Ultimately, if record books didn't exist, few baseball fans would really care if their favorite team's players used steroids.
When Barry Bonds steps to the plate in the ninth inning with the bases loaded and San Francisco trailing by one run, do Giants fans really care what may or may not (but likely did) flow through his bloodstream a few years ago?
How about Yankee fans when Jason Giambi gets into the batter's box against the latest Red Sox closer in a September game at Fenway Park to decide the AL East? Fans want a game-winning home run, not an apology.
Or Mets fans once Guillermo Mota returns from a 50-game suspension and comes in with bases loaded and no outs in the seventh inning and the Mets leading by one? They want a strikeout followed by a double play. 'Roids, be damned!
Argue the morality and legality of baseball players using steroids all you want. Even discuss the fairness of an equal playing field for all. But in real game scenarios, fans don't question how the player got there, but rather how he'll get that runner in from second or the ball over the fence.
It's only when we speak in terms of the overall sport and its history that we think about the deeper meaning of baseball players using steroids. Babe Ruth hit his home runs on hot dogs and beer, as that fan sign so eloquently stated last year. Hank Aaron did it in the face of extreme racial hatred.
For Bonds, despite his sure-fire Hall of Fame credentials before 2001, it comes with an asterisk, a punctuation mark as integral to baseball as the home run itself.
We've statistically altered the home run list in response to those who may have chemically altered themselves.
We developed a simple formula, rooted in some logic, that is meant to stimulate the brain and spark some debate. It's not quite John Nash and "A Beautiful Mind," but it's not 2 + 2 = 4 either.
The Keyboard Quarterbacks formula:
1) Determine the average number of home runs hit per plate appearance in seasons prior to suspected steroid use.
2) Using that average number, calculate home runs hit during suspected seasons of steroid use and every season afterward.
3) Add it all up.
We'll use Bonds as an example to explain, since he's the one everyone will be talking, ranting and debating about during the 2007 season.
Bonds averaged a home run every 18.2 plate appearances in the 15 seasons prior to 2001 when he managed to deposit 73 baseballs over the fence. Use that average and divide by plate appearances in 2001, and Bonds's KBQB adjusted home run total for 2001 is 36. Do the math for 2002-2006, add his 1986-2000 total of 494 homers, and you get a KBQB adjusted total of 655 career home runs.
That's how it works. Not the perfect plan, but interesting enough to discuss and see how the list plays out with this formula. The equation doesn't take into account ballparks, expansion, natural power increases as players get older and wiser, interleague play, unbalanced schedules or anything else like that.
The official MLB Home Run List
1. Hank Aaron 755
2. Barry Bonds 734
3. Babe Ruth 714
4. Willie Mays 660
5. Sammy Sosa 588
6. Frank Robinson 586
7. Mark McGwire 583
8. Harmon Killebrew 573
9. Rafael Palmeiro 569
10t. Ken Griffey Jr. 563
10t. Reggie Jackson 563
The Keyboard Quarterbacks Adjusted Home Run List
1. Hank Aaron 755
2. Babe Ruth 714
3. Willie Mays 660
4. Barry Bonds 655
5. Frank Robinson 586
6. Harmon Killebrew 573
7t. Ken Griffey Jr. 563
7t. Reggie Jackson 563
9. Mike Schmidt 548
10. Mickey Mantle 536
11. Jimmie Foxx 534
12. Mark McGwire 527
32. Sammy Sosa 447
46t. Rafael Palmeiro 389
Mathematical breakdowns
Sosa averaged one home run every 20.8 plate appearances in eight seasons before 1998 for a total of 207 homers. Divide 20.8 by plate appearances for 1998 (his 66-homer season) and the adjusted home run total is 34. From 1998-2005, Sosa's career KBQB adjusted total is 240 home runs (as opposed to the 381 he "actually" hit).
McGwire averaged one home run every 14.2 plate appearances from 1986-1997 for a total of 387 homers. His adjusted totals for 1998 and 1999, the year the record book says he hit 70 and 65 homer, respectively, are 47 and 46. His career KBQB adjusted total is 527.
With Palmeiro, things are a bit murkier. Where do we draw the line of demarcation? Is it the 1993 season when Jose Canseco joined the Texas Rangers and supposedly introduced Palmeiro to steroids? Tough call. Palmeiro went from 22 homers in 1992 to 37 homers in 1993.
But he dropped down to 23 in 1994. Then from 1995-2003, he never hit less than 38 homers. (He hit 23 in 2004 and 18 in 2005.)
It's possible that Palmeiro figured out his swing and used the natural power increase with age to hit all these home runs. However, he did test positive for steroids in 2005 after vehemently denying ever using them. So, his word is inversely proportionate to the neat grooming of his mustache.
For the purposes of this debate, we chose 1994 as the determinate season. From 1986-94, he average one home run every 30.5 plate appearances. His adjusted total from 1995-2005 is 389 home runs. Add it to the 155 homers before that and his KBQB career adjusted total is 389.
