Where are the 60 Home Run Hitters?
There have been a lot of homers in baseball this season. Perhaps too many, as Jay Jaffe wrote back in June. At its current pace, the majors will average 227 home runs per team, clobbering the 2017 mark of 204 and coming in way ahead of last year’s 186 mark. When Barry Bonds broke the single-season home run record in 2001, the major league team average was 182. When McGwire and Sosa dueled, it was 169. When Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth’s record, the team average was 152. So how is it that we have a 50% increase in home runs from the time Maris hit 61, and a 22% increase over last year, and yet still don’t have a player likely to hit 60 homers?
Here are this year’s home run leaders through Tuesday’s games along with their projected total, their current pace based on team games, and the number of homers per 700 plate appearances (which will be more important later):
| Name | PA | HR | Projected | Pace | HR/700 PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cody Bellinger | 401 | 34 | 50 | 57 | 59 |
| Christian Yelich | 388 | 33 | 47 | 56 | 60 |
| Mike Trout | 402 | 30 | 48 | 51 | 52 |
| Peter Alonso | 394 | 30 | 45 | 52 | 53 |
| Edwin Encarnacion | 377 | 28 | 44 | 49 | 52 |
| Josh Bell | 408 | 27 | 39 | 47 | 46 |
| Hunter Renfroe | 304 | 27 | 43 | 47 | 62 |
| Franmil Reyes | 314 | 26 | 40 | 45 | 58 |
| Max Muncy | 381 | 25 | 38 | 42 | 46 |
| Freddie Freeman | 426 | 25 | 38 | 42 | 41 |
| Mike Moustakas | 382 | 25 | 38 | 42 | 46 |
| Jorge Soler | 395 | 25 | 37 | 42 | 44 |
Projections, which are admittedly somewhat conservative, expect there to be one 50-homer hitter at the end of the year (Cody Bellinger), as well as a handful of players with at least 40 homers. Even if we go by pace and the hitters hit exactly was well as they have up to this point, Bellinger and Yelich will have great seasons but fall a few homers shy of 60. Yelich and Hunter Renfroe are the only players on a 60-homer pace if they were to get to 700 plate appearances. While all the home runs being hit might make it seem like a 60-homer season should happen, the sheer number of homers in the game don’t actually dictate what the league leader might do. The graph below shows the average number of home runs by team per year along with the home run leader for that season:
While the numbers can track together, league leaders have mostly stuck around the same place, even as homers league-wide have gone way up. The dip in 1981 is due to a less than full season; the two seasons right before the big jump in 1996 were also strike-shortened. To provide a more direct comparison, here’s the same information on a scatter plot:
There is a bit of a relationship there, but all of the big individual home run seasons are outliers that don’t quite track with the general rise of home runs. There have been eight seasons with a team average of at least 180 homers. Four of those seasons featured league-leader seasons of at least 59 homers, but the other four saw the league leader end up at least 10 homers shy of 60. If we were to continue that line of reasoning and look at this season’s pace of 227 homers, we’d see it lines up with 64 homers, but based on prior seasons, we are just as likely to end up well below that mark as we are at or above it.
The short answer to why there isn’t likely to be a 60 home run hitter is that having a 60-homer season isn’t necessarily tied to league-wide homers. We can find further evidence when looking at this year’s particular crop of major league players. First, let’s take a look at older big home run seasons. There have been 19 individual seasons where a player has hit at least 55 homers. Those players are listed below along with their home runs per 700 plate appearances in the three seasons preceding the 55+ homer season, as well as the single-best HR/700 PA season in those three years:
| Name | Season | PA | HR | 3-YR HR/700 PA | 3-YR High HR/700 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barry Bonds | 2001 | 664 | 73 | 48 | 57 |
| Mark McGwire | 1998 | 681 | 70 | 64 | 66 |
| Sammy Sosa | 1998 | 722 | 66 | 42 | 52 |
| Mark McGwire | 1999 | 661 | 65 | 70 | 72 |
| Sammy Sosa | 2001 | 711 | 64 | 59 | 64 |
| Sammy Sosa | 1999 | 712 | 63 | 51 | 64 |
| Roger Maris | 1961 | 698 | 61 | 34 | 47 |
| Babe Ruth | 1927 | 691 | 60 | 47 | 51 |
| Giancarlo Stanton | 2017 | 692 | 59 | 55 | 59 |
| Babe Ruth | 1921 | 693 | 59 | 43 | 62 |
| Mark McGwire | 1997 | 657 | 58 | 61 | 66 |
| Ryan Howard | 2006 | 704 | 58 | 43 | 44 |
| Jimmie Foxx | 1932 | 701 | 58 | 37 | 39 |
| Hank Greenberg | 1938 | 681 | 58 | 37 | 40 |
| Alex Rodriguez | 2002 | 725 | 57 | 48 | 51 |
| Luis Gonzalez | 2001 | 728 | 57 | 28 | 30 |
| Ken Griffey Jr. | 1998 | 720 | 56 | 52 | 56 |
| Ken Griffey Jr. | 1997 | 704 | 56 | 51 | 57 |
| Hack Wilson | 1930 | 709 | 56 | 36 | 41 |
| AVERAGE | 698 | 61 | 48 | 53.5 |
The reason I’ve used home runs per 700 plate appearances is because to get close to 60 homers, batters generally need around 700 plate appearances, McGwire and Bonds notwithstanding. Outside of the three seasons in the 1930s, Maris’ record-breaking campaign, and Luis Gonzalez in 2001, every player averaged at least 40 homers per 700 plate appearances over the prior three seasons. While Maris had a relatively low three-year total, he did have a shortened season during which he was on pace for 47 homers. In addition to Maris, Gonzalez, and the ’30s trio, only Ryan Howard didn’t have a prior season where he was on a 50-homer pace per 700 plate appearances.
