I'm curious as to how the apparent death of steroids changes the game. If we go back to the 80's speed was way more prevalent and power hitters weren't nearly as common. If we go back to 85 for example 13 players had 30 or more homers and only 5 had more than 35. These numbers are similar to what occurred last year. It could be quite interesting if things start to regress offensively to the levels of the 80's. We might see no hit middle infielders again and a much higher focus on speed.
I like this. The game has been so different for so long, people only remember fragments of the 1980s.
First of all, there's been a demographic shift and speed isn't in the game as a result. There isn't really much resembling the Vince Coleman's, the Rickey Hendersons, the Willie McGees, the Willie Wilsons, or the Tim Raines in the game today. And there were other guys not as prolific who had great speed like Gary Pettis. The only guys I can think of with real speed like that are Billy Hamilton and Tony Campana.
Another thing that's different is the number if strikeouts. Even though home runs have gone down, strike outs haven't. Maybe in the steroid era there were enough home runs being hit to justify the proliferation of strike outs. In the 80s it was more about productive outs and fewer strike outs.
Along those same lines, more players knew how to bunt. It's very apparent that it hasn't been taught. This is another aspect if the game that has been warped by the steroid era. During the 80s, middle infielders and many outfielders weren't expected to hit 20 home runs a season. So they were taught how to bunt. But this was far less prevalent during the steroid era when it became more about putting a guy who can hit more home runs at second base and short stop. But now because of saber metrics, bunting is still problematic. This is a function of attitudes being shaped by analyzing steroid era data. It was during the steroid era when saber metrics gained prominence. They were looking at data from a league where bunting was a lost skill. So the effectiveness of bunting is going to skew the analysis. It makes a difference if you try to correlate the effectiveness of bunting when you're looking at data at a time where people actually know how to bunt vs when they're awful at it because they're expected to hit home runs and strike out.
The more conventional way to build a team is defense up the middle and offense on the corners. This had been time tested but the steroid era warped this. What's interesting is how people view different players through the lens of the steroid era. For example, the bulk of Ozzie Smiths career was played before what us perceived to be the steroid era. He played at a time when defense was paramount for a shortstop and he was the best ever. The value of Ozzie Smith in the 80s was on the same level as having a bug time power hitter. Whitey Herzog articulated this when he said Ozzie smith saves a run a game, while other guys produce a run a game. This was after Ozzie Smirh got a big contract. But then take Omar Vizquel and Derek Jeter. Omar Vizquel is one if the best defensive shirt stops ever. In the 80s he would have been viewed differently. But because he played the bulk of his career in the steroid era, it's like people view him as great defense but no offense. In the 80s, people would be less apt to find fault with his offense. Then you have Jeter. He's the perfect example of a steroid era short stop. It's not that he was on steroids but him being a short stop is a reflection of how attitudes shifted from defense being paramount to trying to squeeze offense into every position on the field. In the 80s, Jeter probably wouldn't have even been a short stop. But because he played in the 90s during the steroid era, he's seen differently. Even people who don't try to laughably say he was good defensively will say his defense was good enough when you look at the offense he provided. Again, in the 80s, defense was paramount. The fact that Jeter was a Yankee also plays a major part in this. The media is so NY and Boston centric, that they've tailored their views around of certain things based on Jeter being a Yankee. But still, Omar Vizquel is kind of on the losing end if this.
In the 80s, if a guy was at 2nd with two outs, hitters would focus on getting that run home by hitting a single in most situations. Now, much of the time guys will still take massive swings.
Based on how the steroid era has so radically changed how the sport is both played and viewed, you'd think that every game in the 80s was 2-1 games. But that wasn't the case.
