home run hitting is fascinating to explore since there are potentially many variables including the hitter, the pitcher, the baseball, the weather, ballpark, etc that affect home run production.  There is clearly a decrease in home run hitting in 2018 and balls hit with specific launch angles and launch speeds are less likely to be home runs.  As I noticed, 2018 hitters are actually hitting with higher launch angles and higher launch speeds, but the balls appear to have more drag.  Of course, the big question is why this is happening, and this motivates further exploration.

Added May 29

It is very possible that this home run drop is due to the colder temperatures in 2018.  

Michel Lichtman tweets:

Through May 12 the average temperature at all MLB stadiums in 2018 was 62.7 degrees F. In 2017, it was 65.8, a difference of 3.1 degrees. Plugging those numbers into Dr. Nathan's trajectory calculator those 3.1 extra degrees in 2017 yields a 1.1 foot extra carry on a 100/30 ball.

The suggestion is that the temperature could explain the drop in 2018 home run production

Sent from my iPhone

We X-Rayed Some MLB Baseballs. Here’s What We Found. | FiveThirtyEight

Here's more from the previous blog post to support "The Juiced Ball Theory". For those science-y types who are ten-twenty years late to the party.

from fivethirtyeight.com
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/juiced-baseballs/

We X-Rayed Some MLB Baseballs. Here's What We Found.By Rob Arthur and Tim Dix Mar. 1, 2018On 6,105 occasions last season, a major leaguer walked to the plate and hammered a baseball over the outfield wall. The 2017 season broke the home run record that was set in 2000 — the peak of the steroid era — when players hit 5,693 homers, and it built upon the remarkable 5,610 that were hit in 2016. It was a stunning display of power that played out in every MLB park almost every night. And with spring training underway in Florida and Arizona, MLB's power surge is showing no sign of letting up.But while we now know what caused the spike in home runs at the turn of the century — even if we didn't at the time — the reason for the most recent flurry of long balls remains an unsolved mystery. Any number of factors might have contributed to the home run surge, including bigger, stronger players or a new emphasis on hitting fly balls. But none of those possibilities looms larger than the ball itself.MLB and its commissioner, Rob Manfred, have repeatedly denied rumors that the ball has been altered in any way — or "juiced" — to generate more homers. But a large and growing body of research shows that, beginning in the middle of the 2015 season, the MLB baseball began to fly further. And new research commissioned by "ESPN Sport Science," a show that breaks down the science of sports,¹ suggests that MLB baseballs used after the 2015 All-Star Game were subtly but consistently different than older baseballs. The research, performed by the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California and Kent State University's Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, reveals changes in the density and chemical composition of the baseball's core — and provides our first glimpse inside the newer baseballs.Looking inside the balls and testing their chemical composition revealed that the cores of recent balls were somewhat less dense than the cores of balls used before the 2015 All-Star Game. The newer cores weigh about a half a gram less than the older ones, which might be enough to cause baseballs hit on a typical home run trajectory to fly about 6 inches farther. That alone is hardly enough to explain the home run surge of recent seasons, but when combined with previous research finding that baseballs began to change in other small ways starting around the same time, it suggests that a number of minor differences may have combined to contribute to the remarkable upswing in home run power we've witnessed since 2015.Asked about these findings, MLB noted that it had commissioned a group of scientists and statisticians to investigate any changes to the ball, and that the committee would issue a report on its research soon. According to Alan Nathan, one of the physicists on the commission, the task force found that all the characteristics that MLB regularly measures, including the weight, circumference, seam height and bounciness of the ball, were within ranges that meant variations in the baseballs were unlikely to significantly affect home run rates. MLB declined to provide the data supporting these assertions.Independent investigations by FiveThirtyEight, publications like The Ringer, and Nathan himself have shown differences in the characteristics of the ball and the way it performs. Research has shown that balls used in games after the 2015 All-Star Game were bouncier and less air resistant compared with baseballs from the 2014 season, when players hit a relatively modest 4,186 homers, the fewest since 1995. (Nathan noted that MLB does not regularly measure air resistance.) Taken together, these changes would result in a ball that would come off the bat at a higher speed and carry farther. While investigations have been able to show that the baseball behaves differently in recent years, no one had looked inside the ball to see if there was evidence of changes to the way the baseball is constructed.So far, these investigations have primarily looked at the exterior of the baseball.Broadly, MLB baseballs — which are produced by Rawlings in Costa Rica — are made of three components: an exterior shell of cowhide, a winding of several layers of yarn, and a core of rubber-coated cork, also known as a "pill."To analyze possible changes to the inside of the ball, particularly the core, "ESPN Sport Science" purchased one new ball from Rawlings and seven game-used baseballs from eBay, confirming their authenticity through MLB's authenticator program.²The eight baseballs we tested were split into two groups: an "old group" of four balls used in games played between August 2014 and May 2015, and a "new group" of three balls used in games played between August 2016 and July 2017, plus the brand-new ball. The aim was to see if the internal composition of the baseballs had changed in ways that would affect the ball's performance.³The balls were first analyzed by Dr. Meng Law, Dr. Jay Acharya and Darryl Hwang at the Keck School of Medicine at USC using a computerized tomography, or CT, scan. This test is typically used to look inside a human head or body, but in this case, it allowed Dr. Law's team to examine the interior of the baseballs without cracking them open and destroying them.Initial CT imaging showed that baseballs in the same group had a negligible variation in internal properties.When comparing the new and old groups, however, there was a clear difference in the density of the core.In an MLB baseball, the core consists of four parts: a cork pellet at the center, surrounded by a layer of black rubber held together by a rubber ring where the halves meet, all of which is then molded together in a layer of pink rubber.Dr. Law's team isolated the density difference to the outer (pink) layer of the core, which was, on average, about 40 percent less dense in the new group of balls.While other parts of the ball showed slight differences in density and volume, none were as noteworthy as the changes to the core.It's not just that the inside of the ball looks different — the chemical composition of the cores appears to have changed as well. After being tested at the Keck School, the same set of balls were sent to Kent State University. There, researchers at Soumitra Basu's lab in the Chemistry and Biochemistry department cut open the balls to examine the cores using a thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). This test essentially cooks a material to see which parts parts of it vaporize at which temperatures. Using that information, researchers can create a molecular profile of a given material.This test showed that the pink layer of the core in baseballs from the new group was, on average, composed of about 7 percent more polymer than the same area in baseballs from the old group. Additionally, an analysis with a scanning electron microscope showed that the same layer in the new balls contained, on average, 10 percent less silicon, relative to the amount of other ingredients in the pill. According to the Kent State researchers, these chemical changes produced a more porous, less dense layer of rubber — which explains the results seen in the CT scan at the Keck School.It may not seem obvious, but these slight changes in the chemical composition of the core could have an impact on how the balls played once they were sewn up and shipped to major league teams. Less dense cores could mean lighter baseballs. The cores of the new balls weighed, on average, about 0.5 grams less than the cores from the old group. This difference was statistically significant, which means it's highly unlikely that it was due to sampling error. The overall weight of the balls also dropped by an average of about a 0.5 grams between groups, but, unlike with the cores, this difference was not statistically significant.⁴Half a gram isn't much — it's only about the weight of a paperclip. A tiny change like this might add only about 6 inches to flight of a baseball hit on a typical home run trajectory, according to Nathan's calculations. But the timing of these changes to the weight and density of the core coincides with a much larger boost to the bounciness of the baseball. According to a previous analysis performed by The Ringer, that increase in bounciness alone would add around 0.6 mph to the speed of the ball as it leaves the bat and add roughly 3 feet to the travel distance of a fly ball — enough to make the difference between the warning track and the stands.On top of the fact that the balls became bouncier as the core itself changed, previous research at FiveThirtyEight showed that they also became less air resistant. The decrease in drag is probably a result of a smaller, slicker baseball with lower seams. The change in air resistance could add an additional 5 feet to the travel distance of a fly ball. Combine all these factors together — a lighter, more compact baseball with tighter seams and more bounce — and the ball could fly as much as 8.6 feet farther. According to Nathan's calculations, this would lead to a more than 25 percent increase in the number of home runs. Asked whether these changes in combination could have significantly affected the home run rate, MLB declined to comment.In actuality, home runs spiked by about 46 percent between 2014 and 2017, which means that the changes to the ball could account for more than half of the increase. The remainder could be reasonably chalked up to a philosophical shift among MLB hitters, who are likely swinging upward to maximize the number of balls they hit in the air and are not shy about the increase in strikeouts that may come with that approach.MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred has repeatedly denied that the baseball is juiced. On numerous occasions, he has said league testing found that baseballs continue to fall within the range that MLB designates as acceptable, and he recently said that MLB testing showed the balls to be fundamentally the same. But even if the baseballs still meet the league's manufacturing guidelines, their performance could change enough to double (or, theoretically, halve) the number of home runs hit in a year.In fact, in January of 2015, Rawlings filed a patent application for a manufacturing process that would allow it to produce softballs and non-MLB baseballs⁵ that were as bouncy as possible while still falling within the manufacturing specifications set by the league. This type of ball is constructed quite differently from MLB baseballs, so there's no indication that this patent means Rawlings is deliberately manipulating major league baseballs in this way, but it demonstrates that it's at least theoretically possible for balls to be "fundamentally the same" while also performing differently than they have in the past.Kathy Smith-Stephens, senior director of quality and compliance at Rawlings, said that no change had been made to the baseballs but that "natural variation" occurs in the manufacturing process. She noted that they "continuously tweak" — though later in the interview she asked that we say "continuously refine" — the manufacturing process in an effort to reduce variations, but said that Rawlings' internal testing had shown no difference in the ball's weight or bounciness.Evidence that the baseball is at least partially responsible for the last few years' spike in the home run rate mounted throughout the summer of 2017 and reached a peak during October's World Series. In those seven games, the Houston Astros and Los Angeles Dodgers smashed 24 homers, including eight in one game. In the wake of this power display, Manfred asked all 30 teams to start storing baseballs in a climate-controlled room and commissioned a task force of scientists and statisticians to investigate whether the ball was juiced in 2017. Our own research, combined with controlled tests from three separate academic laboratories, strongly suggests that the physical properties of the ball have changed. Taken together, all these studies give us a lot of evidence to suggest that today's baseballs differ in meaningful ways from those of a few years ago. In other words, there are many questions for Manfred's committee to address.Special thanks to Sean O'Rourke, Dr. Cynthia Bir and Nathan Beals for additional research assistance.

