Going deep

How has the HR boom of recent years, artificially enhanced or otherwise, affected baseball from a historical perspective? Forget the single-season HR record or career HR mark and consider how it might affect players from other eras in general.

Let's look at Mike Schmidt, for example. I would say Michael Jack was the game's premier power hitter from 1975-87, or so. Yet Schmidt's seasons don't look impressive compared to what players have done since the mid-1990s.

In 1980, Schmidt hit 48 HR and had 121 RBI. In 2001, when Bonds hit 73 HR, Schmidt's total wouldn't have even made the top five in the NL. Yet in 1980, Schmidt was dominant. He hit 13 more homers than his nearest league rival and only 3 NL players hit more than 30 HR that season.

The previous year, Schmidt hit 45 HR, second to only Dave Kingman's 48, and 11 more than the player who was third that season. The Houston Astros as a team hit 49 (and finished 89-73). Schmidt's efforts were Ruthian.

Next, consider that in 1980, NL teams averaged 104 HR. In 1985, it was 119 and in 1990 it was 127. When we hit 1995, the number jumps to 141 and in 2000 it was a mind-boggling 188.

Finally, Schmidt's 162-game career average for HR-RBI was 37-107.

Here are some other current players' averages entering this season: Manny Ramirez 41-134, Alex Rodriguez 43-124, Sammy Sosa 43-116, Jeff Bagwell 34-116, Jim Thome 41-112, Barry Bonds 42-110, Chipper Jones 33-109, Gary Sheffield 33-108, Larry Walker 32-108, Rafael Palmeiro 33-106, Jim Edmonds 34-102, Troy Glaus 36-101.

How many guys on that list would you take over Schmidt? Essentially, Schmidt averaged 37 HR when teams averaged about 110. That's means Schmidt's output was 34% of the teams of that time. Sosa has averaged 43 when teams are hitting about 170. That's 25%.

When Bonds hit his 73, NL teams averaged 185, so Bonds' output was 39% of the average squad. When Schmidt hit his 48 in 1980, it was 46% of the 104 that NL teams averaged.