Jacob,

You are forgetting that baseball today is an international sport and that players in the Major Leagues now come from all over the world (instead of just white America). The appropriate comparison today is not the U.S. population per major league player, but the World Population per major league player (or at least the populations of the U.S., Latin America, and Japan). If you count all of these peoples, then there hasn't really been any talent compression at all. If anything, there has been talent dillution.

While it may have been appropriate in 1930, it is absurd to divide the US population by roster spots today. In fact, if you look at the number of roster spots open to American-born players, there has been talent compression. The world is a big place, and the successful homegrown teams of the past 20 years have been partaking in the blobal pool.

While I think Jacob's argument is an interesting one, I also think it is a bit myopic to suggest that talent (de)compression is largely responsible for the swell of home-run record breaking seasons of the past nine years.

The mathematics of your argument speaks for itself, and is irrefutable. However, nobody has even come close to eclipsing a .424 average or 190 RBIs, and almost certainly nobody will, perhaps ever. That's because those are extremely lofty feats, expansion pitching or no expansion pitching.

Bonds (and others) took aim at the home run records and shamelessly cheated in doing so. Every home run he continues to hit further compounds baseball's shame in ignoring this.

Re: 2:43
That's a good point, but you have to consider that baseball was the No. 1 sport for American athletes to aspire to in the old days. The past few decades have seen many of the best athletes go to the NFL and NBA instead. You could argue that the influx of Latin American players have filled that vaccuum instead of created more compression.
-- Jacob Luft

Jacob - The ratio of US population to ballplayers may be valid in 1930, but by 1998 there were too many non-US players to make the ratio meaningful. A quick check of this site (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/birthplace.php) shows that in 1930, less than 1% of ballplayers were born outside the US. By 1998, this was over 21%. I think if you used a ratio of American-taken roster spots to the American population, the 1998 ratio would be over 450,000 to 1. This would seem to invalidate the decompression argument.

You suppose that the entire male American population was available for Major League Baseball rosters prior to Jackie Robinson. In the 1930's an argument could be made that the talent pool was smaller because African-Americans (including probably the best pitcher ever to hold a baseball) were excluded from the equation.

Clearly Jacob didn't think this through. My God, he mentions 1998 (the year of Sosa and the other guy), and yet downplays the fact of Latin-American involvement in the majors, as a source of potential players. Sounds like Jacob fell in love with the theory without regards for whether or not it was sound.

Zimbalist address the inclusion of Latin American and black ballplayers thusly: "In the 1940s baseball begun to accept black players and to recruit Latin American players in greater numbers. This accentuatetd the compression, while better nurturance of baseball skills through the development of youth baseball leagues, and of pysical abilities in general, offset the talent dispersion resulting from the growing appeal of football and basketball to American youth."
-- Jacob Luft

Re: 2:59

Jacob,

But in "the old days," people didn't aspire to be professional athletes (or have realistic opportunities to be professionals) in the numbers that they do now. How many men were like my grandfather who couldn't afford to travel to spring training because he had children and it was the depression? So your starting numbers for "the old days" probably included many potential athletes who didn't have any realistic opportunity to turn pro anyway. That fact would mimic the effect that the attraction of the NBA and NFL has today; instead of going into football or basketball, they took jobs on the farm or in the factories.
So the Latin players now aren't filling a new "vacuum," because it's always been there.

You also ignore the fact that most baseball teams built new stadiums in the late 1980s and 1990s and virtually all of them were "hitter's" parks. The few that weren't replaced are by and large hitter's parks anyway. Yankee Stadium is the same as it was forty years ago, yet in this era of "talent dilution" no Yankee has come anywhere close to even eclipsing Roger Maris.

nice data wonking . . . why this argument is unsound:

1) the assumption is that the american population in the 1920s had equal probability in becoming a major league ball player is a tad bit unsound. being a baseball player was limited to skin color, class system, geographic locations, etc and so forth. these variables do not exist today.

2) baseball is not a mutually exclusive event. during an athlete's formative years, several sports are often played. in turn, the sport someone is best at is often what they choose to try to do for the long haul.

just waving your hand around saying that the potential world baseball population makes up for what is lost with basketball, football, lacrosse, etc. is horrible science. don't just say it, put something real forward if you are going to make a new claim instead of giving off the appearance of being overtly defensive.

