I've enjoyed this debate. I certainly fall on one side more than the other, but just for discussion:
How much do we think these other factors influenced the relative HR rates of the "early" years vs. the "steroid era" or post-steroid era?
- league size (ie talent dilution, expansion teams - +2 in '93, +2 in '98)
- player development advances (ie numerous farm teams)
- equipment advances and technology
- stadium dimensions (weren't the fences generally moved in during the steroid era at a number of parks?)
- rumors of new ball makeup (more lively ball to add offense/HRs/fan interest)
- umpire strike zone changes (possibly nudged by QuesTec to be less generous?)
Also to consider:
- start of 2005 steroid testing (HR rates stayed basically at pre-testing levels)
How much do we think these other factors influenced the relative HR rates of the "early" years vs. the "steroid era" or post-steroid era?
- league size (ie talent dilution, expansion teams - +2 in '93, +2 in '98)
- player development advances (ie numerous farm teams)
- equipment advances and technology
- stadium dimensions (weren't the fences generally moved in during the steroid era at a number of parks?)
- rumors of new ball makeup (more lively ball to add offense/HRs/fan interest)
- umpire strike zone changes (possibly nudged by QuesTec to be less generous?)
Also to consider:
- start of 2005 steroid testing (HR rates stayed basically at pre-testing levels)
Comment