Is the ball juiced? A Chicago-based conspiracy theory

by The Cheat on Apr 14, 2006 1:41 AM CDT in White Sox News

It only took Hawk until the second series of the season before he started the conspiracy bandwagon. In the 9th inning of a game in KC, he not-so-subtly indicated that he thought the baseball had some extra life to it this season.

I caught a little bit of the Dan Patrick show during the Sox game, and they noted that there was a record number of HRs hit during showtime. Patrick jokingly said something about the ball being juiced.

Yesterday, Mike Downey of the Chicago Tribune also picked up the cause and cited some statistics, which I've updated to include yesterday's 48 HR barrage.

Major-league teams played 137 games and combined to hit 359 home runs through Thursday's games.

HR's per game

Today, Rick Morrissey fires back at Downey.

I think it's far too early to weigh in on something like this. I haven't noticed our guys hitting any cheapies, and the only two hit against us that I didn't think were hit that well were both off the bat of Mike Sweeney, who's two-gorilla strong. It's something to keep an eye on; for right now, my tin foil hat is in the dishwasher for cleaning.

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Agreed...

I'm more of a believer in things being cyclical. I imagine we'll have a month or two this season that are well below the average home runs per game. Then again as the weather heats up the ball may jump out even more. If nothing else the season has been pretty fun to watch.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse

by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 14, 2006 7:53 AM CDT reply actions

The press is funny

Of course they're saying the ball is juiced, because obviously it couldn't be that the players are still taking steroids, because we have been told ad nauseum by everybody in the press that Bud cleaned up the game and no player will ever take anything bad ever again. :-)

(Please note, I'm not saying players are still juiced; I'm just enjoying how reality isn't meshing with what everybody pre-reported, so now everyone's scrambling to come up with an alternative smoking gun because they already killed the one they would have used last year.)

by JasonC23 on Apr 14, 2006 8:11 AM CDT reply actions

Statistically....

that's a pretty large sample and a significant variation. That chart turned me from someone who didn't think there was a case for a juiced ball to one who is pretty suspicious.

Turning the steroid issue on its head, in theory there has been a reduction in the steroids and strength supplements, which is supported by the fact that guys haven't hit as many home runs over the last 2 (3?) years and no one is hitting over 60. If one accepts that single factor as the preponderant cause for HR reduction then the argument for some other factor, juice ball or something else, is even stronger than the chart shows.

by dyspeptic on Apr 14, 2006 9:13 AM CDT reply actions

60 homeruns

Only 5 players in history have hit 60 or more homeruns in a year, and only 3 of them did it during the recent era (Bonds once, McGwire twice, and Sosa three times). I wouldn't say that the fact that no one has hit over 60 homeruns in the past few years really shows that steroids have been reduced.

If 60 homeruns was a mark that was commonly reached by players, and then you saw players not reaching it, then maybe you could say that it supports the theory that steroid use has been reduced. But since it was a hard mark to reach even with steroids being used throughout baseball, I don't think it shows anything.

by Felix on Apr 14, 2006 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions

60 HRS as an indicator of steroids

either I don't understand your logic or my point isn't clear to you.

No one hit 60 for almost 40 years. Then 60 was reached 6 times in three seasons by guys generally accepted as using 'enhancement'. Then pressure began to be applied regarding illegal substances and players stopped hitting 60 home runs. This is an argument that steroids were fueling it. I think we agree there.

ASSUMING that the steroid availability and usage are still down from 1998-2002 period, the sample size of the first week and a half of the season is an outlier and therefore suggests some external factor and not merely a statistical aberration.

I think the ball is the easiest thing to blame but I also think that Selig's idee fixe is that the long ball cures baseball

by dyspeptic on Apr 14, 2006 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions

Ah

Ok, I see where you are coming from. However, only 3 players reached the mark, and I think we know that more than 3 players have used performance enhancing drugs. If the majority of players that used 'roids did reach 60 homeruns, then I think suggesting that since no one has reached it, usage must be down.

However, since it was still a mark only reached by 3 people (yes, 6 times, but still only 3 people), it just isn't enough to convince me that use is obviously down.

(I'm probably sounding nonsensical, but it makes sense in my head!)

by Felix on Apr 14, 2006 7:43 PM CDT up reply actions

yeah but

Prior to the 162 game season 60 and the high 50's was not unheard of. To say a spurt of 60's in the era of small parks and thin pitching could only be steroid induced is wrong.

I'm not saying Bonds, Soso and Big Mac did not take performance enhancing drugs. I'm saying Thome could hit 60 this year and be on the level.

