Yankee History … With an *

If no one else is gonna do it BMF will be the first to say there should be an asterisk affixed to the record 3 grand slams hit in the BX yesterday.

Granderson’s bomb was a legit HR so I won’t quibble with that but Cano’s shot was a Yankee Coors aided homer. And Martin’s just snuck over a right center wall that was yet to recover from the joke of a porch in right.

So I’ll give the Yankees 1.5 legit slams I’m yesterday’s game. 

Maybe I’m sounding old and cranky but these new stadiums built specifically as band boxes to inflate and set new records make me sick. 

20 Responses to “Yankee History … With an *”

  1. Lord Charles Says:

    I agree. Everyone likes to blame the bogeyman that is steroids for the increases in offense and homeruns, but the truth is, smaller parks and juiced balls have played a much bigger role, if for no other reason than that pitchers also benefit from steroid use, but receive no help from smaller parks or juiced balls.

  2. Florida Met Fan Rich Says:

    Sorry I cant even comment on this …..I didn’t know we talked about.”Little League Parks” on here!

  3. Luis Says:

    This is why I like New Shea-contrary to peoples ideas, it seems like a fair park to me- the Mets have no problem GIVING UP HR here, just in hitting them. BUT the first year of New Shea (if memory serves) the Mets hit MORE HR at home than on the road. I say leave it as it is and build a team around it.

  4. Lord Charles Says:

    I agree, Luis. In the 2+ years of existence, Citi has ranked 12th, 27th, and now 23rd in HR Park Factor. So while it is stingy with HRs, it is hardly the stingiest, especially when you take into account that the Mets have been bereft of power in general. Don’t forget, in 2006, Shea Stadium ranked dead last in HR Park Factor. Didn’t seem to hurt the Mets that season.

  5. Florida Met Fan Rich Says:

    Oh I’m sorry, I must have put in the wrong URL!

    I thought this was a MET site!

  6. BlondiesJake Says:

    FMFR, I agree, debating here whether the yankees GSs “count” seems ridiculous.

    Luis, I also agree. When the Mets have power hitters, they’ll be fine. As I said last week, moving in the fences will only help the teams built more for power like the Phillies, Braves, Brewers, Cardinals, Rockies, etc.

  7. IrishMike Says:

    “smaller parks and juiced balls have played a much bigger role”

    A role - yes. Amphetamines too. But a much bigger role? C’mon! If that were the case why have the numbers fallen so dramatically since MLB began testing for steroids? The smaller ballparks and juiced balls are still around right? Steroids drove the offnsive explosion of the late 90’s and early zips. Or should we rename that time frame as the “small ballpark” era?

  8. Lord Charles Says:

    “The smaller ballparks and juiced balls are still around right?”

    Yes, and if you account for that, MLB power factors have been level since 1982

    http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

    And steroids have been around a lot longer than the mid-90s. Impossible to imagine that they weren’t used in the 60s and 70s.

  9. BrooklynBill Says:

    Not sure who Common Sense is but man is he rattling this blog’s cage!!

    I am glad that the Mets are running the kids go free offer, I think its a nice gesture, gets them some concession $$ the Mets probably wouldn’t otherwise make, and some of those kids will want Dad to take them to a game again so, all in all I think it’s a savvy move. As for the fans who doled out the $$ for his season tickets, oh well. Really they paid for the right to sit in the same seat every home game, not for the right to see a good game every time. Anyone who thought they were locking in their WS seats or something like that when they bought them had one too many $8.50 bud lites.

    re: the spike in HRs, don’t leave out watered down pitching from MLB expansion, scouting systems that overemphasize the radar gun and de-emphasize finesse and ‘knowing how to pitch’, which resulted in a # of hard ‘throwers’, not necessarily good pitchers.

  10. IrishMike Says:

    Well that is a lot of pro-steroid propaganda (and yes I recognize that much of the anti-steroid hysteria from “the establishment” is utter propaganda as well) to digest so I’ll take a look at my leisure. At a glance it seems like he’s creating assumption upon assumption to back into a pre-determined outcome.

  11. Lord Charles Says:

    IM,

    As a scientist, I can and will vouch for the fact that there is legit science backing what is written in the piece. Is it aggressive? But in my opinion, it has to be because the debate around steroids is fueled by so much false information

    /rant

    (Stepping off soapbox)

    Bill,

    Good point about the watered down pitching, though I think that that does have more to do with an overemphasis on the radar gun than it does with expansion. The number of roster slots available in the MLB has increased on a pro rata basis with the population growth of the US. So unless there has been a marked drop-off in the percentage of citizens who possess elite talent (unlikely, but possible) the ratio of roster spots and qualified candidates should be the same as it was in the 60’s and 70’s. And if you factor in the increase in international players, it could even be argued that there are more qualified candidates per roster spot.

  12. Fort Greene Met Fan Says:

    Yankees and steroid talk—is it 2009?

  13. Lord Charles Says:

    ^No, we now have a GM with a plan that goes beyond signing the biggest name on the FA market and filling the other substantial holes with geriatrics… ;)

  14. Fort Greene Met Fan Says:

    If this devolves into a conversation about whether Barry Bonds should get into the HOF, I’m out.

  15. IrishMike Says:

    LC - that was hardly a rant - you didn’t use a curse word or put anything in all caps. Unlike many I try to take a rational approach to the issue of steroid use (abuse?) which is difficult since it is such a politically tinged issue and thus devoid of most rationality. I’ll read the website and form opinions about his positions. But it will be very tough for anyone to convince me that there was not a large upsurge in steroid usage after the ‘94 strike. 50/60+ home run seasons becoming the norm, hitters (and yes pitchers but clearly hitters benefitted more) getting MORE powerful as they approach 40 - these are more than anecdotal. Not to mention that the vast majority of newly born, ageless sluggers from that era have been proven pretty strongly of having used steroids.

    Well we’ve gotten pretty far afield. I’ll read the site and see how much I believe.

  16. Florida Met Fan Rich Says:

    How about we play triple header today?…..Dont let a.little wind scare you….EVACUATE TO FL…..We are hurricane battle tested ;-)

  17. BlondiesJake Says:

    FGMF, I’m devolve and say Bonds should definitely be in the HoF for his pre-steroids play which included multiple MVPs when he was clearly the best player in the game.

  18. Lord Charles Says:

    ^I also don’t believe for a second that the HoF is free and clear of cheaters and even steroid use. Until someone can prove that that is true, my only concern is whether the player in question were among the best of their generation. Bonds was. Sammy Sosa was not.

  19. Fort Greene Met Fan Says:

    Aghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  20. BrooklynBill Says:

    What that steroid site doesn’t seem to address is what PEDs can do the marginally average player.

    This guys also seems to be implying that chewing tobacco or ‘dip’, an addictive stimulant that has known carcinogens, is as bad if not worse than PEDs.

Leave a Reply

Return home