Sent from my iPhone

New study links changes to the baseball to the record number of home runs in MLB - CBSSports.com

Yeah, I know. Been saying it for a while now, welcome to the party. Launch angles my butt.

It's what they did to get fans back after cancelling the World Series in 1994. And please don't tell me MLB didn't know about the performance variations inherent in their ball specifications. It's called plausible deniability. 

from CBSSports.com
New study links changes to the baseball to the record number of home runs in MLB - CBSSports.com:

"This is why people are wondering whether MLB is using a juiced baseball these days ...

SEASON HOME RUNS PER TEAM, PER GAME
2017 1.26
2016 1.16
2015 1.01
2014 0.86

That's a steep upward trend when it comes to home runs on a league-wide basis. As well, that 1.26 figure from last season is an all-time record by a wide margin (breaking the 1.17 mark in 2000).

Part of what's going on is a widespread emphasis among hitters on elevating the ball via an increased launch angle. A bigger factor, however, appears to be structural changes to the baseball itself. The seams may be lower and tighter, and the ball may be bouncier and -- to hear some World Series participants tell it -- slicker.

MLB has countered that the contemporary baseball still falls within the normal ranges when it comes to official specs. Part of the issue, though, is that those normal ranges are fairly sprawling. In other words, two balls can satisfy those criteria and behave quite differently off the bat. "

'via Blog this'

The Juiced Ball Theory Is Back

Lower seams + Less Drag = Longer Ball Flight. The  NCAA found that out. Plus it allows MLB to divert attention to "no change in COR". What they are finding out that the NCAA did not is that blisters are up, probably because MLB pitcher throw the ball more often than collegians.

