Tim McG

You are aware the DH is in the AL, right? More parity in hitting between teams, more opportunities to hit HRs. The NL has, in effect, only 8 guys who can hit. The pitchers account for very little of the run production in the NL. Nonetheless... OK, I'll play along: 1994- 1774 1995- 2164 1996- 2742 1997- 2477 [interleague Play is introduced. Whoa...just look at those "spikes"**, will ya?] 1998- 2499 1999- 2635** 2000- 2688** 2001- 2506 2003- 2499 2004- 2605** 2005- 2437 2006- 2546** 2007- 2252 2008- 2270 From 1994 to 2008 we saw an increase of 496 HRs. Hm. I don't care how you slice it, Dan...there is a consitant and quantifiable increase of HRs year after year in the AL, too. Ball is juiced, Dan. No mistake.

We ended in the NL with the year 1986, yes? Here ya go: YEAR- HRs 1987- 1843 [the spike year] 1988- 1279 1989- 1365 1990- 1521 1991- 1430 1992- 1262 1993- 1956 [Whoa! Another spike? Lookout Dan...here it comes!] Ryan Retires 1994- 1532 1995- 1917 1996- 2220 1997- 2172 1998- 2585 1999- 2909 2000- 2997 2001- 2975 2002- 2602 2003- 2707 2004- 2860 2005- 2616 2006- 2868 2007- 2701 2008- 2632 I dunno, Dan...either those "spikes" have become the norm or that baseball grew wings. That ball is friggin' juiced, Dan. No mistake.

No, Dan...actually you have proven my point: There is a clear increase each and every year and allowing for that 1987 spike, which shows the numbers of HRs have increased incrementally each season leading up to 1987. ONLY IN THE NL. In fact, the HRs in 1982 were 1299. In 1986 there were 1523 That is an overall increase of 224 HRs, Dan. I predict the numbers continue to increase yearly through the end of Ryan's career [1993]. Again: What do the HR/hits yearly stats indicate in the American League? An increase? I will bet you dollars to dooughnut holes they do increase.

It was without question an isolated spike in the data. Here are the NL home run totals for 1988 to 1992: 1279 1365 1521 1430 1262 AVG: 1371 Here are the NL home run totals for 1986 to 1982: 1523 1424 1278 1398 1299 AVG: 1384 See Goodie? In between that isolated spike to 1824 home runs in 1987, there were MORE home runs hit in the prior five years than there were in the following five years. And remember that the data shows that in 1993, with two new teams in the league, hits and home runs jumped. My stats prove nothing of the kind. There is no statistical evidence of a juiced ball outside of the isolated case of 1987. Had the ball been juiced and stayed juiced, then the five years after 1987 would not have seen FEWER home runs hit than in the five years prior to 1987. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL.shtml Same spike in home runs in 1987 but of a distinctly lesser magnitude. No spike in hits in 1987, no spike in the mid 80s at all (there goes your other claim). But here is the astounding data: AVG home runs in the AL, 1988 to 1992: 1829 AVG home runs in the AL, 1982 to 1986: 2086 In short, no evidence whatsoever for a "juiced" ball in the "mid-80s". No, not the average HRs and hits, the yearly totals. An average just crunches the numbers and doesn't accurately reflect the increase each season. As your stats clearly show there was an increase each year from 1982-1986. BTW, reversing the date order was another indication....nice try. And if this is an arguement pitting Jenkins vs Ryan then what are the AL stats on HRs and hits? They pitched for the AL as well, so these stats are very important to prove your point. BTW...this is what I originally wrote: I wasn't saying anything about fewer HRs/hits, so I have no idea what you meant there. I am attempting to show that there was a clear increase in HRs/hits in the time after 1985 until the end of those two pitcher's careers for every season in succession. That is, 1985 and beyond year by year increases. Jenkins was done by 1983 so there is no possible way he could have faced batters when the juiced ball came around. Now, the only other possiblity is that you are trying to say there were no juiced baseballs...which has been debated for years and for all intents and purposes proved wrong in the sporting media.

62 degrees here...38 tonight.

