Jason Giambi

[korme]

What do you guys think is wrogn with Giambi? The steriods draining out of him? The media pressure? Or is just simply washed up?

I think, the best for Jason Giambi to do is get a trade somehow, maybe restructure his contract and get a trade back to a small market and try to start over. The minors are just going to embarrass him, he will probably lose more confidence than gain. Since his first season in NY, he hasn't been the same dominant player he was. He needs to get out of the toughest city to play in.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

restructure his contract

Banish the thought.

[rkmsuf]

I don't see what NY has to do with his inability to hit a beach ball.

He was a juice product plain and simple.

[Swaggs]

I was thinking about this yesterday. Probably the best thing for his health (physical and mental) would be to retire, but it would be damn hard to give up $17M a year, no matter how badly you get criticized for it.

[hhiipp]

If you're Giambi you just keep milking it until they stop sending a check. Can't say for sure if he's done, but things don't look good for him, the minors would be embarassing, but as long as you're getting paid all that cash what reason would you have to retire?

Best case scenario for his career is he restructures his contract, gets traded, and has a few more semi productive seasons with a team who is happy with a first basement that doesn't field his position very well and hits for20 hr and 70 rbi.

[condors]

Tough city to play in? I hate that statement. This isn't the 60's. There is the internet. Direct TV you can watch anyone and everyone. Fans of any city would be harsh on Jason. Reporters tough? Don't talk to them, half the guys don't anyways.

I certainly don't feel sorry for the guy. I would trade places in a second.

I honestly believe any professional athlete should be thrilled to be playing in any city.

[Ksyrup]

I hope he refuses assignment. That way, the Yankees continue to pay luxury tax on his salary (which would cease if he goes to the minors).

I think the problem with him is everything - age, physical issues, lack of steroids, lack of confidence because he's never been great without steroids, and the first month of the season is a realization of his fears about failing post-steroids, pressure of playing under a huge contract, etc., you name it.

What should he do? I thinnk he should try playing through it for another 2-3 weeks, and if he's still not hitting, he'll know it's not just "a slump." He was marginal for the first two weeks, then slumped recently. If it lasts any longer, he'll get the picture. At that point, he should probably try the minors or just workout a cents-on-the-dollar settlement with the Yanks and head to the West Coast, where he can attempt to resurrect his career in relative peace - if he doesn't just retire.

Right now, the guy is the equivalent of Rickey Henderson (at age 45) - he can't hit for shit, has little power, and drives in no runs. But he walks an awful lot, so his OBP is still near .400.

[rkmsuf]

Couldn't they DL him and send him on like a 20 game rehab stint? That way he could work on his swing.

[Ksyrup]

I think the Yankees see this as more than a 20-game issue, but I guess they could. Hell, he could claim the same "personal psychological issues" reason that Tim Worrell of the Phillies did last week - that was enough to earn a DL spot.

[Logan]

Maybe he should finally admit what he is apologizing for.

You guys are missing something with the "restructure his contract." It would have to be a MASSIVE restructuring for anyone to take a chance on him. i.e. I'll earn a $1 million base and incentives for doing X, Y, and Z. He's a broken down, steroid-using, can't-field-the-easiest-position-in-the-game player. I'm sure at this point he realizes his career will never be thought of highly, so at least he can make a ton of money off it.

[Ksyrup]

If he's truly done or ready to resume his career elsewhere, I guarantee he'll take a lump sum settlement - say, $.25 on the dollar - to be gone. That's still $20M. If the reason they wanted to get rid of him was something they did, then I could understand holding their feet to the fire. But here, it's obvious that he's the reason - even if the direct cause-and-effect of steroids cannot be fully proven - and given that this guy is supposedly ultra-sensitive, I just don't see him sticking around for another 2 years before the Yanks decide to eat what's left of his contract.

[QuikSand]

He demanded that the stadard steroids clause (which could void the contract) be removed from his contract with the Yankees. They relented and agreed, and guaranteed him his gargantuan fortune.

Whom, exactly, am I supposed to feel sorry for here?