Whenever they want more HR's they monkey with the ball or the strike zone. Launch angle is a ridiculous theory. If you could dial up launch angle "What coach 28 degrees, not 29 or 27?" why wouldn't just you spray line drives all over the yard and say "F- it" to grounders and fly balls"?

The Juiced Ball Is Back

New testing suggests the baseball is at least partially responsible for MLB's huge homer spike

Ben LindberghJun 14

https://theringer.com/amp/p/155cd21108bc?gi=2810278554b3&utm_source=Driveline+Baseball+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fc2a067ae6-Sunday_Thunder_Nuggets_6_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d541cdd9d2-fc2a067ae6-311453553&mc_cid=fc2a067ae6&mc_eid=48e9d48f3e

"The newer balls have higher CORs and lower circumferences and seam heights, which would be estimated to add an average of 7.1 feet to their distance, equivalent to the effect we would expect to stem from a 1.43 mph difference in exit speed. Although those differences don't sound enormous, Nathan has noted that "a tiny change in exit speed can lead to much larger changes in the number of home runs." Last July, he calculated that an exit-speed increase of 1.5 mph would be sufficient to explain the rise in home runs to that point, which means that the 1.43 mph effective difference that Lichtman's analysis uncovered could comport almost exactly with the initial increase in home runs. Lichtman calculates that a COR increase of this size, in this sample, falls 2.6 standard deviations from the mean, which means that it's extremely unlikely to have happened by chance."

This article is coauthored by sabermetrician Mitchel Lichtman, who also conducted the research on which it is based.

The newer balls have higher CORs and lower circumferences and seam heights, which would be estimated to add an average of 7.1 feet to their distance, equivalent to the effect we would expect to stem from a 1.43 mph difference in exit speed. Although those differences don't sound enormous, Nathan has noted that "a tiny change in exit speed can lead to much larger changes in the number of home runs." Last July, he calculated that an exit-speed increase of 1.5 mph would be sufficient to explain the rise in home runs to that point, which means that the 1.43 mph effective difference that Lichtman's analysis uncovered could comport almost exactly with the initial increase in home runs. Lichtman calculates that a COR increase of this size, in this sample, falls 2.6 standard deviations from the mean, which means that it's extremely unlikely to have happened by chance. 

With the newer balls' reduction in circumference comes a decrease in weight, although according to Robert Adair's book The Physics of Baseball, the ball's weight, independent of its other qualities, has little effect on flight distance. Similarly, while dynamic stiffness does affect the flight of balls hit by the hollow bats used in amateur ball, it doesn't play a role with the solid bats used in the big leagues. However, a dynamic-stiffness difference that large does add to the evidence of altered composition.

Baseball History in 1943: War and Games

Interesting story and graphic attached to it that shows two things that came into play during the PED Steroids debate:

1. The composition of the ball matters ie: The Juiced Ball Theory has some merit despite other folks efforts to shout it down. 
2. Tinkering with the composition of the ball is far from a recent phenomena. Teams would store baseballs in refrigerators overnight to change the dynamics of the ball - bat collision and therefore the distance / speed the ball travels off the bat. Baseball has actually codified the practice with humidors in Colorado. 

from This Great Game - The On-Line Book of Baseball:
Baseball History in 1943: War and Games:

Then there was the disaster known as the balata ball.

With rubber scarce, the majors introduced a new ball made up of “non-essential” elements—a combination of low-grade cork, low-grade horsehide and, in the place of rubber, a substance called balata—produced from the milk of tropical trees. A.G. Spalding, the official ball manufacturer, proclaimed that this new ball would be as juicy as those used before the war.

 If correct, Spalding would have had a hard time explaining it after the season’s first week—which produced 11 shutouts and a collective .223 batting average. The ball was hard, but there was no give; hitters complained of their hands painfully ringing as the balata ball jarred off their bats. After seeing just six runs tallied in a four-game series between his Reds and the Cardinals, Cincinnati general manager Warren Giles had a stress test done on the ball, dropping it from a high distance and comparing its bounce to that of a pre-war ball. They found the evidence they sought; the balata ball was consistently 25% less bouncy. After some defending of its investment, Spalding decided to repeat Giles’ tests and achieved the same lifeless results. Foot in mouth, Spalding reinvented the ball using a more lively form of rubber cement and put it into use, bringing offensive numbers back to more sensible levels.

'via Blog this'

The 2012 Cape Cod League and the Juiced Ball Theory

More evidence for the "juiced ball theory" provided by the 2012 Cape Cod League. It's not just for tin-foil hat wearing, crack-pot, conspiracy theorists any more. (H/T to Deadspin.com for some of the coverage on this developing story)

Remember, there is so much more that we "know" that we cannot prove. 

The facts on the ground keep showing us that testing is not the answer. Guys are apparently still reaching for performance enhancing substances in spite of the penalties. And yet the performance numbers have gone down in MLB. 

So the question becomes, if the usage of performance enhancing substances is continuing at or near the same rate, but the actual performance numbers are down significantly, then how significant is the correlation between the usage of performance enhancing substances and the actual delivery of performance on the field?

Just asking.... because apparently the Cape Cod League just demonstrated how significantly the numbers can be moved by a simple adjustment to the ball. Now we leave it to the scientists to actually "prove" to us what our lying eyes are "telling" us is obviously true.

from Capenews.net

http://capenews.net/sports/news/2019

Cape Cod Baseball League Commissioner Paul Galop has been with the league for over 30 years now, in a variety of capacities, and he too knows that things have gotten a little bit wacky when it comes to offense. The good-natured official has seen some of the best players college baseball has to offer do some amazing things on the diamonds up and down the peninsula from Orleans to Bourne. This year he saw something he’d never seen before, and it made him a believer.