Jacob . . . remember, you get paid to write down these things. Try to think through it a bit harder next time, otherwise I will begin to think I can get paid for writing my foolish nonsense too.

I agree with Jacob-

Baseball is not a weightlifting or mr. universe contest were muscle mass is the only measurement. If you have ever played baseball, baseball is a much of a mind sport as it is body if not more. To narrow mindly state that increased hr output is solely a function of steriods is almost idiotic. Watch Tom Glavine, Greg Maddox, Julio Franco, Bobby Abreu, and others play. Look at the mind and eye these players possess.

If anyone guesses correctly that a fastball is coming down the plate they probably can hit it out of the park - even sal fasano. What even could be contributing more to the increased hr output is the information we collect on pitchers. If we know ollie perez cant throw a strike without putting it over the middle of the plate- then dont swing until the count forces him to throw a strike down the middle. 80 years ago baseball was relatively contained to the east where news and information traveled abit faster than it would to the west- in addition, bookkeeping on pitchers and hitters is a bit easier when you have sixteen teams and far less minor league involvement. As baseball expanded out west and in the number of overall players, we needed better methods of stastical tracking. This was not an easy task without the aid of tools that we possess today such as computers. Dont you think it is a bit strange that the "Steriod Era" grew in the Internet age- coincidence? I think not. Steriods and performance enhancing have been around for a while. Why the 90s? Use common sense. baseball is about guessing. Is he going to throw a 3-0 strike down the middle of the plate? (can he in the case of ollie perez). If he is, swing as hard as you can and you too can hit a homerun like jose hernandez, sal fasano, cecil fielder, mickey tettleton, jim thome, sosa and others.

Stats, steroids, talent pool, stadium sizes, etc.. can be argued all day. There will never be an absolute answer. However, I do enjoy looking at the dimensions of Yankee Stadium over the years. Check out the size back when Ruth and others were doing they're thing for half of every season. It's done nothing but get smaller over the years.

Backstop
1923
82'

1953
80'

1976
84'

Left Field
1923
280.58'

1928
301'

1976
312'

1988
318'

Left Field (Short)
1923
395'

1928
402'

1976
387'

1985
379'

Left Field (Deep)
1923
500'

1924
490'

1937
457'

1976
430'

1985
411'

1988
399'

Center Field
1923
487'

1937
461'

1967
463'

1976
417'

1985
410'

1988
408'

Right Field (Deep)
1923
429'

1937
407'

1976
385'

Right Field (Short)
1923
350'

1937
367'

1976
353'

Right Field
1923
294.75'

1930
295'

1939
296'

1976
310'

1988
314'

Jacob, agree with you 100%. Let's face facts, when you look at teams like Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Colorado, Pittsburgh, Florida, just to name a few, there are people on those teams that 10 years ago, wouldn't even be in Double-A ball, let alone the Major Leagues.

For example, with Pittsburgh, when Paul Maholm is your #3 pitcher, it doesn't say a whole lot for your staff.

In Kansas City, when Scott Elarton is your ace, you know you have nothing on your staff.

On top of that, look at some of the dimensions of some of these ball parks today, places like Boston and New York with the short porches in right; Colorado and Arizona with the thin-air just to name a few.

There are plenty more reasons other than steroids as to why hitting numbers are up.

Crawdaddy,

1) The fact that only whites were allowed to play in the '20s and '30s supports this argument. It made for the talent to be even more disparate. The fact Babe Ruth didn't have to compete with the better black players could only have made him more dominant, which he was, which is the point of this theory.

2) I'm not really sure what you are saying here.

3) Here are some numbers that might advance this discussion:
In 1975, the percentage of black players in MLB peaked at 27 percent. That number is at about 10 percent right now. Meanwhile, the number of Latinos in MLB this season is 27.4 percent, the third-highest on record. The highest percentage was 29.2, set last year.
-- Jacob Luft

Players from long ago have an advantage in that there is a bigger talent disparity between the best and average player.

With time all players improve, but an average player stands to gain much more than the best players. In particular, there is obviously some sort of maximum physical limit as to how much skill a person can possess. As time passes, more and more players creep up against this "wall" and so the difference between them decreases significantly.

To anyone questioning the actual talent level that Barry Bonds possesses for the game of baseball,
I would just like to point out that Barry Bonds was one of the premier hitters in the major leagues LONG before 1998, when he allegedly started using steroids. Apparently, the "Bonds in Pittsburgh era" gets totally thrown to the wind when discussng Barry's career.