Incidentally, after the dustup over Alex Rodriguez's potential "contract restructuring" and how MLBPA vultured in to nix at least one such proposal -- I wonder if the union might have something to say about any sort of "dimes on the dollar" settlement that Giambi and the Yankees might seek to discuss.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

He demanded that the steroids clause be removed from his contract with the Yankees. They relented and agreed, ang guaranteed him his gargantuan fortune.

Whom, exactly, am I supposed to feel sorry for here?



Incidentally, after the dustup over Alex Rodriguez's potential "contract restructuring" and how MLBPA vultured in to nix at least one such proposal -- I wonder if the union might have something to say about any sort of "dimes on the dollar" settlement that Giambi and the Yankees might sek to discuss.

There's no one to feel sorry for. The question is, how's this going to play out?

The union wouldn't say a damn thing. Just like they let Sammy Sosa go to the Orioles without a peep.

[Deattribution]

he could claim the same "personal psychological issues" reason that Tim Worrell of the Phillies did last week

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If he's truly done or ready to resume his career elsewhere, I guarantee he'll take a lump sum settlement - say, $.25 on the dollar - to be gone. That's still $20M.

If he ditches 60+ million dollars just because 'he's a sensitive guy' then I don't think he'll have to claim to have psychological issues, everyone will already assume that.

If I were him, I'd maybe go to the minors temporarily, but I wouldn't change a thing. He's at the pinnacle of baseball - in terms of what team he plays on, he's got one of the richest contracts ever and he has the fickle new york fans who'll worship him again if he starts producing... Even if the guy doesn't, he's still cashing 20m dollar checks every year, so who cares?

[QuikSand]

My "feel sorry" comment was more rhetorical than anything...

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Just like they let Sammy Sosa go to the Orioles without a peep.

Is that a comparable situation? Did Sosa forego salary to make the move? (I thought the Cubs just paid a portion of his current salary, making him more affordable for the receiving team)

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

He demanded that the stadard steroids clause (which could void the contract) be removed from his contract with the Yankees. They relented and agreed, and guaranteed him his gargantuan fortune.

is there really such a thing as "the standard steroid clause"? I know the Yankees mentioned it, but I always thought it was exceptionally rare and Giambi was within his rights to say no, not that he was asking them to remove something that everyone else had.

[Ksyrup]

I thought Sosa agreed to void the team option for $18M for next year in order to facilitate the trade. Now, it certainly might have been true that the Cubs wouldn't exercise that option and would have paid him the $4.5M buyout, but this year hadn't even occurred yet, so there's no way of knowing, had Sosa hit 50 HRs or something like that, whether the Cubs would have actually declined the option.

It's not precisely the same as ARod, but it's close enough for me that I think, given other influences that would suggest a resolution of the Giambi fiasco would be best for all parties, that some sort of settlement would occur.

Or, I guess Giambi could hire a couple of hookers, get his contract voided, file a protest, and agree to a settlement that way. Worked for Denny Neagle...

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

is there really such a thing as "the standard steroid clause"? I know the Yankees mentioned it, but I always thought it was exceptionally rare and Giambi was within his rights to say no, not that he was asking them to remove something that everyone else had.

I may be misguided, but I have the impression that there are a number of fairly standard clauses that go into most ML contracts, allowing the guaranteed money to be voided if the player engages in certain behavior. I thought steroid use, past or future, was among those clauses, and Giambi negotiated it out. Yes, within his rights, but (at least by that telling) certainly a red flag for everyone involved.

If that version isn't accurate, I apologize -- I know it has been reported essentially that way, but I have no first hand knowledge.

[Passacaglia]

Thomassoulo: You win George. We’ve had it. If you leave right now, Play Now will give you six months pay. That’s half of your entire contract. Please…just go.

George: You see if I stay the whole year, I get it all.

Thomassoulo: Want to play hard ball huh? Fine. (calls on intercom) Attention Play Now employees, George Costanza’s handicapped bathroom is now open on the sixteenth floor to all employees and their families.

George: Well played.