“I was at Harwich, and I saw a ball hit out to center field that cleared the fence and was halfway up in the trees. I’ve been around a long time, and I’d never seen a ball go out there before,” Galop said. “I’ve been with the league for a long time, since 1980, and I’ve seen some balls that didn’t go that far with aluminum bats...obviously something’s going on.”

......

Explaining The Explosion Of The Long Ball

The onslaught of offense began from the start of the CCBL season and never waned. Longtime Cape League insiders could not shake the feeling that something wasn’t right. Some said that the pitching wasn’t as good as last year. Others said that the NCAA’s switch to BBCOR bats, which are less forgiving than the previous aluminum bats, had the hitters more prepared for wood. It seemed that there were plenty of theories as to why the ball was flying but no hard answers.

The most popular theory, though, is that the ball is juiced, altered from previous seasons in a way that produces more velocity and lift off the bat at impact.

......

Alan Nathan, a noted physicist and professor emeritus from the University of Illinois, specializes in the science of baseball and said that the jump in offensive statistics in the Cape Cod Baseball League is certainly worth further evaluation.

Nathan said that as a scientist he is skeptical about juiced baseball theories without scientific data to back up the hypothesis. “It’s certainly not unreasonable (that the ball could be juiced), but it hasn’t been proven. I’m skeptical because there’s a right way to (test) it...you need to determine the coefficient of restitution (COR).”

Nathan explained that even a small change in the ball’s COR could dramatically change offensive output. “Changing the COR from .5 to .55 could account for the statistics,” he said.

The retired professor, who was a part of the committee that spearheaded the NCAA’s switch to BBCOR bats a year ago, said that the burgeoning batting numbers are worth investigation. “That’s a pretty big jump (on Cape Cod) and way outside what I’d expect out of normal statistical fluctuation,” he continued. “It would not surprise me at all if the ball was juiced. If I was a Major League team I’d want to know...they need to know that information.”

from Beyond the Box Score:
A Sabermetric Review of the 2012 Cape Cod Baseball League - Beyond the Box Score:

The CCBL is typically known as a low-scoring league that is dominated by pitching; mainly because of the adjustment that has to be made from metal to wood bats. The result of the 2012 All-Star Game, a 1-1 tie, would lead one to believe that has been the case again this season.

Ironically, the run scoring environment is at a record-breaking high. With nine games left in the 2012 season, more runs have been scored (1792), than in each of the last two full seasons (2010: 1580 runs, 2011: 1704 runs).

There are a few possible explanations for this rise in run scoring. The CCBL switched baseball manufacturers before this season and I've heard that a change in stitching has led to a "juiced" baseball. College baseball also changed their metal bat regulations to allow only bats with less pop; which could have made the adjustment to wood bats much easier for hitters. Also, the talent-level of pitching is down. As seen by the schools that the All-Star game starters represented, some of the best collegiate starters aren't at the Cape, this summer.

'via Blog this'

from zealby.com
http://www.zeably.com/Juiced_ball_theory

The "juiced ball" theory suggested that the baseballs used in Major League Baseball (MLB) during the 1990s and early 2000s were altered in order to increase scoring.

It was claimed that a "juiced" ball bounces off the bat at a higher speed. Johnny Oates observed hits being made off pitches that should not have been elevated.

In 2000, Jim Sherwood, a professor at UMass Lowell, was hired to test the baseballs manufactured in the Rawlings facility in Costa Rica. The tests and regulations for MLB baseballs were described in detail. He said that he did not expect to find any change from the manufacturing process that had been used for the previous 16 years or more. Various baseball manufacturers in the United States also agreed that the theory is nonsense, as there are many quality checks in place. The stitchers interviewed did not even know what a juiced ball is. On the other hand, there is an argument that their livelihood depends on baseball sales, which may increase if the balls are juiced.

Many pitchers felt that the balls became harder and traveled faster. Some pitchers performed their own tests. Kenny Rogers found that the ball in the center of each baseball was made of rubber, rather than the old cork. Billy Koch found that when dropped from the same height, the rubber balls from 2000 bounced 2 to 4 inches higher than rubber balls from 1999.

In 2000, Frank Deford, a writer for Sports Illustrated, interviewed Sandy Alderson, an MLB vice president, to discuss the possibility of a conspiracy by MLB to doctor the balls. Alderson denied this possibility, and Deford also discredited it as a conspiracy theory.

from Scout.com
http://sbb.scout.com/2/1217488.html

The buzz around collegiate leagues this summer was that there was clearly something going on with the baseballs. The Cape Cod League served as the most prominent example, as home run numbers exploded in a league typically defined by its pitching dominance. Scouts began looking closer at the issue, and articles began to discuss it. Were baseballs used in 2012 summer collegiate leagues "juiced"?

 The answer is yes, the baseballs used in the Cape Cod League, and other summer leagues in 2012 definitely were more lively or "juiced" as oppose to past seasons. I've personally spent many years scouting the Cape and kept many baseballs from previous summers. When comparing them to the baseballs used in 2012, the difference truly is massive. 

The impact during game action was obvious. Yes, there was a better crop of power bats in the Cape Cod League than there had been in many years, but when you see almost every player in the league capable of hitting the ball out of the park, you have to consider the idea that something has changed. Home runs in the Cape Cod League were once reserved for only the elite power bats. That changed in 2012. And, there's one statistic that tells you all you need to know. 384 home runs were hit on the Cape in 2012. 317 home runs were hit over the course of 2010 and 2011 combined. That type of difference goes beyond just noticeable; it's downright startling. 

But, make no mistake, the baseballs played an enormous role. 

Rich Maclone of The Enterprise, who first brought this to light last month, did an outstanding job of investigating the issue and his article quoted noted physicist Alan Nathan from the University of Illinois regarding the most effective way to test the difference between the 2012 and past versions of the ball. That method is determining the COR (coefficient of restitution). Physics is certainly not my field, but my understanding is that COR is essentially a calculation of "bounce" or elasticity. Obviously, there is significantly more detail that could be touched on, but to make a long story short, this is the best way to get to the bottom of our matter in question. 