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Apr 15, 2006 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions

Yea

Thats what I've been trying to say

by Felix on Apr 15, 2006 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions

still disagree

In 60 plus years of a 162 schedule, only 2 guys hit 56 or more. That's pretty unheard of. Nobody did it from 1960 until junior hit 56 in 1997. There was no expansion after 1989 so the thinning of pitching that has occurred from time to time was not a factor. While there were so new ball parks, there was not a complete change over in ball parks between 1996 and 2001 but 9 players exceeded 56 in that 5 year period! Then people start screaming about steroids and nobody does it for the 4 years after that? I think it is completely correlative.

Did Ruth or Maris use steroids? No Could Thome break 60 without them? yes. Could 6 guys 6 of the 10 greatest home run hitters suddenly emerge in one 5 year period without steroids? Not a chance.

by dyspeptic on Apr 17, 2006 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions

Rick Morrisey hit the nail on the head.

Which doesn't happen often, but I commend him for getting this one right.

by chrome on Apr 14, 2006 10:24 AM CDT reply actions

Is it even that big of a deal?

If the ball is wound a little tight? If its not the same for everyone then we have a little bit of a problem, but the HR has been a fan fav for years, and I really dont see a problem with it.

by Tony82087 on Apr 14, 2006 10:41 AM CDT reply actions

Theory

I'm not sure I believe this, but could this be an effect from the WBC? Could offense be up because some players are more prepared for the season?

Just an idea.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on Apr 14, 2006 10:49 AM CDT reply actions

Global Warming

The only reasonable explanation.

AIM: i2ockbotm

by 3E8 on Apr 14, 2006 11:24 AM CDT reply actions

My first thought

was not global warming but rather average game temp this year compared to previous seasons. MLB is pretty anal about the way balls are produced.

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Apr 14, 2006 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions

I blame the flying spaghetti monster

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Apr 14, 2006 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Hmmm

Are you thinking this could be the Pirates year?

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Apr 14, 2006 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions

I bet

Carl Everett has a really good theory.

by krushcuts on Apr 14, 2006 12:25 PM CDT reply actions

'Roids?

Isn't it entirely possible that the absence of steroids might actually favor many hitters?

I always believed that pitchers were as guilty (if not more so) of juicing as any hitters. Funny that no one seemed to talk about it. Wasn't the first suspension for juicing given to a pitcher?

by generico12 on Apr 14, 2006 12:37 PM CDT reply actions

no, but close

Alex Sanchez

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on Apr 14, 2006 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Roid Reliever

I think you're thinking of Twins reliever Juan Rincon, who was, I believe, the second player ever suspended for steroids, and whose K/9 jumped from a three-year average of about 6.5 to 11.63 in 2004. Certainly if taking steroids could give you a few more mph on your fastball, or allow your arm to recover more quickly, it could have a major effect.

by Ryno on Apr 14, 2006 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Deadspin...

Had a link to a post that makes a similar point. It's definitly possible, but I think it's way to early to really speculate on any of this.

my blog

by simplesinger on Apr 14, 2006 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions

rank speculation

I have nothing but a kind of aristotilean logic to fall back on but I've always wondered about pitchers, particualrly starting pitchers and steroids.

I argue that pitching, particulary starting pitching would benefit most on a baseball team from a regimen of steroids. Steroids increase healing and recovery time. Everyday players, with the exception of catchers, do not suffer anything like the wear and tear that a starting pitcher goes through . Repetitive stress and inflammation are such that they are only allowed to pitch every 5th day. Seroids would help them mightily. There were rumors about Schilling and Clemens but I haven;t heard much beyond that and the John Corner thing.

by dyspeptic on Apr 14, 2006 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions

Cubs

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47426

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on Apr 14, 2006 2:01 PM CDT reply actions

nice

"If it's September and we're still atop the division standings? Then we'll start panicking," Baker added.

great article.

by larry on Apr 14, 2006 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions

ugh

can anyone tell me how many times Podsednik was picked off last year (not CS)?

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on Apr 14, 2006 3:42 PM CDT reply actions

Lack of Amphetamines

I'm thinking that this HR and run-scoring spike has little to do with steroids. There simply hasn't been enough change on that front for me to believe that it has had a big effect. Greg Couch's column (http://suntimes.com/output/couch/cst-spt-greg14.html} was totally off the mark today.

My theory? The lack of amphetamines is really hurting pitchers a lot. It is well known that their use was fairly widespread in baseball. This year, they have started testing for them. We were warned that there might be huge changes in the wake of amphetamine testing and I think we're seeing the effects: pitchers have less intensity, endurance and velocity, especially starting pitchers.

To me, this theory is a lot more plausible than whatever garbage Greg Couch is putting out there about the players "getting smarter." The effects are too big at this point. The "players are getting smarter" theory would be credited more by a gradual rise than a sudden rise like this.

by MRKARNO on Apr 14, 2006 11:22 PM CDT reply actions