Thomassoulo: I’ll see you in hell Costanza.

[Joe]

Giambi should just get back on the roids.

[rkmsuf]

Three words:


The Original Whizzinator.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Incidentally, after the dustup over Alex Rodriguez's potential "contract restructuring" and how MLBPA vultured in to nix at least one such proposal -- I wonder if the union might have something to say about any sort of "dimes on the dollar" settlement that Giambi and the Yankees might seek to discuss.

Yeah- there's no way they'd accept this kind of restructuring at all unless they decide that it's better to let this one go quietly than appear to be in favor of steroids.

SI

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

He was a juice product plain and simple.

Hardly. The drugs didn't improve his ability to see the ball and make contact. They may have had some effect on how hard he hit the ball, but his slump is due to far more than simply not being as muscular as before when he was on performance-enhancers. It's not inconceivable for guys in their mid-30's to fall off the map hitting-wise, and when you add in his injuries/illnesses and psychological factors related to the whole steroids mess (hitting requires confidence and there's good reason to suspect his is shot) it's not hard to imagine why he's struggling so much.

If the "juice" could make superstar hitters out of normally weak hitters (as you seem to be suggesting given Giambi's current struggles) then how do you explain all the other players caught this year in the drug testing that are hardly superstar hitters?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

If the "juice" could make superstar hitters out of normally weak hitters (as you seem to be suggesting given Giambi's current struggles) then how do you explain all the other players caught this year in the drug testing that are hardly superstar hitters?

Ahem...Alex Sanchez went from a weak-hitting CF to DH and this year is hitting HRs at 10 times his career pace.

[dawgfan]

And Jamal Strong was always a singles-hitting speedster before being caught, and remains a singles-hitting speedster.

Davey Johnson went from 5 HR to 43 HR and back down to 15 HR in back to back to back seasons, and never hit more than 18 HR in any other year. Was he on steroids? Or was it just a statistical fluke?

Kirby Puckett went from being a singles hitter prior to 1985 and became a hitter with good power starting in 1986. Was he on steroids, or was it a change in hitting approach and weight-lifting?

Phil Bradley went from hitting no HR in his first 2 seasons to hitting 26 in his 3rd season, then never hitting more than 14 after. Was he on steroids, or was it a change in hitting approach combined with a statistical fluke?

I think we as baseball observers need to be cautious before assuming that steroid use automatically equals a tremendous gain in hitting for power.

[Ksyrup]

Uh...I was just using some real facts to joke around. Yes, Alex Sanchez is DH'ing, but that's because he can't play CF. And it's true that he has 2 HRs in 70 ABs this year, and 4 HRs in 1350 AB prior to this year. But I don't really think he's suddenly become a steroids monster power hitter.

Was that not obvious?!

[DaddyTorgo]

not even reading the whole thread, but the players association will never let him restructure his current deal. At least not in any meaningful way so a small market team could take him, cuz they'd have to give him so many perks it wouldn't be worth it. The only option for him getting out of NY is for Steinbrenner to buy out his contract so he can become a FA (is that even possible in baseball I'm not sure??)

[Ksyrup]

There's no possible way to restructure his contract. But if it comes to it, they will allow the Yankees to buy out his contract, and if necessary, make up some BS answer about the time value of money is he gets a lump sum now plus future earnings, etc. I don't even think they'll give an explanation - I still haven't heard one for why Sosa's deal was approved. Here are the particulars:

"NEW YORK - The trade that would send Sammy Sosa from the Chicago Cubs to the Baltimore Orioles took a step forward Monday when the players' association approved a key change to his contract that is required to complete the deal.

Chicago would receive Jerry Hairston Jr. and a pair of minor leaguers, second baseman Mike Fontenot and right-handed pitcher Dave Crouthers, in exchange for Sosa and $12 million. The trade is likely to be finalized Thursday or Friday.

Sosa's contract currently contains a provision that calls for the team's $18 million option for 2006 to become guaranteed if he is traded and for a $19 million team option for 2007 to be added, one that would carry a $4.5 million buyout. As part of the trade, Sosa will sign an addendum to his contract voiding that provision.