Since the conclusion of the Cape Cod League season last month, I've conducted a number of tests on a 2011 baseball and one of the 2012 baseballs in question. Being that this field is a bit foreign to me, I suspect the tests weren't flawless, but the consistency of the results says a lot. To calculate COR of an object being dropped onto a stationary object (a floor), you divide the height of the bounce by the height you dropped the ball from. 

I conducted these tests and made these calculations sporadically over the course of a couple weeks to be sure the results were consistent. My answer? They were very consistent. Before I began to specifically use COR, I simply calculated the height of the bounce when dropped from the same height. The difference in bounce height between the old and the new baseballs was anywhere from 4-7%. The results when I calculated the Coefficient of Restitution fell right in the same vicinity. 

After averaging out dozens upon dozens of tests and calculations, I found the difference in COR from a 2011 Cape Cod League baseball to a 2012 baseball to anywhere from be 2.2-5.1. As I understand it, this means that the altered Diamond baseball retains anywhere from 2.2-5.1% more of its kinetic energy than it did the previous season. (Edit: Earlier calculation in article did not take square root portion of COR formula into account) 

As I said, my earlier calculations led me to believe that these new baseballs were traveling 4-7% further. That falls in line with the COR calculation. It could be studied much more thoroughly, and I'd like to see someone more qualified than myself study it further. My study is primitive and likely not anywhere near perfect. I am, however, pretty confident in saying that all of the evidence makes me just about positive that the baseballs in the Cape Cod League and other summer leagues went 4-5% further than they've gone in past summers. 

If we use 4.5% as our figure, a ball that would normally travel 350 feet would theoretically travel approximately 366 feet with the "juiced" baseball. And, a ball that would normally travel 370 feet would travel 387 feet in 2012. That should paint a pretty decent picture of the difference this new baseball makes. There's a big difference between a 370 foot fly out and a 387 foot home run. Even if we use the lowest figure found in my experiments (2.2%), that's still a difference of about 8 feet extra distance on a 350 foot fly ball. 

So, what has caused this difference? The manufacturer, Diamond, has not commented on this issue yet so we're left to examine the ball ourselves for now. For one, the leather exterior of the ball has a noticeably different feel and texture. It's harder, thicker, and less pliable. But, it's what is deep in the interior of the ball that's making the difference. I cut open a 2011 and 2012 version of the baseball to illustrate these differences. 

 

The 2012 ball and "pill" are on the left. Besides the irrelevant color difference, this year's pill is much harder, as others have pointed out. The 2011 version has the feel of a typical rubber bouncing ball. 

 

As we cut into the ball even deeper, you can see the difference in width of the layers. The 2012 ball is on the right in this photo, and the outer layer is much thinner and more densely packed. THE BOTTOM LINE Most people that spent time around a collegiate summer league in 2012 suspected an issue with the baseballs. We don't have to just wonder anymore. There was a major problem with these baseballs and it has to be addressed in 2013. One of the most important services these leagues provide, particularly the Cape Cod League, is the ability to easily and accurately showcase the best young talent in the country. When there is an outside factor that's impeding scouts' ability to accurately evaluate these young players, it needs to be rectified for the benefit of everyone involved. Scouts are more than skilled and intelligent enough to sift through inflated offensive statistics and get a feel for who the most talented hitters are. But, this sure doesn't make their job any easier. And, leagues like the Cape Cod League give us some of our most accurate looks at how these players would perform in a professional environment. There's also no league in amateur or professional sports that means more to me than the Cape Cod League. I now make my home on the Cape and the league is one the biggest reasons why. As many games as I've been to on Cape Cod, it was obvious to me that something was different in 2012. And, while the home runs may be exciting for some, I'd like to see it return to a time when the long ball was a rare, unexpected treat from a future big league star, and not a regular occurrence that seemingly just about anyone in the league could achieve routinely. This is certainly not the fault of any of the leagues, however. They believe they were getting the same standard ball as every other season and that simply wasn't the case. Let's hope Diamond Sports can do something to swiftly address this problem and bring the baseballs back to normal standards in 2013. The baseball world is better served when the Cape League is a treacherous gauntlet for hitters rather than a hitter's paradise that makes it more difficult to discover the big league stars of the future.

Giants sign Kensuke Tanaka - McCovey Chronicles

Wait, What!?! You mean if you change the composition of the ball, you can change the rate of home-runs? Where have I heard that before.  To say nothing about the dimensions of the park?

Let's see, which would travel farther after a collision with a baseball bat -- a baseball the hardness and consistency of a cue-ball or a nerf-ball? A bean-bag? Pitchers knew and were whining as much or more about that and lowered seams (harder to throw quality breaking balls) to say nothing about Questec, than PED's, Goose Gossage (who was by then, no longer playing) notwithstanding, BWDIK?

from McCovey Chronicles:
Giants sign Kensuke Tanaka - McCovey Chronicles:

If you want the stats before that, the Baseball Cube has them, not that they're very inspiring. There are a couple of things to note, the first being that for the last two years, a new standard ball has supposedly sucked the offense out of Japanese baseball. The entire league is partying like it's 1968 in Dodger Stadium. The second thing to note is that Japanese ballparks are still a lot smaller than the parks in America, so Tanaka almost certainly doesn't have much power at all. Theriot power, as it were.

'via Blog this'

10 and Counting

Too bad all the fools like Schilling are learning the difference between ADMISSIONS and ALLEGATIONS.

Too bad some fools will never learn the difference.

I wonder how they'll reconcile the clean player vs. dirty player argument when/if A-Rod hits 800-900.

Great player in the artificial turf era, when speed was at a premium.
Great player in the small park, juiced ball era, when power was at a premium.
Greatest combination of speed an power in baseball history.

Currently leads the league in HR's and OPS at 42. If it was Clemens leading the league in major pitching categories, we would be having a parade, without suspicion and innuendo.

You'd have to be an absolute moron as a player to still be juicing, and I love the argument that HGH is undetectable. YEAH, UNDETECTABLE NOW. What serious player would risk his legacy on the chance that 10 years from now the technology won't be developed to go back and test prior samples for HGH use. You'd have to be a complete idiot.