It's impossible to ignore the fact that the man finished in the top-5 in hits, RBI, home runs, batting average, and certainly walks, virtually every year from his rookie season onward.

Just to do the math for everybody, that's 13 seasons, prior to 1998.

Just for fun, I would also like to point out the fact that Sammy Sosa, once the steroid scandal began, lost about 60 pounds and 60 points from his batting average. Barry is still one of the best hitters in the game. So who REALLY was the player hiding a lack of talent under those muscles?

Bonds was good before steroids, was even better on them (allegedly), and still continues to be a dominant player without them. Say what you will about the roids, but the man is not talentless, nor is he anything less than a great player.

Maximum physical limit?

I think that your are over generalizing your point. How many players reach their physical limit? Everytime i watch bobby abreu run after a fly ball i want to cry. Or pat burrell running a slow roller in the hole. Stats are also a function of player motivation. Everytime bobby abreu fails to run down a fly ball is a base hit that hurts jon lieber's whip, era, and overall numbers. Why doesnt he run the ball? Who knows. Maybe he doesnt want to risk injury so that way he gets his next pay check. Why does he hit 500 hrs in the hr derby contest and twenty during the regular season? maybe because he knows every pitch will be right down the middle. During the regular season, glavine and martinez dont throw the ball down the middle of the plate and abreu maybe too lazy to adjust. What do we do about that? Did babe ruth deal with this? Did he really care maybe a better question.

It must be a pathetic time in MLB if Sal Fasano is mentioned in an MLB blog.

I'm waiting for Big Sal to go deep like he did off Wild Thing in Major League.

doesn't Ichiro's inclusion in the league increase the talent pool by over one hundred million (Japanese)?

Talent compression, tighter wound balls, even steroids. iam sick of it. Why doesn't anyone just state teh obvious conclusion? Baseball has better atheletes. People celebrate the fact that Ruth hit all those homers while binging on hot dogs and beer, so why don't people accept the simple truth that today's atheletes are bigger, stronger and better conditioned? We accept this in every other sport, basketball and football players are undeniably larger and more athletic than 20 years ago, why can't we accept this for baseball? I would also argue that baseball jobs are MORE competitive now, despite the increase in teams, because that whole economic analysis is flawed when you include the populations of the foreign countries we get a great deal of talent from.

Ichiro's inclusion increases the talent pool by one, not 100 million. Not every player in Japan is free to come over to the major leagues at any time, nor would the major leagues want every player in Japan anyhow.
-- JL

Hi Jacob -
I've read a number of Zimbalist's arguments and think he is a very intelligent fellow. I'm just not sure that I believe the argument here. Why is it that talent decompression favors hitters? Why not pitchers?

In contrast, steroids can have a tremendous impact on hitting, but has an ambiguous impact on pitching (see Washington Post, I think two Sundays ago).

Just my humble opinion...

I think that although Mr. Luft makes an interesting case, I think there is an easier answer as to why records have formed the way they did: Cheating. Just as most pitching records come from periods were pitchers were given unfair advantages, whether it be through things they did to the ball or through other means, most batting records come from periods of cheating. As much as everyone cries out against Barry Bonds' cheating, Babe Ruth was no saint. Ruth was known to bend every rule possible, with evidence that he may have corked his bats on many occasions among other things. When players are allowed to cheat, or gain an unfair advantage, records are made. When they can't, things revert to the mean. Just look at Roger Maris. He didn't set his record because he was the best power hitter, he set his record because he played that season in an expansion year wherein he got to face a significantly lower quality average pitcher than had been faced in years. If you change the balance in either side, numbers reflect that as they do in any sport (just look at the 2004 NFL season and passing records).

The problem with the economist's perspective is that numbers and population ratios do not account for supremely talented individuals who, for a career or for a few great seasons, stand head and shoulder above their peers. No mathematical formula can account for Ruth's sudden emergence and dominance or for the 61 homers Maris hit in 1961. If the talent compression theory were accurate, you would expect to see many more players hitting 50 or more home runs when Bonds hit 73. So many factors were involved--steroids, smaller strike zones, smaller parks, weaker pitching--that it is unrealistic to think you can identify one factor as the predominate cause. And sometimes players just have great years.

You also need to check your facts--there was at least one other season of 50 or more home runs between 1961 and 1995: Willie Mays hit 52 in 1965.