Baltimore would pay just $5 million of Sosa's $17 million salary this year, with the Cubs paying $12 million. The Orioles would assume responsibility for the 2006 option, which Baltimore would be able to buy out for $4.5 million.

In addition, Chicago would remain responsible for the $3.5 million severance pay called for in Sosa's contract, which must be given to the seven-time All-Star within 30 days after the trade is finalized. The Cubs would wind up paying $61.5 million of the $72 million Sosa was guaranteed in the four-year deal, with the Orioles paying $9.5 million."


So, Sosa gave up the right to a guaranteed $18M for 2006, as well as the possibility of a team option for 2007, and instead, gave Baltimore a $4.5M buyout option for 2006 (as if the trade had never taken place). What did Sosa get in return? Baltimore could decide to forego the 2006 option and it would cost Sosa $13.5M under the original contract. And he got nothing in return.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Uh...I was just using some real facts to joke around. Yes, Alex Sanchez is DH'ing, but that's because he can't play CF. And it's true that he has 2 HRs in 70 ABs this year, and 4 HRs in 1350 AB prior to this year. But I don't really think he's suddenly become a steroids monster power hitter.

Was that not obvious?!

No, you got me - my bad.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

What do you guys think is wrogn with Giambi? The steriods draining out of him? The media pressure? Or is just simply washed up?

I think, the best for Jason Giambi to do is get a trade somehow, maybe restructure his contract and get a trade back to a small market and try to start over. The minors are just going to embarrass him, he will probably lose more confidence than gain. Since his first season in NY, he hasn't been the same dominant player he was. He needs to get out of the toughest city to play in.

I think his body is breaking down, possibly from steroid usage, but more likely just cause it's not a very good body in the first place. He was never a very good athlete, and those guys often wash out quicker than expected.

[Rizon]

He's been hit by too many batteries, and he would have been hit by more if me and my boys from the Biggidy Biggidy O didn't run out of money.

[k0ruptr]

maybe its jeremy giambi in disguise...

[kparker15]

If the "juice" could make superstar hitters out of normally weak hitters (as you seem to be suggesting given Giambi's current struggles) then how do you explain all the other players caught this year in the drug testing that are hardly superstar hitters?

True, but how do you explain the fact the home runs are down by almost 10% this year?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by kparker15

True, but how do you explain the fact the home runs are down by almost 10% this year?

Could be steroids. Could be coincidence. One month is way too small a sample size.

[clintl]

Dola...

My own preference is for Giambi to soak the Yankees for everything in the contract, even if he doesn't deserve it. That ties up $17 million a year Steinbrenner can't spend somewhere else. It's wonderful when George makes blunders on this scale.

[kparker15]

Originally Posted by clintl

Could be steroids. Could be coincidence. One month is way too small a sample size.

Yes, you are correct. Only time will tell. It does make me curious though.

[Ksyrup]

Here's the thing with linking steroids to the decrease in HRs, though - again, everyone is ignoring the number of pitchers who use steroids. Look at the number of minor leaguers suspended for steroids - a number of them are pitchers. It stands to reason that a decrease in hitters AND pitchers using steroids would, to some extent, negate one another.

Unless, perhaps, most of the hitters that used were well-known HR hitters, while the pitchers weren't the cream of the crop, but the marginal guys just trying to get by. We definitely have more evidence linking top HR hitters to steroids than pitchers, so maybe that's the answer. I don't know.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by kparker15

True, but how do you explain the fact the home runs are down by almost 10% this year?

Down compared to what? All of last year, or in comparison to the same time period from last year? It's still just mid-May, and the weather has been poor in many places so far this season. Hitting always picks up in warmer weather.

Once the season is over we'll have a better sample size to try and make this kind of comparison.

[st.cronin]

I think home runs are down in comparison to this time last year. I doubt steroids has much to do with it. Weather seems more likely, and there was an article on Baseball Prospectus implying that most of the good young players to emerge in the last few years have been pitchers, which would at some point bring down league offense.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Down compared to what? All of last year, or in comparison to the same time period from last year? It's still just mid-May, and the weather has been poor in many places so far this season. Hitting always picks up in warmer weather.

