So, do you think its actually ok to talk in terms of “the real record” (because of juiced ball) and you just take issue with folks for talking about it for the wrong reason (steroids)?
No. I see two major differences. First, environmental factors like the juiced ball affect everyone equally, and so a player who sets a record in them is still an outlier relative to his peers. And second, talking about the "real record" in terms of steroids suggests who a "legitimate" record holder would be (someone not on steroids). But environmental factors don't have an analogous default or "natural" state. Is the home run environment of the 1990s the outlier, or the depressed offense of the '70s/'80s? Roger Maris set his record in a very hitter-friendly year, thanks to expansion, and the 1920s, when Ruth set his records, saw probably the largest increase in home runs relative to the preceding era ever. So if you throw out records set in good home run years, you have to throw away everything.
(Side note: It is interesting to think of the “Single Season Home Run Record” as the guy who had the largest percentage lead in home runs over the next highest in the league. Aaron Judge wouldn’t be first by that standard, but he’d be way ahead of Bonds, McGwire, and Maris.)
Yes to the side note, although I think it should be a little more statistically sophisticated. If 2 players are tied for the lead with 60 home runs when the next highest player has 20, those 2 players should still get a lot of credit!
So, do you think its actually ok to talk in terms of “the real record” (because of juiced ball) and you just take issue with folks for talking about it for the wrong reason (steroids)?
No. I see two major differences. First, environmental factors like the juiced ball affect everyone equally, and so a player who sets a record in them is still an outlier relative to his peers. And second, talking about the "real record" in terms of steroids suggests who a "legitimate" record holder would be (someone not on steroids). But environmental factors don't have an analogous default or "natural" state. Is the home run environment of the 1990s the outlier, or the depressed offense of the '70s/'80s? Roger Maris set his record in a very hitter-friendly year, thanks to expansion, and the 1920s, when Ruth set his records, saw probably the largest increase in home runs relative to the preceding era ever. So if you throw out records set in good home run years, you have to throw away everything.
(Side note: It is interesting to think of the “Single Season Home Run Record” as the guy who had the largest percentage lead in home runs over the next highest in the league. Aaron Judge wouldn’t be first by that standard, but he’d be way ahead of Bonds, McGwire, and Maris.)
Yes to the side note, although I think it should be a little more statistically sophisticated. If 2 players are tied for the lead with 60 home runs when the next highest player has 20, those 2 players should still get a lot of credit!