Re: 4:58
Good catch on Willie. I made the change in the text above. Thanks.
-- JL

Following the de-compression logic, Bonds' record HR year should have occurred in 1998, the year the Devil Rays and D'backs created 20 new jobs for mediocre pitchers.

This may helped Sosa and McGwire that year, along with the 'roids.

Since the 1998, as Luft acknowledges, the growing global talent pool should have made it more difficult for Bonds to set an HR record.

Bonds went from 37 HRs in '98 to 73 in 2001. It's pretty clear to me, that chemical enhancements are the driving force, not de-compression.

Interesting theory. I have also often found it very interesting that the most gargantuan of records (particuarly seasonal) were set during the 20's, 30's, and early 40's. There just HAS to be some correlation between that and the fact that black athletes were not allowed to play. And we should note that, unlike today, during that time period almost all of the best black athletes were playing baseball. Baseball would have been as different then if blacks had been allowed to play as football would be now if blacks were NOT allowed to play.

It seems to me that a lot of the older records that are falling are the power ones like home runs. I think that can be explained by the steroids and other supplements. Even some of the pitching records that are falling can be explained by less than 'clean' methods employed by the pitchers. What you don't see falling are the records that relate more to skill. Consecutive games with a hit, batting for average - those records seem to be holding up well for the most part. Maybe because those feats require more actual baseball skill that can't be improved by cheating.

Baseball rules and ball park dimensions evolve to keep the game in balance. Even changes off the playing field such as free agency and salary growth affect the scoring records. Free agency allows players to migrate to hitter friendly parks and the higher salaries draw better quality atheletes. The evolution in records is just as much a function in change of mound height, park size and travel conditions as population.


Interestly, the constant tinkering in rules and park sizes has caused the extinction of the triple. The records for singles and home runs were broken this decade but the record for triples may never be broken. Of the 34 players who hit 20 or more triples in a year, only three did it over the past 50 years.

Maybe Bonds has more talent, but here in Philly, we LOVE Sal Fasano. He sent up pizzas to his fan club, Sal's Pals. I'd rather have one Sal Fasano than a million Barry Bonds.

I think an overlooked factor here has vbeen the change in approach by hitters over the lasr decade or two. Batters are encourages now to go up there an only look for their pitch - otherwise don't swing. I think that has also led to an increase inwalks and strikeouts, as well as homer totals. If a batter is only gearing up to for their pitch obviously they're gonna rip that ball. Hard to fool the hitter when they are looking for only one pitch.
Additionally the homer has bbbecome the method of choice to come back from being behind in a game instead of the small ball of the eighties. Yes there are exceptions.
And as previously mentioned, the dilution of talent due to expansion as well as today's fitness had generated more power and speed in all sports, not just baseball.

Steven Jay Gould addressed this quite a while ago when he talked about the disappearance of the .400 hitter. Look it up the essay and read it Jacob. The only records that keep falling are the batter strikeout records and homerun records. And if you look at the new single season homerun records they were not broken by players who didn't use steroids. If they were then you may have a legitimate argument.

interesting topic.

the talent pool argument definitely has some weight to it, and i'm inclined to believe that today's talent pool is actually deeper than it has been possibly in history. the influx of latino and asian players has

one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the advance in bat technology and non-steroid aided weight training techniques. i believe these 2 go hand in hand. players raised on metal bats aren't afraid of getting jammed. they use bats with thinner handles (ie- lighter/more end loaded) to produce more bat speed. it should be noted that maple bats happened to become popular about the same time as the offensive explosion in mlb (bonds uses maple as well). at the same time, players are embracing weight training routines that were basically unheard of decades ago. how many hs baseball teams had offseason weight training programs in 1980? how many today? players are stronger and they're swinging better bats. broken bat home runs aren't exactly common today, but they're much more common now than they were 20 years ago.

I'm sorry if this steers the discussion a little off topic; I tried to wait til later in the day to post this.

What do you guys think about the effect of steroids on pitchers? I know there has been talk that it can help you to get that extra MPH on your fastball. One thing I would expect to see, due to steroids, are pitchers going on shorter and shorter rest, especially relievers. Since we all know steroids reduce recovery time between work outs (and pitching is definitely a work out) how come we didn't see runs of relievers going 5-6 games in a row? Or a pitcher going on 3 days rest, a la Schilling and Johnson?