Once the season is over we'll have a better sample size to try and make this kind of comparison.

The 10% figure comes from a comparison through a couple of weeks ago. I posted the numbers in another thread - something like 990 HR in 2004 through 460 games, and 908 through 459 games this year. Comes out to 8.8%.

[st.cronin]

Crooked Numbers
Are 'Roids the Reason

by James Click

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.
- William of Ockham

Occam's Razor translates to "Plurality should not be posited without necessity," a phrase that's usually taken to say that the simplest answer is the best one. That's not technically correct; Occam (or Ockham) was addressing the issue that additional information added to a working theory that provides no additional accuracy should be cut out. Hence, Occam's Razor and not Occam's Boring Theory About Theories. Mainstream media treatment of the steroids issue falls into the former interpretation and while we haven't heard anyone hide behind the razor, the idea that it's simply easier to say that steroids are to blame is easier for everyone to swallow. The simplest explanation is the best. Besides, who has time to read an entire book discussing everything you ever wanted to know about steroids and baseball?

The next logical stage in the steroid coverage is the introduction of statistical evidence to confirm that baseball's new, tough testing policy is having an effect. Both Joe Sheehan and Nate Silver covered this to some extent yesterday, but there are still some possible reasons for the offensive decline that haven't been covered. Several managers and players have suggested other possible reasons for the decline, among them the weather and the absence of Barry Bonds. There are certainly other possible explanations--the natural ebb and flow of offensive levels in baseball or the retirement of power hitters--that might have something to do with the outage. Nearly all of these deserves or could us a full article-length discussion (much like Nate's discussion of the graying of the game), but we'll try to cram them all in here with a follow-up next week to discuss some areas in more depth.

Improper use of statistics

Before we get into any discussion of why home runs are down this year, we should make sure that they are in fact down. Simply saying fewer home runs were hit in April in 2005 than 2004 doesn't take into account the number of games or even plate appearances in the denominator. Fortunately, the AP article is looking at home runs per game. So the chances that their stats are misleading are unlikely.

Rather than home runs per game, let's go one step further and use home runs per AB, PA, and balls in play (in this case of BIP, we'll include home runs, so this will be a percentage like the others, not a ratio). This way we can correct for varying numbers of ABs or PAs per game in previous seasons due to higher offensive levels or more extra innings games. Keep in mind that in higher run scoring environments, players get more chances to hit home runs because there are more ABs and PAs per game. In effect, runs beget more home runs and since we know that home runs beget runs we get into a nice little spiral effect.

With that in mind, here are year-by-year averages of home runs in April per AB, PA, and balls in play since 1996:


Raw Numbers Percent Change
Year HR/AB HR/PA HR/BIP HR/AB HR/PA HR/BIP
---- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------
1996 .0333 .0292 .0412 N/A N/A N/A
1997 .0276 .0242 .0338 -.1712 -.1712 -.1796
1998 .0285 .0251 .0352 .0326 .0372 .0414
1999 .0324 .0284 .0399 .1368 .1315 .1335
2000 .0373 .0326 .0460 .1512 .1479 .1529
2001 .0343 .0303 .0428 -.0804 -.0706 -.0696
2002 .0281 .0248 .0347 -.1808 -.1815 -.1893
2003 .0304 .0268 .0375 .0819 .0806 .0807
2004 .0314 .0277 .0384 .0329 .0336 .0240
2005 .0275 .0247 .0336 -.1242 -.1083 -.1250

All three metrics are very consistent with each other. If HR/BIP had plunged more than HR/PA, we might have been able to say that the decline in home runs is a result of fewer balls in play going out of the park rather than simply an overall decline. Some might see that hypothetical situation as a point in favor of the steroids argument, but instead batters are hitting roughly the same number of balls out of the park when they actually get wood on the ball. Let's also quickly look at some broader offensive numbers for Aprils past:


Year HR/PA SO/PA UBB/PA XBH/PA AVG OBP SLG ISO
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
1996 .0292 .1678 .0918 .0499 .270 .346 .433 .163
1997 .0242 .1612 .0914 .0500 .265 .342 .410 .145
1998 .0251 .1672 .0892 .0526 .266 .340 .418 .152
1999 .0284 .1647 .0924 .0529 .267 .344 .430 .163
2000 .0326 .1640 .0930 .0538 .270 .348 .450 .180
2001 .0303 .1767 .0810 .0499 .260 .331 .425 .165
2002 .0248 .1670 .0820 .0536 .258 .331 .410 .152
2003 .0268 .1679 .0839 .0534 .261 .335 .418 .157
2004 .0277 .1614 .0832 .0532 .268 .340 .427 .159
2005 .0247 .1632 .0795 .0512 .259 .328 .405 .146

Strikeouts are up (though they're still lower than most of the past decade), walks are lower than they've been in ten years, XBH (in this case excluding HRs, so just 2Bs and 3Bs) are way down, batting average is down, OBP is down, SLG is down, and ISO is down. This year hasn't just been an absence of home runs, all offensive metrics are in the pitcher's favor. Having confirmed that offensive is objectively lower, let's get into some possible reasons.

Steroids

This is the easy one: we don't know. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the power drain is due to the newer steroid testing, a policy publicly perceived to be as effective as cutting off Sampson's hair. Never mind that the biggest names to be suspended for steroid use are Alex Sanchez (2 home runs in 2004) and Juan Rincon (uh, none), nor the fact that the biggest sluggers stand accused of using steroids so well-designed that they are undetectable to testing. Few people like to acknowledge that there's little to no evidence about the effects of steroids or steroid testing on the game outcomes. Simply throwing out steroids as an untestable hypothesis will no doubt leave certain people frustrated, but acknowledging what we don't know and cannot know is just as important as performing proper analysis on things than we can.

Weather

The idea that this April has been particularly cold has been cited several times as an alternative reason for the decline in offensive numbers. There are two points that must be confirmed before we can say that this is a valid reason for the offensive decline. First, that cold weather does suppress offensive numbers and by how much; and second, that this April has been colder or wetter than previous seasons.

Breaking up temperature into five strata of roughly equal numbers of games over the past 10 years, offensive numbers in those conditions look like this:


Temp R/G HR/G
---- --- ----
Cold (Under 60) 9.5 1.92
Cool (61-70) 9.5 2.10
Mild (71-75) 9.7 2.19
Warm (76-85) 9.8 2.25
Hot (86+) 10.4 2.44

So there is a steady increase in the number of home runs and runs per game as temperature increases. Now let's see how April 2005 stacks up against previous seasons:


Year Avg Temp
---- ----
1996 61.8
1997 60.2
1998 63.7
1999 64.4
2000 64.5
2001 64.7
2002 64.3
2003 62.8
2004 65.5
2005 64.2

While it's been chillier than last year, 64.2 degrees isn't drastically out-of-line with any year back until 1997. Last April was the hottest of the past 10 years, so some of the decline this year may be coming from a slight decrease in temperature from an unusual high, but the slight decrease certainly doesn't explain a ten- to twelve-percent decrease in home runs. Weather may be slightly responsible, but not much.

Injured Sluggers

Bonds is on the DL. Moises Alou was on the DL. Jim Thome is now on the DL. There's the distinct possibility that there are more sluggers on the DL this year than last year. Bonds alone hit 10 home runs last April. Alou and Thome hit seven. Assuming a replacement level of zero home runs and that Thome and Alou's missed playing time adds up a full month, that's 17 fewer home runs already. Adding those 17 home runs to the total this year removes 20% of the drop off.

There are a couple problems with that. The replacement level for home runs is not zero. Also, despite the fact that he was injured in April, Thome didn't go on the DL until May having already played 23 games for the Phillies. Instead, let's look at both the group of players playing this April as a whole. While there is always turnover from season to season, if April 2005 saw a higher turnover of players--due to injury, demotion, or retirement--the lack of home runs may be due to new, younger players taking more of the playing time.