Well then let's take a look, shall we? For simplicity sake, let's just consider the NL, whose stats are found on this page: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL.shtml Hits: From 1969 to 1992, the total number of hits in the NL varies consistently between 16000 and 17275 at the very highest. There is no discernable pattern, and absolutely no uptick in the "mid-80s". In 1993, total number of hits first exceeded 20,000, and that became the new "floor" for every non-strike season except 1995, when the hits reached 18184, well in excess of the totals of the prior period. Home Runs: Almost every season in the 70s and 80s saw home runs total between the 1200 and 1500 range, with a single spike over 1800 in 1987. Once again, it was 1993 that saw a jump up above 1900 home runs hit, and afterwards, only the non-strike year of 1995 sees a similar number, and from 1996 on, well over 2000 homers were hit every season. There is absolutely no statistical support for your claim of a mid-80s "juiced" ball. Yet 1969 and 1993 seems to be turning points, and there are clear reasons why they would be: 1969 saw the lowering of the mound 1993 saw Colorado and Florida come into the league, and I think we all know that Colorado was an insane hitter's park and furthermore, the addition of two new teams diluted the pitching skills of the league as a whole. Q.E.D., which in this case is Latin for Goodie, get a clue. Well, that HR spike in 1987 would be after 1985, yes? Secondly, what are the numbers after that time [1987-93]; same or higher than before 1987? Would the increase after 1993 suggest the ball had been juiced even more? I seem to remember the sporting news making juiced ball claims with inceased frequency beginning in the mid-80s. Your stats prove as much. What do the stats say about the AL...where the DH is?

If the ball was juiced by the mid-80s, why was it that the first and only time that MLB studied the question of a "juiced" ball was in 2000, when it commissioned a study of 1999 vs 2000 balls? http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/UML2000.pdf If the ball was juiced by the mid-80s, why do the league HR leaders look like this (NL listed first) 85: 37/40 86: 37/40 87: 49/49 (this would be Dawson in Wrigley, and McGuire's rookie season) 88: 39/42 89: 47/36 90: 40/51 91: 38/44 92: 35/43 93: 46/46 It is from 1993 until 2007 that the leader in both leagues hit a minimum of 40 home runs, which is a stretch never before seen in baseball history (its kind of interesting to see that the closest was a nine year stretch from '56 to '64 in which there were mashers in both leagues exceeding 39 homers every year). Wish I had the league home run totals handy but there is no question in my mind that the idea of a "juiced" ball (or more likely, increasingly juiced bodies) was even suggested before the early to mid 90s. I think the stat which might be most telling is the increase in HRs and hits overall, not just by the leaders, but the entire league. The correaltion would be a pitcher has to throwing gas or be in complete command of his pitches or he is going to get lit up. A juiced ball is going to get to the holes a lot quicker than a "dead ball."

Or he hung a lot of curveballs.... If guys are going yard that many times it is clearly indicative of a pitching/ball placement issue. He was a control pitcher who pitched a lot of games at Wrigley. If you go to Retrosheet you'll find his home run allowed totals were twice as high at Wrigley compared to other parks for his first stint with the Cubs through 1973. After that like Hunter & Blyleven the park didn't seem to matter as much (though the old Ranger park may have helped him some.) Takes guts to be a control pitcher at Wrigley & Fenway. Had he retired a Phillie his career would have been a palindrome. Phillies>Cubs>Rangers>Red Sox>Rangers>Cubs>_____ That makes sense. I understand when the wind blows out at Wrigley, the balls are just zooming out of the park. And if a control pitcher doesn't have it, seems guys would be sending several balls over the fence.

Dusty Baker is with the Reds now? I didn't know that.

Dan, Because you have never heard of something dosen't make it any less true. Besides, you know as well as I do I'm speaking of the days before the ball was juiced-up. Historically, the the Dead Ball Era would be in the early 1900s, this is true. But there again, the ball wasn't juiced until the mid-80s. What other term could be used describe that time period before the ball was juiced?

Or he hung a lot of curveballs.... If guys are going yard that many times it is clearly indicative of a pitching/ball placement issue. Ryan, OTOH, walked a lot of guys early in his career...he was pretty wild then, too. Got sent down to the minors at least once because of it. But in spite of that his SO record speaks volumes on his ability. His best numbers were later rather than earlier in his career; early success was the case with Jenkins.