Perhaps, it's just the managers not wanting to risk a pitcher's health, but I'm still baffled as to why there are few if any examples of this.

-Jeeves
www.chisoxblog.blogspot.com

people seem to be forgetting that the steroids argument is losing credibility every day right now. as of about a week ago the leaguewide homeruns hit per game was at it's highest pace since 2001. that's a pretty damning fact especially since there was never been that percipitous drop that was so wildly predicted before testing was in place. if someone has seen updated numbers in the last week could they please post them?

many of you also seem to be neglecting the fact that we are still in the introductory stages of the asian influx into the major leagues and that the percentage of black players in the league has dropped significantly. we are in the midst of a talent vacuum, but the number of asian players in the league is primed to explode as exposure through the WBC has already sparked a lot of talk about certain players coming over. there still was a lack of exposure for scouts to asian players as a whole.

thus, Jacob has a point with his prediction that the record breaking will slow again.

so many people in the press focus on the steroids issue not because the evidence is particularly strong, but because it makes for good ratings and high newspaper sales. it's a juicy story, pardon the pun. one thing a lot of people are failing to realize/admit is that due to better training, better nutrition during childhood, better medical care, players are naturally stronger and faster than ever before. this trend will continue. the human species as a whole has been getting bigger, stronger and faster for the past century but we have this tendency to deny that this is also happening in sports. there's a good possibility that many of the heroes of baseball lore would not be able to break into the majors these days. does that make them any less amazing? not at all, it's just that comparing eras is completely impossible to do. there are too many factors that we cannot compensate for and we just need to appreciate each era for what it is instead of trying to base our judgements of the current numbers on numbers that are sometimes nearly 100 years old.

I like the argument. However, Luft uses the statistics only when they are convenient for him. He argues that compression occurred from 1930 until 1998 - which would explain the reduction in batting records in say, the mid-1960s. Compression of batting quality and compression of pitching quality, I would argue, are mutually exclusive. Hence, in the 1960s, we had the Bob Gibsons, Sandy Koufax's and Juan Marichals setting those insane records (ERA 1.12, 373 Ks etc.). Luft argues that pitching was compressed in the 1960s, leading to those stellar performances, and yet it was due to DEcompression, that we had the stellar pitching performances in the 1990s and beyond. You can't use the theory to explain success in the 1990s, when the same theory would predict the opposite of what occurred in the 1960s.

anyone involved eith performance enhancers should be banned for life and their records removed from the official mlb stat book.

The bottom line is that scrawny second baseman aren't hitting 60 home runs. Why not?

Incredible article! This is what sports commentary ought to be. Instead of hearing yet another "analyst" describe his thoughts on the current hot issue, which just so happens to coincide with 95% of the opinions out there, give me some greater insight into the sports I love.

Parker W.

Jacob,

Barry Bonds has been the premier player in MLB since he broke in with the Pirates in the late 80's. When the Giants signed Bonds as a free agent in the early 90's, Bonds had already won two MVPs and robbed of a third one. At that time, he signed the richest contract in baseball because he was the premier player. He's hit upper deck homeruns at Candlestick park for years in the early 90's and up until they moved into Pac Bell park in 2000.

Because Bonds' is so talented, managers like LaRussa would brag to the SF press that he would freeze Bonds and pitch to him when he wanted. LaRussa would brag about how he controls Bonds' at bats. The same strategy that most MLB managers employ since 2001, which is four pitches in the dirt and in the final game of the series, LaRussa would go after him. This strategy (freezing Barry and then going after him when he is out of rhythm) worked for years until Bonds learned the patience to see one or two pitches a game and blast them. Bonds also changed the way he hit balls by choking up on his bat and he learned how to hit homeruns in this manner. As you know, Bonds father, Bobby, was an all-star player with the Giants and Bonds' Godfather was the great Willie Mays who was considered the arguably the greatest player of all time. They have tutored him to watch pitchers and their pitching movements. This is the reason why he stole so many bases (500 plus) was because he could tell when pitchers went to the plate or attempted a pick off moves. Bonds also was able to recognize pitches (curves, fastballs, sliders, etc...) because he had the two best teachers throughout his childhood. The reason why he doesn't strike out much is because he knows the strike zone and he doesn't go after bad pitches anymore. Tom Glaven said that Barry tried to hit the three run homer with no one on base. Glaven was referring to him when he was with the Pirates and chasing bad pitches. Barry doesn't chase bad pitches anymore.