Here are the numbers for all hitters for the past 10 Aprils who accumulated at least 50 AB in consecutive Aprils. This includes how many players saw their HR/AB go up (HR Up) and how many saw their 2B+3B/AB (labeled XBH, but it doesn't include HR) go up from the previous season.


Year Players HR Up XBH Up HR Up% XBH Up% Avg Age
1997 166 61 82 36.7% 49.4% 30.0
1998 173 88 94 50.9% 54.3% 29.8
1999 171 93 81 54.4% 47.4% 29.8
2000 169 88 84 52.1% 49.7% 29.7
2001 171 74 65 43.3% 38.0% 30.0
2002 175 75 88 42.9% 50.3% 29.9
2003 187 104 89 55.6% 47.6% 30.0
2004 178 88 89 49.4% 50.0% 30.2
2005 173 70 73 40.5% 42.2% 30.4

Of 173 returning regulars, 59.5% saw their HR/AB go down this year. That's the biggest drop since 1997. Now let's compare the new guys to the veterans:


Year New New HR/AB New Age Old Old HR/AB Old Age
---- --- --------- ------- --- --------- -------
1997 65 .0256 26.8 166 .0320 30.0
1998 79 .0270 27.4 173 .0332 29.8
1999 65 .0292 27.2 171 .0370 29.8
2000 67 .0426 29.1 169 .0413 29.7
2001 69 .0292 27.6 171 .0405 30.0
2002 75 .0228 28.0 175 .0342 29.9
2003 71 .0258 28.0 187 .0361 30.0
2004 58 .0288 28.2 178 .0359 30.2
2005 67 .0271 28.2 173 .0306 30.4

"New" includes all players who didn't accumulate 50 ABs in the previous April and how they did. You'll notice that their age is about 2 years younger than the "Old" group -- the same group from the first chart. While the New group consistently (except 2000) hits fewer HR/AB than the Old group, there are more New guys this year than in 2004 and they're doing a worse job hitting home runs than the 2004 group. So some of the blame lies there as well. Essentially, the guys who were hitting home runs last year aren't hitting them this year and the 2005 replacements are both more numerous and less powerful than their 2004 counterparts. Like the weather, the absence of Bonds is somewhat responsible for the decline in offense, but the size of the decline is greater than the possible change derived from his absence and the absence of other sluggers.

Natural statistical variance

Now we come to it. Stating that home runs are down 8.8% or 12% or just down period is, in itself, a misrepresentation of statistics. Before drawing conclusions about that decline, we need to know how significant that decline is. This reason is the one that doesn't seem to get as much airplay or at least not strictly speaking. It's been said before, but if baseball was exactly the same every year, it would be pretty boring. It's not; it's exciting, and the natural ebb and flow of offensive numbers if part of that.

We can see that this drop is not unprecedented by looking at the varying HR/PA rates in April over the past 34 years.

Joe pointed out yesterday that there have been two bigger drops in home run rates in April the past ten seasons and that's verified by the information above. Using HR/PA as the metric, the April decline of .0030 HR/PA last year ranks as the sixth biggest drop since 1973 (the 2002 plunge--in the middle of the "steroid era"--of .0055 was the biggest). In absolute value, it actually ranks as one of the smaller differences from the previous season, meaning that the transition from 2004-2005 was one of the smoother of the past 33 years. In percentage value, the ranks are very similar. Rather than an unprecedented collapse of power, the drop in home runs from 2004 to 2005 is actually rather routine.

Conclusions

Briefly recapping, we've seen offense is down across the board, the weather this April was a little colder than last year, the vast majority of returning regulars are hitting slightly fewer home runs, there are more new players hitting fewer home runs than new players in previous seasons, and the change in April home run rate is well within the established variance in baseball over the past 3+ decades. It's the last point that's the most telling: this April is just like many other Aprils of years past.