The countdown is 10. Enjoy the show. HAHAHA

Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy...and Bonds at 740.

This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy we'll continue to see as Barry Bonds makes his march towards the home-run crown. Jeff Perlman, the author of Love Me, Hate Me, The Making of an Antihero has his own special man-crush on Josh Hamilton. Well, isn't that special? He clearly hates Barry Bonds and the example he provides, but gushes eloquently over Josh Hamilton. That's just so special.

from espn.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=pearlman/070420&sportCat=mlb

Of course, this nation is so full of forgiveness, but apparently on a selective basis only. It may be full of something, but it's clearly not forgiveness.

from espn.com:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=pearlman/07411&sportCat=mlb

Another comes courtesy of Sports Illustrated's Peter King, who is not going to mention Barry Bonds any more because he believes he cheated. Here's his take on Shawn Merriman after he tested positive for steroids:

MERRIMANMANIA. From Bruce White of Indianapolis: "Should Shawne Merriman be eliminated from the Pro Bowl due to his positive steroids test?''

No. If he's eligible for 12 games and plays at a very high level in those games, he should be able to play in the Pro Bowl. Now, if he were to miss three games down the stretch for any reason, let's say, I'd say he didn't deserve a bid because he missed too much time. But he paid his penalty according to the collectively bargained rules of the game.

All right, let me get this straight Mr. King:

You're going to protest Barry Bonds achievement with your silence, (sounds more like a reward than a penalty, hey whatever) but have no problem with Shawn Merriman being rewarded for his achievement by participating in the Pro-Bowl even though Merriman flunked a steroids test and to-date Bonds hasn't flunked one?

Sounds like your disdain for cheating is a bit selective, don't you think? Merriman served his time according to the CBA? Weak argument. Apply same logic to Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, than we can talk like intelligent, rational people.

Do you do any special contortionist exercises to reconcile your logic in these two instances?

I think I've about had it with the blatant stupidity of braying jack-asses like this.

Somebody on this planet needs to complete the Honesty and Integrity Trifecta (we'll call it the HIT for short) for me before I give them an ear on this issue.

That is, whenever I hear or read somebody blast Bonds, (and of course they know everything he's done or didn't do, because he's always been so open and accommodating with his time with the media) I ask, "what do you think about Clemens, might he be cheating to get the results he's getting at an advanced age?"
 "Oh no, no way".

How about Lance Armstrong, couldn't he have done something to help him defeat not only Cancer but his competitors, all of whom seem to be on something? Nobody except the French seems to think he does anything but win Tour de Frances.

There seems to be just as much of a mountain of real or circumstantial evidence to implicate Clemens or Armstrong from what I've seen, heard or read. But we gleefully leak information on the one hand and blissfully redact in the other? Not to mention some other guys we let slide because they're still popular, like Pujols, Prior and many others.

And I'm a little tired of hearing, "Well these guys aren't approaching "hallowed" records" as if cheating is somehow OK, up until a point. Try that the next time you rob a bank and don't steal all the money in the vault. You want to start erasing records from the record book, you better get yourself an awful big eraser, or gallons and gallons of white out.

Guys like Perry, Sutton and Whitey Ford are in the Hall of Fame and lionized in spite of careers built on bending rules. Time to put it away folks. Never mind whatever was accomplished as a result of the use of "greenies", which were made illegal in 1970.

There is a huge problem in this country among youth with use of crystal meth. Meth being shorthand for methamphetamine or "speed". Hey, Dad baseball players use it, why can't I?

There is a also a huge problem in this country with alcohol use among youth, but I don't see any major sport turning away sponsorship dollars on principle. I know it's legal and that makes a huge difference, but spit tobacco is legal also and they took a stand there. Tobacco by contrast does not generate sponsorship dollars. Seems like we're picking our spots to take a stand based on dollars to be lost or gained (wait, where have I heard that before?).

Palmeiro I can see venom being directed at. He knew the deal and still tried to get away with something. Anyone else caught under the drug testing program deserves whatever animosity they get.

McGwire, Sosa, Bonds all of them have the Lance Armstrong defense in my opinion, they've never failed a test. You want to blame them for baseball not having adequate testing, that's pretty ignorant and unfair. I don't see anyone at work unilaterally offering up urine or blood tests unless they have to and even then, under protest. You want to retroactively punish people for behavior, start by taking racists like Cobb, Anson, et al out of the Hall of Fame, then you'll have my attention. Or take out some of the cheaters you've glorified in the past. Then I'll be impressed by your position on the issue.

And by the way, Peter King and his ilk on the Football Hall of Fame have no problem whatsoever looking the other way on all sorts of reprehensible behavior when voting on membership in the Football Hall of Fame. Drug Use, Murder, Manslaughter, anything goes as long as you perform on the field. And your little piss-ant silent protest against Barry Bonds is supposed to mean something? Give it a rest you MF-ing hypocrite.

The biggest Performance Enhancer Bonds has used in his favor IMO has always been Questec. Since being put in service in 2001, the year he hit 73 homers, his strikeout to HR ratio has turned from about 1:2 before to about 1:1.25 afterwards. Only Pujols seems to be as close in terms of HR to K ratio. That's a pretty significant change in one year.

Pitchers cannot pitch to him and get him out within the constraints of the strike zone as defined in the rule book, period. And it's possible they were never able to. However, prior to 2001, Major League pitchers had an extra 5-10 inches off the outside corner to work with. Anyone care to debate that fact? I didn't think so.

It's the same problem with Alex Rodriguez. He's so locked in and so good as a hitter and a slugger that he simply can't be pitched to. And even A-Rod strikes out about 4 time for every HR.

There is still a significant portion of the guys who study the game from statistical viewpoint who do not see the numbers of Bonds, McGwire and Sosa as being abnormal.

