re: Barry Bonds sure has lost some weight from his playing days

You said that you don't think everyone was using. If it were only a few players using, then you would not see the trend that you claim as evidence. So either a signifcant number of players were using or the trend that you claim is attributable to something else.

Define "a few on each team"

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Roger Maris could hit 61 with out steroids, but other guys could not.

---

I'm a Yankees fan, but I have always been surprised that no one mentions Maris' hair loss in 61. Everyone sympathizes with him and says it was due to stress, but maybe it had something to do with how he went from 39 homers to 61.

quote:

---

1998 was the first time it went over 5,000. It stayed over 5,000 every year until 2007. The high was in 2000.



just outlier years and coincidence, i assume.

---

No its not a coincidence that HR totals went up in 1998, they expanded by 2 teams. HR totals also went up in 93 and 77. Raw totals are meaningless with out context. That's why we look at thinks like HR/game/ I know you think I'm using that because 1.05 is a "small" number compared to 5000, but using a stat like that puts it into context.

In 1987 there were 26 teams, they hit 4458 HR in 4210 games, that's 1.0589/game. In 98 there were 30 teams, they played 4864 games and hit 5064 HR or 1.0411/game. In other words they hit more HR in 87. If they played the same # of games, there would have been 5150 HR.

Increase the # of teams and hence games played and the total number of everything will go up. They added 4 teams between 92 and 98. That's 40 more pitchers that weren't in the majors in 1992. But that can't possibly explain an increase in the # of HR now can it?