As for Ken Griffey Jr., he's never been suspected or accused of any steroid use. Is it possible he took them? Sure. However, there's never been a huge spike in his physique or home run totals beyond normal growth and power with age, so we chose to leave his total the same. Could it be naive? Maybe. But that's the beauty of debate.
Comments (22)
wow, so what makes u think that ken griffey junior is so innocent????? seems since 2001 he cant stay healthy cause he isnt on STERIODS, wait til that new list comes out w/the new 100 players who tested positive i guarentee u junior is on it so fix ur list
Why do you think Bonds started using in 2001? He probably started using long before then. It's just in 2001 he was using a lot more of it!
Our asterisk is simply an acknowledgment that we the fans were not ignorant to the truth. Future baseball fans will certainly look back on this time... the steroid era... and they will wonder why no one took a stand and called foul. So this year, we stand up for the past, to show the future, that the now matters. And we will make our stand... in the stands... at the ballpark... for all to see.
This little piece of foam does not attempt to deal with records or right a wrong. That would certainly be beyond the fans ability and would only lead to a convoluted tangle of words and facts.
This little foam asterisk simply allows the fans to demonstrate, in a peaceful simple way, that we were not blind. We were not fooled. And we did not stand by and look the other way while the integrity of the game was ground into the dirt.
It's really very simple really.
Nice article Mark
Signed: The Fans
http://www.756myasterisk.com/
In case you're ever willing to revise this work (and I hope you will some time...it's interesting), let me make a recommendation to refine it without you having to force regression or trig into it. Just a one-step tweak that will get you 80% of the way towards corrected.
Since we know more pitchers have been taking steroids than batters (evidence: much higher %age of pitchers have tested positive than batters), the 1994 and on overall home run increase is not overall likely to be a result of steroids use overall. Individual performances, both on the pitcher and batter side may have been altered significantly for individuals, individually, but not overall. If that's the case, and I'd bet Joe Lieberman's life that it is, then everyone, with and without extra substances, has been hitting home runs more frequently. Meaning it would be logical for B Bonds to have hit more home runs during this home-run rich era, just as the average batter has.
So, the quick correction:
For each season since 1993, figure out the league plate appearances per home run relative to the pre-1994 rate. Make than a multiplier...so if 5% more than pre-1994 than for that year, once you have a Keyboad QB Adjusted #, add 5% to it. If 15% more, add i5% to it, and if 15% less, then nick them that proportion in their Adjusted number.
Make sense? It doesn't adjust for a lot of smaller factors such as home parks, but it does internalize the single biggest correction you should consider making to the career numbers, which is accounting for the greatly increased overall numbers since the beginning of 1994.
It's about an extra 15 minutes of work.
Jimmy - Bonds is alleged to have started in 1999, but it obviously didn't help him then. It's best to start docking him in 2001.
Mcgwire started earlier than 1998, I would say around the early 1990's is better to start docking him.
And as previously mentioned above, what about Clemens? The greatest older pitcher in history? Somehow managed to post the two best ERA+ seasons of his career after turning 30. He also owns byfar the two single season highest ERA+'S for a pitcher 34 or older. Clemens is an obvious juicer, why leave him off?
I'm enjoying the debate and all the comments so far.
keep it up.
as for clemens being left off, this was only for home run leaders.
perhaps down the road, we could look at pitchers, but that might be a bit harder to pinpoint. who knows, though.
La monica - Pitchers steroid use needs to be taken into account. It's obvious that they benefit pitchers. Look no further than Jason Grimsley who became a significantly better pitcher starting in 1999 when he turned to steroids and HGH.
Regardless, why your attempt to put Bonds Mcgwire, etc numbers into context, all HR totals should be put into context. Did Aaron use Greenies? Could Ruth have jacked 714 if he faced better competition? It's an endless debate that can never be solved
OK Armchair...now factor this
Amphetamines were legal until the 80's ... and anyone I mean anyone could get a prescription for them up until 1970 ..they are a great hangover cure and performance enhancing... they were in almost every locker room in the 50's and 60's .... that generation was not lily white but no one will ever step up and say it. Except the old time pro and semi pro players that are almost dead and never talk to the media.
fdf, you are correct. the debate is endless. which makes for some fun, especially during spring training, where the only other fun debate we get to have is wondering who the fourth righty out of the bullpen will be.
we could take pitchers into account for this list, but how? we could consider at-bats against known steroid users (grimsley, mota, others). but then we'd have to consider at-bats against gaylord perry and other known spitballers, too.
see, it's a crazy debate. but it keeps us occupied from our regular jobs.
Larry, you too are correct. no doubt amphetamines helped out a lot of players. jim bouton's book "Ball Four" talks extensively about it, which is why he was banned from the yankees for a very long time.