I'm sure "Old School" is not his code for pre-steriod. Har. You might be interested to know that anabolic steroids have been around since the 1960s...remember those beefed-up Chech and Russian female Olympians? I seroiusly doubt they were the only ones using the stuff then.

Just curious - what does that mean? He pitched during a lot of the years that Nolan Ryan pitched, so you can't be referring to the era he pitched in. At the end of his career, yes, the ball was becoming "juiced". Ryan saw a lot more of that since he played 10 years longer. But I seriously do not believe there can be any side-by-side comparison to Ryan. BTW, Jenkins pitched 1965-1983; Ryan pitched 1966-1993. The ball was juiced by the mid-80s. I suspect Jenkins saw very little of that. For Dan's sake, The Dead Ball Era occurred during the same time Jenkins was pitching. His greatest successes coming in the 1970s. Hence my point.

Santa Cruz doesn't field a ML Baseball team. OK? San Francisco does. Hence the difference. Oakland suffered a freeway collapse, but the damage wasn't even close to the levels of the destruction on the Penisula. Got it, Danny? And Jenkins was Old School. Prove me wrong.

Obviously the A's were "willing to play baseball in the midst of unbearable tragedy in your fan's hometown". And your assertion that the Giants would have inevitably won - what a crock of shit. They were down 2-0. Right there the history of the World Series favors the team with the lead. And because the Dodgers came through in '88, that means the Giants would win in '89??? God your astoundingly dense. Right. Call me when the BoSox have to cancel a WS game because of a catastrophe in Boston, affecting thousands of their fans...then you can talk. The A's were willing to pay inspite of death and tragedy? Is that what I said? Cut and paste a pretend issue. How typical of you, Dan. Where didn't I say...really? That is the sword you choose to fall on...the places I didn't mention? Really? And you call me dense...? Wow. I see you are just as myopic as always....I apologize for thinking there was more credibility than that in you. My Bad. I think, at some point, you might want to actually pull your head out of your ass and take a look at reality. The ridiculous accusations and erroneous platitudes you love to hang your hat on have become that proverbial Albatross, which forever hangs around your neck, have become glaringly obvious, Dan. Seriously...maybe it's time to quit behaving like a jackass and try to be a little more, oh....human?

I'm not a numbers guy (which may automatically disqualify my opinion), but some of the names you've thrown out as not deserving are a bit surprising. Koufax, Dean, Ryan? Are these even on anyone's "marginal" list? And you say on the one hand five good years shouldn't qualify a pitcher, then say Ryan's longevity shouldn't be a factor either. I dunno. ... I'm sure you have stats to back up your opinions on these guys, but I just wouldn't give any of these three a second thought. I'm not a stats guy - some people can make statistics say anything (see Scott Boros) - but when they're there, they're there. Sandy Koufax: 129-47 last six years. Last five years a fantastic 111-34. But 36-40 first six years. Five (maybe six years) don't make a Hall of Fame career - at least imo. Dizzy Dean: 3 fantastic seasons - 82-32; 2 good seasons 18-15 & 20-18; injured in 1937 & was never the same pitcher. Three great seasons don't make a Hall of Fame career - again, my opinion. Nolan Ryan: .526 career w-l percentage. Hall of Fame? Shouldn't be, imo. But all three are in the Hall of Fame, and I recognize their accomplishments as fine achievements. That's one of the great things about baseball - everyone has their opinions and no one is always right. I'm not a stats guy either, but Kofax was just plain dominant. I don't know if you ever watched him pitch, but he was virtually unhittable with confidence to burn. Until he injured his throwing elbow [which Tommy John surgery would have easily got him back out on he mound] he was just plain Mr. Automatic. Jim Brown had a [relatively] short playing career, too. He belongs in the NFL HOF just as Kofax does in the MLB HOF. It's the impact a player has, not years of service. And Nolan Ryan...the all-time strike out leader? He was even more dominant than Kofax was. Who's going to catch him? You'd have to glue two good careers together by almost anyone you care to name to beat Ryan in SOs. The W-L stat you put out as your evidence only speaks volumes about the crappy ballclubs he pitched for not his impact on the game or his talent. He belongs in the HOF. Jim Brown played nine years in the NFL - a good career for a running back. Believe he led the league in rushing in eight of those nine years. As I said about Mr. Koufax - by the way, you probably should learn to spell his name correctly if you're going to write something supporting him - five dominant years in baseball don't add up to the Hall Fame - at least imo. I guess they do in yours. As I said about Nolan Ryan earlier - see Walter Johnson, Steve Carlton, and Ferguson Jenkins - Hall of Famers who also pitched for some bad teams. This is a spelling bee now...? And not spelling a name means I'm wrong...? Now how did that happen? Five record setting-pace dominant years do. KoUfax belongs....and I'm a Giants fan, fer crissakes. Nolan Ryan never pitched in a WS, played for losing teams and he still dominated the plate and still registered record numbers of strikeouts Walter Johnson pitched in the Dark Ages of Baseball [1907-1928] absolutely no comparison. Ferguson Jenkins pitched during the "dead ball" era of baseball. In short, Nolan Ryan is HOF material. Make no mistake. Steve Carlton, 4th in strikeouts, would be the only legit comparison....but a very distant second, third or fourth to Ryan.