Pitchers use to go high and tight or low and away, but Barry still hits homeruns because he has no holes in his swing. When the NL West had the three premier pitchers, Curt Shilling, Randy Johnson, and Kevin Brown, in MLB, Bonds took them all deep and chased them out of the NL West. Give Barry his due! He's the greatest player ever and most SF fans who have watched him know this. You east coast guys don't know because Bonds plays on the west coast and haven't seen this on regular basis like Giants fans do. You guys want to believe that you can take some magic pill (or cream) and all of the sudden, you are a great baseball player. Nonsense!!!

(PTB) Pitch To Barry

To PTB and the other Bonds-boosters:

Barry Bonds, had he not been a cheater and steroid user, would have gone down in the history books as one of the best players ever. But he forfeited that right by cheating and using steroids. The fact is that now all of his accomplishments are tainted. Anyone who doesn't use the word "steroid" in the same sentence as "Bonds" is just kidding himself. That, and that alone, is his legacy.

Because Selig's a coward, there won't be an asterisk in the record books, but there will be in the heart and mind of any real baseball fan. Bonds' "record" is a joke; it's about as legit as an election in some third-world dictatorship where the dictator gets 99.98% of the votes. Everyone knows that's it is a lie.

As the number of teams in the Majors has grown so, of course have the number of players who could potentially break a record, whatever, the record is. One season today is equal to about two seasons back in the Babe's era so every year today we have twice the chance of a record being broken compared to say the 20s. More games, more teams, more players, everything else the same, more chances for the exceptional (a record) to happen. I'm not sure this accounts for everything but it is obvious and can account for some of the apparent increase in the setting of records. Also as the number of participants in any activity increases the difference in ability between the best and the worst increases. Records reflect the performance of the best. we rarely keep records of or pay much attention to the performance of the worsts players, besides they often don't stay in the big leagues long enough to accumulate statistically significant performance records. If the Major Leagues were to suddenly expand, say five fold, new records would soon be made in many areas. The best batters would often be facing weak pitching, and vice versa, and the best would start looking very good indeed.

In the 20's there were only white americans. Now people from all races and all countries are in the pool.
Accept it, they are juiced.

I am not sure why such hoopla about Barry Bonds, since MLB says they do not celebrate second place, why are they marking the balls. Babe Ruth record was surpassed by Hank Aaron. Barry passing Babe Ruth should be a footnote. When and if he reaches for Hanks' record should there be such a major conversation about his abilities.

Statistics are like expert witnesses, they will testify for either side.

The argument is flawed at its core due to the lack of exclusion in modern sports. It is also flawed due to the fact that we have "evolved" from a Euro-centric culture that viewed sports as "foolishness" and playing that should be limited to children, to a culture that looks at sports as a vehicle to great riches.

Bonds was a good ballplayer, maybe even great. To suggest steriods are not the reason we are debating his career now is foolishness.

This is all interesting so I thought I'd apply the same logic to hockey...but it doesn't work. The sport is now all Canadians (there are Russians, Czechs, Finns, Swedes, African-Americans, Americans, Latin Americans too) and yet I don't see any particular player busting the records or Orr or Gretsky. Then again, there are serious anti-doping schemes to assure these players are on the level.

In baseball, I don't see these avid anti-doping schemes and I see Bonds cracking 713 HRs. If anything, the team and MLB should force him to sit out his contract and stop the embarassment. Baseball used ot be a sport, now it is just a game.

What is the beef with Bond's chasing Ruth's record. It is not ruth's record anymore it is Aaron's. All this hype is nonsense, we all know Bond's is honest and ethical, just ask his wife or maybe the girlfriend he has, they could tell you more. The guy is worse than P. rose and see what they did to him, I say just don't go to the Ball Park and watch him, he could hit 715 or 900, I wouldn't waste my money to see it, we love to feed peoples ego by giving them all the news. If the trught was known, I would say take all the homers away from the time he bulked up and see where he is, about 500

What makes anyone think that Bonds and others (like Giambi) aren't still using enhancers? Look at what happens to others using steroids who stopped -- they shrunk dramatically. Has this happened to Bonds? What about the "miraculous" turn around in Giambi's performance and physic? (yeah, sure, it was vitamins and working out -- let me in on that routine!) And please don't believe the tripe about MLB testing. First of all, with the type of money we're talking about, there is a strong incentive to not push testing. Let's face it, people WANT to see home runs. Secondly, why does there seem to be a disproportionate number of minor leaguers tagged for steroid use? Is it really because they're using it more or is it because they have less money to figure out ways around the testing. Thirdly, look how long it took for the Palmeiro news to break.
Also, if you think those monsters in the NFL aren't using steroids, then you're living on another planet.
Chances are if a person looks too good to be true, he/she is.
This then is the Bonds (and others) legacy: Any good player is now going to suspect.