La Monica - I see what your saying, and I agree. What you did is a fine estimation, but you have to remember certain things, the main one being Bonds most certainly faced roided up pitchers. Many have been caught, and I'm sure there is many who haven't yet. I agree that it would take way too much time to go back and view every atbat a suspected steroid hitter had against a suspected steroid pitcher, but it should aleast be mentioned when judging Bonds steroid enhanced hr's.
You have no evidence that Bonds ever used steroids. Leaking grand jury testimony is a felony. If any of the alleged testimony leaked by the SF reporters were actually true, they'd be in prison right now.
Bonds never tested positive and many others in Baseball did test positive.
Barry's going to break the record and I'm going to enjoy watching it.
If Pete Rose can be banned from the Hall of Fame for betting for his team. I believe all who test postive for steroid, amphetamine or the use of any other performance enhancing drugs should suffer at least the same fate. They are both at a minimum serious conflicts of interest
Pete Rose did admit to using Greenies...
Man, if this simple arithmetical calculation is what goes for "math" in the eyes of this writer, his SAT scores in Math must have been a negative number.
( Just exaggerating. Slightly. )
The thing is we KNOW Barry has used the roids. That is a guaranteed given!
Look at his body now vs when he was with the Pirates. Pretty soon MLB is going to confiscate all the Barry/Priate footage/pictures and burn them to eliminate all comparisons.
Baseball has become "entertainment" just like the NBA or the WWE.
What a shame!
Larry BABY
No way AARON EVER used drugs, no friggin' way, so do not even go there ok, don't go there!
What an insult to the man.
It wasn't bad enough he had to endure all of that hate mail now you indirectly accuse him of poppin' pills. Your boy Barry's body has puffed up like the Pillsbury dough boy from his Bucko days, and you'll never convince me he did it lifting weights!
Not that it really matters, but Aaron did admit to experimenting with Amphetamines in 68. I wouldn't compare it to Bonds steroid regimen, but Aaron himself acknowledged using drugs.
FDF BABY
Experimenting is not USING.
So what was the point of your post?
To negate mine?
To elevate Barry?
To sully Aaron???
Or to just throw the "factoid" out there.
Cause you say "experiment"
and "using", and in the context of the drug culture there is a gigantic difference between the two.
Yet you say you would not compare the 2???????
one thing that would be interesting is to see how constant numHrsHit/season is, for those who played when there were no steroids. in other words, if hank aaron was consistently at 40hr/season hitter, then his algorithm makes sense. but if he started hitting 30hr/season earlier on, and then upped it to 35hr/season later and 40hr/season average after that, then the average might not be as good an indicator, you know what i'm saying?
cool page i love sports!
send me some info please?
I COMPLETLEY AGREE
First off love the page...I think that there are few factors that go into the spike in HR rate in the mid '90s and beyond. First, expansion driven watered down pitching. Second,a juiced ball post stirke, and thirdly, every new ballpark since 1990 but two have been hitters parks, excluding the home of the Marlins, and that of the "evil" Barry Bonds and the Giants. Not to mention that the pitchers were clearly on 'roids... which would substantially ehance recovery and velocity of fastballs which increase distance on Homers. In my humble opinion the juice benefits hurlers more than sluggers. Take McGwire for example... Did he not hit 49 pre-steroid era HR's when he was skinnier than most NBA centers (except shawn bradley..) in 1988?? My arguement is that i have a much bigger problem with NFL players and MLB pitchers , past and present, using ILLEGAL substance to gain an unfair advantage over their opponent. I would love to see a steroid inquiry of the vaunted 1970's Steelers, in which many members admitted to steroid abuse. Football is a competion of athleticism (manly strength and speed) where as baseball is more technique and focus. I dont think there is much of a correlation between HR's and steroids.. Was it not the old school opinion of many, many in baseball that lifting waits was strictly taboo?? Attribute HR's to Gov. Arnold's film "Pumpin Iron" for getting Americans {and atheletes} in the Gym. Imagine how many more Homers the Babe would have hit if only he took care of his body in the same fashion as Bonds or A-Rod.
TAKE THIS ONE THING AWAY FROM THIS PASSAGE IF NOTHING ELSE: The only thing anybody but Bonds knows is he took is THG.. the so called "designer steroid" that was not outlawed in the USA until Oct. 2003.. one season after it helped the Raiders to the Super Bowl, and two full seasons after Bonds shattered Big Mac's single season mark..That 2001 season of Barry's is the only time he ever had any trulu great protecton in the line-up, by reigning N.L. MVP Jeff Kent. How many HR would Ruth have hit w/o Gehrig, or Mays w/o McCovey, or Aaron w/o Mathews ?? Not as many I am sure.. Beyond reason and common sense (like the fact that u take a picture of any 20yr old American male and compare it to the 40yr old version there will be a profound difference in appearance) i ask only two things enhance this subject: A study on the link of benefits between steroids and the home run, and people to enjoy what Barry is doing right now, and has been doing for 20 years.. anyhow love arguing this thing and hope more continue to post...one