The earthquake happened BEFORE Game 3. The A's won the first 2 games by a combined score of 10-1. Now I'll grant you that many teams have come back 0-2 in a series. But you said the Giants were peaking before the series. Yet they dropped the 1st 2 games of the series. I think it's safe to say that they were no longer peaking. And finally the last 2 games were played at Candlestick. You have a fascinating ability to reinvent history. Sometimes Giants fans come up with the argument that the A's threw their #1 and 2 starters twice in that series in Dave Stewart and Mike Moore but forget that Bob Welch won 17 games with a 3.00 ERA and Strom Davis won 19 (era low 4's) though he benefited by being on a great team. The Giants had Robinson, Garrelts, Reuschel and LaCoss. The starting lineups between the two were no contest as the A's were loaded 1-9 even though Will Clark and Kevin Mitchell were two of my all time favorite players. The A's should have won 3 world series during that time, not just the one in 89. Of course now if the A's came even close to getting to the World Series I would be happy. So! How'd they do against the Dodgers in 1988...? Same NL West Division...what happened to the oh-so-vaunted A's then, eh? They were just as loaded, top to bottom. Answer: They got their butts whipped. The "X" choked on a crippled Kirk Gibson and the A's went out with a wimper. Now how on Earth can you, and in hindsight, claim the A's would have beaten anybody in the 1989 WS? If the [hated] Dodgers could beat the A's it is a no-brainer that the Giants would have won. Hands down.

I was just going to say the same thing. True, SF was hit harder by the quake, but man, Tim... BOTH the Giants and the A's were touched by the quake, so it was an issue for both teams. It's not like the A's weren't affected at all. And this: This is just not a reflection of reality in any way. Like I said before... not a chance in hell. It only proves A's fans don't have a heart...but we Giants fans have known that for years Seriously, there was damage on the Oaktown side of the Bay [the collapse of the 880] but not at all to the extent it was on the Penisula [including your Santa Cruz where there was extensive damage]...not even close. Apparently, your "reflection of reality" is a little, shall we say, dimmer than mine. Giants win that WS.

I lived in SF during that quake but I have to say I am pretty offended that you think it only affected people in SF, there was massive damage in Oakland and all the way down to where I grew up in Santa Cruz. When did I state it only affected people in SF....can you show me, please? Oakland all the way down to Santa Cruz? Uh. Come again? Buddy, you need to buy a map.

The earthquake happened BEFORE Game 3. The A's won the first 2 games by a combined score of 10-1. Now I'll grant you that many teams have come back 0-2 in a series. But you said the Giants were peaking before the series. Yet they dropped the 1st 2 games of the series. I think it's safe to say that they were no longer peaking. And finally the last 2 games were played at Candlestick. You have a fascinating ability to reinvent history. I think it is only safe to say I messed up on the actual day of the earthquake and where the last two games were played: You are right the quake happened at the start of Game 3 and [after a long delay] the final two games were held at a quake shaken 'Stick [where at anytime another temblor could hit]. You were right, I was incorrect. Beyond that....I think you are a little too willing to discount the tragedy of the loss of life and the physical scars which shattered the SF community to its core [Marina District was almost a total loss, the Bay Bridge was closed as was the collapsed freeway which lead to the ballpark from the North and they were still digging out from the wreckage] as to how it adversely affected the Giants' play on the field. Fans surely lost relatives and friends and many of the Giants team members were living in the SF community or were a part of the SF community had to be affected by all that, Quincy. Because a team loses a game to the A's Dave Stewart [the team ace ] and then drops a second game, in Oakland, to Mike Moore [who was no slouch] only proves the A's were fired up and at home in front of a stadium filled with cheering A's fans. That's it. Advantage A's. Other than that there is absolutely no way you can say with any certainty that the Giants wouldn't have at least pushed the WS to Game 6 or have won the WS [which was my point earlier]. No earthquake, Giants win.