Mr. Grumpy

Jacob,

I think that insulting Sal Fasano was uncalled for. You should note that most, if not all, of the Phillies' pitchers prefer to have Fasono catch when they pitch over the much more "talented" Mike Liberthal. Fasano has some very useful baseball skills (handling pitchers, calling games, framing pitches, blocking pitches, etc.), and he is a good teammate. He is a solid back-up catcher. I am sure that you can find some players in the major leagues who are worse. I have watched some very bad Phillies teams in my lifetime. Sal Fasano is nowhere near the worst player I have seen.

I am dumber for having read Zimbalist's theory. Decompression argument is silly. The Baseball Prospectus book ("Baseball Between The Numbers") demolishes this argument in its first 10 pages.

--When Babe Ruth played, the population that MLB drew from was 110 million white americans. Today, the audience it draws from is 700 million people from the US and various other countries.

--In 1954, you started to really see players (at least 5) come in from Mexico and PR. In 1960, from DR. 1964-Panama. 1967-Venezuela. 1993-Australia. 1997-Japan. 2002- South Korea.

--The minor league system, which was established in the 1930's, didn't really take hold until after WW2, which has further helped identify and train talented players.

--Players are naturally (or not) bigger and stronger than ever. The average ballplayer today is 1.5 inches taller than in the Babe's era.

-Increasd training has led to longer, productive careers. In 1964, 4% of ABs were made by 35+ year old players. That number climbed to 14%.

--Increased technology. In 2005, there were at least 22 pitchers who had undergone Tommy John surgery--in years past, these pitchers would be done and their roster spots filled by inferior options.

--Increased use of specialization--come on now, between the "LH specialist" and "ace closers", there's no question that the final 3 innings of a game are much harder to hit than they were 80 years ago when some tired arm pitcher was out there for his 25th complete game of the year soft tossing the ball over the plate.

What you have today (and not just since 1998, but leading up to it, over decades) is a larger population base and bigger/stronger athletes getting better and better at what they do--as in ALL sports.

The BP book goes through a quick exercise where it lists the winning Gold Medal times in the Olympic MEN's 100 meter freestyle. It's a simple sport to use ("you jump in the pool and swim as fast as you can"). The times in 1920 and before, were all over 60 seconds. They've consistently dropped a second or a fraction thereof ever since, to the 2004 record 48.2. The authors mention that if you go to any high school GIRL's regional race today, the winner generally wins in just under 60 seconds. In other words...a high school GIRL today, would have won the Olympic MEN's gold medal in the 1920's.

Or, put another way, perhaps Sal Fasano would have acquitted himself OK if we ported him back in time to compete against a bunch of other slow, fat white guys and tired arm pitchers throwing "complete" games.

I implore the author (Jacobs) of this piece to rethink his support of Zimbalist.

The argument about Yankee stadium getting smaller over the years makes another point that few people ever notice.

Look at the size of right field.

Right Field
1923
294.75'

1930
295'

1939
296'

This explains why the 60 and 61 home run seasons occurred. And those huge left field proportions explain why the most homeruns ever hit by a right handed hitter in Yankee Stadium is 48 (or was it 49) hit by A Rod last year. Until A Rod did this, the record was held by Joe D.

Ball park size has a huge....HUGE influence in homerun numbers.

It's not the steroid era. It's the tighter balls, smaller parks, worse pitching, smaller and harder bats, smaller strike zone, and bulkier player era.

Though I do believe that Jacobs argument does have some effect on records being broken, it doesn't explain everything. How come the home run record has been broken time after time in the past 10 years, yet Dimaggios hit streak hasn't been touched? How come there have been no .400 hitters lately? Though I haven't closely examined the record book, it seems that most of the records being broken are power-related and therefore it's impossible to say steroids aren't a key factor. What other factor would explain dozens of people hitting 50+ home runs in a season, but at the same time not allow any other great feats?