Here's another interesting outlook from Daniel Engber's article in Slate titled "The Growth Hormone Myth: What athletes, fans, and the sports media don't understand about HGH". The gist of the article is there is really not much data out there that indicates, from an exercise physiology standpoint, that using any of this stuff works to enhance performance on the baseball field. You have to make leaps of faith or assumptions that are not backed up by any scientific data.

The following paragraphs were I thought most interesting:

The most likely reason that athletes use HGH, though, is superstition. A ballplayer might shoot up with HGH for the same reason we take vitamin C when we have a cold: There's no good reason to think it does anything, but we're willing to give it a try. The fact that the major sports leagues have banned growth hormone only encourages the idea that the drug has tangible benefits. Why would they ban something unless it worked?

This mentality has put doping officials and athletes into a feedback loop of addled hysteria. The World Anti-Doping Agency will ban any drug that athletes use, whether or not it has an effect. The WADA code points out that the use of substances "based on the mistaken belief they enhance performance is clearly contradictory to the spirit of sport." In other words, it doesn't matter if HGH gives athletes an unfair advantage. If Jerry Hairston believes he's cheating, then he really is cheating.

That twisted logic has turned the latest round of busts into a giant PR campaign for growth hormone. Every star athlete who gets caught with a vial of HGH turns into a de facto spokesperson for the drug. In a certain sense, that might be a good thing: The media hype may soon make HGH so popular that it squeezes the more dangerous anabolic steroids out of the market. That's one way to clean up the game.

Seems like a silly way to go about it though, travelling from one bogeyman to another, but that seems to be the way things get done in this country.

And who cares if Hank Aaron doesn't show up for the record breaker? As far as I'm concerned, he couldn't hold Willie Mays' jock as a player. And if Mays had played in as hitter-friendly ballparks as Aaron enjoyed, we'd be taking about Bonds breaking Mays' record. And we might be waiting a bit longer for the record to fall. Mays might have hit 800.

I'm not going to go as far as calling Aaron a coward as Rob Parker did in this Detroit News article, but I do feel it shows a lack of class and respect for the game of baseball and Bonds accomplishments.

from detnews.com
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/SPORTS08/704200362/1129/rss15

And Bud Selig can stay home to for all I care. He was gutless at the beginning of this whole "steroids" mess and it wouldn't surprise me if he continued to be gutless now. If you really want to label anyone a coward in this whole mess, the guy for me would be Commissioner Bud Selig, representing all of the owners.

And for all the whiners, who won't be able to face baseball with Barry Bonds as it's Home Run King can always cheer on Alex Rodriguez as he makes a run at 800, 900 or, if he can get to Wrigley Field on a regular basis, who knows maybe 1000 HR's as the mark for future sluggers to shoot for.

Then tell me that the size of ballparks, the springiness of the baseballs, the dilution of pitching, etc. hasn't been a factor all these years. Me, I'll celebrate a great achievement, by a great major league hitter, possibly the best all-around hitter of this generation and most others.

The Keith Olbermanns of the world can stay home and make love to their inflatable Rebecca Lobo dolls or whatever young lady they're currently stalking (ahem, allegedly stalking) and try to pretend that they are the moral compass not only for baseball, but for the entire free world. Give me a M.F.-ing break. Where have you gone Harold Reynolds?

Steroids? And the HR King? Say it isnt so Hank!

From the Website www.protrade.com comes this interesting piece. We are often told by pundits that we need to connect the dots of circumstantial evidence in order to convict one Barry Lamar Bonds of steroid use in his assault on Hank Aaron's HR record. This article brings up some valid points using some of the same logic and methodology to circumstantially indict one Henry Aaron. Wow!!!

Interesting to note the use of Tom House quotes, which came and went without much of a furor. Why wasn't there the same level of moral outrage or consternation or ex-post facto indictment of players from the 60's and 70's? We know that recreational drug-use was a major social problem at this time. Why wouldn't we believe this extended to baseball? And why do we feel it was limited to recreational, non-performance enhancing drugs? Oh sure, these guys were doing cocaine and amphetamines, but steroids, Nah!! Players were well-paid and had an interest to protect back then as well, didn't they?

We know that the Hall of Fame is slowly being littered with the busts of those whose recreational use of cocaine during their careers stained the game and provided a less than sterlng example to our nation's youth. Where was the "integrity of the game" litmus test when these guys passed muster? Oh, I guess we can pick and choose which law-breakers we want in and which we choose to exclude. Isn't that special?

Maybe Mark McGwire might have been better served if that reporter found some lines of cocaine on a mirror instead of a bottle of andro, right? Shameful, disgustingly shameful.

It is ironic that Tom House is the player who caught Hank Aaron's 715th home-run.
The evidence forms a neat little circle. Also, effective use of Davey Johnson's unusual, Brady Anderson-esque home-run production. What happened there, chief?

I have graphs that clearly show that when one looks at home-run production, relative to the the production of the rest of the league (to adjust for different eras and conditions), the line showing production by age of Mr. Bonds very closely matches that of Mr. Aaron in terms of late stage of career productivity.

In other words, the rising tide of factors (like expansion diluted pitching, smaller stadiums, tighter baseballs, etc.) that lead to increases HR production will be reflected across the entire population by examining the change in the mean. Hence, the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats". Comparing the individual's production relative to the mean would show unusual spikes in production that might be a cause for concern. You have to do both or you get an obscured visual image. To look at one to the exclusion of the other is like trying to hit with one eye closed. You might be able to do it, but it wouldn't look good nor would it be as effective as trying to do it with both eyes open.

Aaron's and Bonds' path of productivity as shown in these graphs, are not all that unusual for superstars and clearly not any more unusual than that of Davey Johnson's and Brady Anderson's among others. A one year spike is clearly more questionable.

You also have to remember that not too many power hitters play beyond age forty. Mays, Williams, Aaron, Bonds, etc. are exceptions to the rule. Many HR hitters like McGwire and Ruth are not playing at age 40 or more, so we are looking at a relatively low sample size which means we really don't know what normal is. Especially for a group (superstars) who by definition are not normal. That's important to remember also. Anyone who says they know what's normal and what's not regarding this sub-group is not being totally truthful or pushing an agenda or worse.