I'm not a numbers guy (which may automatically disqualify my opinion), but some of the names you've thrown out as not deserving are a bit surprising. Koufax, Dean, Ryan? Are these even on anyone's "marginal" list? And you say on the one hand five good years shouldn't qualify a pitcher, then say Ryan's longevity shouldn't be a factor either. I dunno. ... I'm sure you have stats to back up your opinions on these guys, but I just wouldn't give any of these three a second thought. I'm not a stats guy - some people can make statistics say anything (see Scott Boros) - but when they're there, they're there. Sandy Koufax: 129-47 last six years. Last five years a fantastic 111-34. But 36-40 first six years. Five (maybe six years) don't make a Hall of Fame career - at least imo. Dizzy Dean: 3 fantastic seasons - 82-32; 2 good seasons 18-15 & 20-18; injured in 1937 & was never the same pitcher. Three great seasons don't make a Hall of Fame career - again, my opinion. Nolan Ryan: .526 career w-l percentage. Hall of Fame? Shouldn't be, imo. But all three are in the Hall of Fame, and I recognize their accomplishments as fine achievements. That's one of the great things about baseball - everyone has their opinions and no one is always right. I'm not a stats guy either, but Kofax was just plain dominant. I don't know if you ever watched him pitch, but he was virtually unhittable with confidence to burn. Until he injured his throwing elbow [which Tommy John surgery would have easily got him back out on he mound] he was just plain Mr. Automatic. Jim Brown had a [relatively] short playing career, too. He belongs in the NFL HOF just as Kofax does in the MLB HOF. It's the impact a player has, not years of service. And Nolan Ryan...the all-time strike out leader? He was even more dominant than Kofax was. Who's going to catch him? You'd have to glue two good careers together by almost anyone you care to name to beat Ryan in SOs. The W-L stat you put out as your evidence only speaks volumes about the crappy ballclubs he pitched for not his impact on the game or his talent. He belongs in the HOF.

Then why did they lose game 1 5-0 and game 2 5-1? You had a deep bullpen, I'll give you that. But Oakland had a good one too. Why did the Giants lose? As was mentioned before, the Earthquake which rattled The 'Stick, chasing thousands out the doors in a panic [coupled with the deaths of hundreds of people, fires, destruction, people trapped alive in their cars on the Bay Bridge and 101 Freeway] had more than a little something to do with a loss of concentration and momentum. How willing would you be to play baseball in the midst of unbearable tragedy in your fan's hometown? Further, some two weeks later, the WS was moved to Oakland, a home field advantage for the A's for all the games played; not one game was played in SF. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the WS. That would be why, Quincy.

Sorry Tim. Not.A.Chance.In.Hell. And I say that as someone who is definitely NOT an A's fan. I have to agree with GS on this one. In game four, Kevin Mitchell just missed parking one out of the 'Stick that would have put the Giants ahead. I still think to this day, if that went out, the Giants would have made a run at winning the series. That quake messed everyone up in the Bay Area, even where I lived in Berkeley, people were more berserk than usual. The Giants were peaking when the WS started. Sure the A's had a stacked team especially with their ace Dave Stewart and Ricky Henderson's nearly automatic hit every time up. But we had a dead soild defense [with infielders Matt Williams, Robby Thompson and Will Clark coupled with OF'ers Brett Butler and Kevin Mitchell] and a pitching staff that got the job done most days helped the Giants to a 90-72 season record. I can't say they would have won but they would have pushed the WS to at least game 6.

Mick Abrahams [guitarist for Jethro Tull] Mic Gillette [trumpeter for Tower of Power] Mickey Finn [drummer for T. Rex]

Persistent rumors have Man-Ram talking to the Giants....stay tuned.