In his book How We Know What Isn't So, Thomas Gilovich discusses the inherent tendency to believe what we want: "When the initial evidence supports our preferences, we are generally satisfied and terminate our search; when the initial evidence is hostile, however, we often dig deeper." It's easy to get caught up in the reports of a steroid testing program and overstate the impact of both steroids themselves and the testing program on the game. It's easier still to go digging into the stats with that predisposition and, upon finding a decline in power from the previous season, scream Eureka and run down the streets naked, overjoyed with a mental breakthrough.

Instead, we must step back and recognize that what we're seeing is simply the normal variance in home run rates from season to season. While the graying of the game, the weather, and the absence of some marquee sluggers are the particular factors that have contributed some small part to the offensive failures this year, the real issue is that we're all looking to explain something that happens very frequently and we're using new factors to explain old results. We cannot say if the new steroid testing program is causing the decline in offensive numbers this year, but we can say that it's far from the massive decline as which it's being portrayed. It's less Occam's Razor and more Francis Bacon: "Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true."

James Click is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact James by clicking here or click here to see James's other articles.

Baseball Prospectus Home | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Copyright © 1996-2005 Prospectus Entertainment Ventures, LLC.

[dawgfan]

Thanks for the link, it's a nicely written essay and the last couple of paragraphs neatly summarize my feelings on how people don't understand and misuse statistics in forming or reinforcing their beliefs of how the world works.

In this particular case, it confirms my suspicions that any description of home runs being "down" so far this season is hardly cause to proclaim that steroids or steroid testing is a significant factor in the difference in the numbers.

[sterlingice]

*gets all warm and fuzzy about BP premium articles being posted here*

SI

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

*gets all warm and fuzzy about BP premium articles being posted here*

SI

I hope I don't end up in jail.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by clintl

Dola...

My own preference is for Giambi to soak the Yankees for everything in the contract, even if he doesn't deserve it. That ties up $17 million a year Steinbrenner can't spend somewhere else. It's wonderful when George makes blunders on this scale.

I think the team was dumb enough to make the team and then void the steroids clause, that's their bad. He doesn't have any obligation to them or to make it easier. I think that, a guy who is a former MVP would still want to have a chance to play somewhere.

So if I'm his agent, I tell him the minors is a good route. He goes down there, finds his stroke. Maybe he sucks it up, perhaps he could "donate his salary for everyday he's in the minors" to various causes, like ones to promote steroid use prevention in teenagers, anti-drug and whatever else..

If he sucks it up in the minors - doubtful if he goes to Tampa - I'd say he stay there until he gets himself back into the swing of things. Literally.

Then he goes back to the Bronx and gives it another go. Surely some team would take him off the Yanks hands, for no cost..of course. But he could surely defer some of that money once he arrives with his new team, since the MLBPA can't do anything related to his contact extension or renegotiation once he's traded or just plain outrighted.

I think the guy isn't completely washed up. And baseball loves a comeback story. I mean, look at Doc Gooden and Darryl Strawberry. Even Canseco got some attention for that season in Toronto when he hit solid - of course, he was on 'roids - but still.

I think staying in New York and turning it around would be his smartest move. But perhaps going to a more "fan-friendly" locale would be the best thing for him, too. I can't think of one, off hand though. Would the Oakland fans boo him or embrace him?

[Ksyrup]

We all left him for dead early in the season - and who knows if he can keep these numbers up - but he's hitting pretty well right now:

YEAR	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS
2005	76	225	33	64	10	0	13	36	50	62	0	0	.284	.437	.502	.939

[dacman]

Throw out the first 5 weeks of the season to get:

YEAR	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS
2005	49	148	24	49	9	0	10	30	32	33	0	0	.331	.450	.723	1.173

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

We all left him for dead early in the season - and who knows if he can keep these numbers up - but he's hitting pretty well right now

Indeed he is - where are all the people talking about how he was solely a product of steroids now?

[rkmsuf]

wondering how he figured out how to beat the testing?

[MalcPow]

He actually looks like he's having a halfway decent time as well (for the first time in freaking forever). I'm happy for him, hopefully he can keep it up.