Bonds is usually indicted, tried and convicted by many on the basis of his late career jump in productivity, however when you compare his productivity jump vis-a-vis that of the rest of the league (his peers), his gains are not to be unexpected from a statistical standpoint.

One would and should expect that the productivity of the elite stars (Bonds, Sosa, McGwire) would jump a little higher then that of the "Average" player.

In fact if you compare Bonds' career HR productivity relative to the league average vs. the same statistical comparison of Aaron's career year-to-year, for each chronological year of age Aaron vs. Bonds, they run virtually neck and neck from the beginning of their career until at least age 40.

I will post the graph as soon as I master the technology.


http://www.protrade.com/content/DisplayArticle.html?sp=S8687c664-c2d1-11db-9291-83f05e1a00a7

Steriods. And the HR king. Say it isnt so Hank!
Smart 3 Not Smart 0 Comments 2 | Feb 22 2007 04:05 PM PST By BayAreaBaller
Topics: barry bonds hank aaron bud selig mlb jose canseco steroid steroids baseball home run king

STEROIDS GROUND ZERO: 1973 ATLANTA BRAVES
(Or what you will NOT read in Game of Shadows)

One of the more distressing fabrications which has emerged from the BALCO case has been the erroneous contention that the so-called 'Steroids Era' began in 1991 with Jose Conseco as its architect.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The San Francisco Chronicle, in a May 3rd 2005 article quoted former Major League pitcher Tom House of the Atlanta Braves as saying that steroids were rampant in the game in the late '60s and throughout the '70s.

House, perhaps best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run ball in 1974 in the Atlanta Braves bullpen, said he and several teammates used amphetamines, human growth hormone and 'whatever steroid' they could find in order to keep up with the competition.

"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey', House said. "We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses. That was the '60s when nobody knew. The good thing is, we know now. There's a lot more research and understanding."

House, 58, estimated that six or seven pitchers per team were at least experimenting with steroids or human growth hormone. He said players talked about losing to opponents using more effective drugs,

"We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed", he said. "And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them".


According to Rep. Henry A. Waxman in his March 17,2005 opening statement before the House Government Reform Committee:

"Congress first investigated drugs and professional sports, including steroids over 30 years ago. I think perhaps the only two people in the room who will remember this are me and Commissioner Selig, because I believe he became owner in 1970".

In 1973, the year I first ran for Congress, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce concluded a year-long investigation that found--and I quote--"drug use exists...in all sports and levels of competition...In some instances, the danger of improper drug use--primarily amphetamines and anabolic steroids--can only be described as alarming".

Bowie Kuhn, and the powers that be at the time, quietly squashed the entire tawdry episode and with good reason: it would cast suspicions on an African-American slugger who was challenging one of baseball's most cherished records: The career record for home runs.

Compare Hank Aaron's stats at the beginning of his career and then notice how his HR% began to increase beginning when Hammerin' Hank was 37 years old.

HR% is defined as being the number of HRs per 100 ABs.

Age HRs HR%
33 44 7.3
34 39 6.5
35 29 4.8

Nothing unusual about these statistics; it is a typical profile of a slugger in decline as he ages. But then Hank began to undergo an 'enhancement.'

Age HRs HR%
36 44 8.0
37 38 7.4

What explains this spike at a latter age? Expansion? Perhaps. But then what happens?

Age HRs HR%
38 47 9.5
39 34 7.6

Hank...What's going on buddy? Aaron's HR% were TOPS in the NL in both 1971 and 1972. Hmm.

Age HRs HR%
40 40 10.2

Which leads us to 1973 when at age 40 in just 392 at bats, juiced 40 HR's for a HR% of 10.2. Once again TOPS in NL for the THIRD STRAIGHT YEAR and the HIGHEST HR% in the ENTIRE 23 year career of Hank Aaron.

Hank Aaron at 40 was not the only Atlanta Brave to hit 40 Hrs that season. Teammates Darrell Evans and Davey Johnson blasted 41 and 43 HRs respectively.

Darrell Evans

Year HRs HR%
1971 12 4.6
1972 19 4.5

1973 41 6.9

1974 25 4.4
1975 22 2.8

Notice a statistical anomaly? Let's see what Davey Johnson did.

Davey Johnson

Year HRs HR%
1971 18 3.5
1972 5 1.3

1973 43 7.7

1974 15 3.3
1975 Played 1 game
1976 Did not play MLB

Notice a statistical anomaly? It would be one thing for Hank Aaron to undergo an 'enhancement', but what are the odds that not one but TWO teammates would both have career years in HR's and HR% in the SAME YEAR as when a Congressional Committee issued its final report saying that anabolic steroids were rampant in the game? Why did Darrell Evans and Davey Johnson both experience career spikes in HR's only to return to earth the following year? And how did Hank finish up?


Age HRs HR%
41 20 5.9
42 12 2.6
43 10 3.7

So what happened? Enquiring minds want to know.

The 1996 Baltimore Orioles set at the time the team HR record for one season. Brady Anderson's 50 HR season was viewed suspiciously.

The manager of the 1996 Baltimore Orioles? Davey Johnson.

The only question remains: What did Bud Selig know and when did he know it?

Fay Vincent circulated a draft steroids policy in 1991. Selig knew that if the scab of steroids was picked off, the puss of the 1973 Atlanta Braves would be oozing all over the game. The scandal of Hank Aaron's HR record being tainted by steroids use would have been a PR disaster at the time and. personally, extremely painful to Bud Selig who, after all, is a long-time friend of Hank Aaron.

Hence the boardroom coup which ousted Fay Vincent and made Bud Selig 'Acting Commissioner', while still maintaining his position as the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers, a blatant conflict of interest.

So long as Bud Selig remains in charge of Major League Baseball, the American public will never get to the bottom of the steroids scandal which has sullied the game. He has too much of a personal vested interest in Hank Aaron.

Besides, after this season, Barry Lamar Bonds will BE the HR KING.

LONG LIVE THE KING!!!