Given that information, we can look at the profiles of players who might fit that bill this year. I looked at all players with at least 1,000 plate appearances over the last three seasons. There were only eight players with at least 40 homers per 700 plate appearances from 2016 through the 2018 season. The players are listed below along with their season-high HR/700 PA:
| Name | PA | HR | HR/700 PA 2016-2018 | High HR/700 PA 2016-2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joey Gallo | 1139 | 82 | 50 | 54 |
| Khris Davis | 1916 | 133 | 49 | 51 |
| J.D. Martinez | 1655 | 110 | 47 | 64 |
| Giancarlo Stanton | 1867 | 124 | 46 | 60 |
| Aaron Judge | 1271 | 83 | 46 | 54 |
| Gary Sanchez | 1128 | 71 | 44 | 44 |
| Nelson Cruz | 1903 | 119 | 44 | 45 |
| Edwin Encarnacion | 1950 | 112 | 40 | 42 |
Admittedly, it would be hard for Gary Sanchez to get to the 700 plate threshold as a catcher. Cruz and Encarnacion are also older and unlikely candidates. Of those not on the list, Cody Bellinger came in with around 38 homers per 700 plate appearances with a 50-homer per 700 PA season back in 2017, so he comes pretty close in these categories. Yelich’s three-year numbers are under 30 homers and even last year, he was under 40 dingers. If we extended the three-year PA threshold below 1,000, we would add players like Rhys Hoskins, Matt Olson, Jesus Aguilar, and Hunter Renfroe, but none of those players have any single season with more than 300 PA where they had even a 45-homer pace. I took the players above and added a column that seems particularly relevant:
| Name | PA | HR | HR/700 PA 2016-2018 | High HR/700 PA 2016-2018 | IL in 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joey Gallo | 1139 | 82 | 50 | 54 | Yes |
| Khris Davis | 1916 | 133 | 49 | 51 | Yes |
| J.D. Martinez | 1655 | 110 | 47 | 64 | No |
| Giancarlo Stanton | 1867 | 124 | 46 | 60 | Yes |
| Aaron Judge | 1271 | 83 | 46 | 54 | Yes |
| Gary Sanchez | 1128 | 71 | 44 | 44 | Yes |
| Nelson Cruz | 1903 | 119 | 44 | 45 | Yes |
| Edwin Encarnacion | 1950 | 112 | 40 | 42 | No |
Six of the seven best candidates to hit 60 home runs this season have been injured at some point in the season. Edwin Encarnacion hasn’t been hurt, but he barely makes the threshold and hasn’t had a big HR/PA season over the last three years. J.D. Martinez certainly looks like a good candidate, but if he’s the only reasonable and healthy option to hit that still-magic number, the odds of it happening aren’t great. We might still get a 60-homer season out of somebody this season, though the odds look slim. If the top five players on the list above were all healthy all season long, we might have had that special season. But with those players sidelined and potentially dealing with injuries even while playing, 60 homers is more fantasy than reality.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Basically boils down to needing around 700 PA (i.e. not getting hurt) and having a few crazy hot streaks.
So it makes sense that it doesn’t happen all that often
And not getting walked a ton, particularly closer to the end of the season.
I like to daydream about how many homers Trout would hit if he walked even half of how often he does currently.
Probably about 4 more, since (this year) he homers about once per 10 AB, and he’s walked 77 times.
It seems likely that, relative to their era, the very biggest home run hitters are the guys who take their best swing every time and live with the strikeouts. The defining hitter adjustment of this era—but also, one could argue, most of baseball history—is an increase in the number of hitters doing exactly that, so it’s no longer confined to just the very strongest. One possible result of that would be that the advantage of the very best power hitter is reduced relative to the league as a whole. They were already doing that, so while the league-wide figure improves, the leader doesn’t move much.
Still seems like getting to 60 is mostly luck. But if that theory holds (it might not) there wouldn’t be any extra luck to be had for the players already at the top of the list.
I’m not even that old and I remember the old days where teams had not one, but several players who slapped the ball or otherwise had basically no power. That’s by far the biggest difference. Nobody thinks that is their best move now. Literally, most teams have maybe one guy who isn’t doing the launch angle thing. In 5-10 years, the singles and doubles hitter might end up being about as common as a knuckleballer.
Those guys hit 10+ HR now. Teams are getting rid of defensive specialists as well.
If you think hitters are going to continue to improve to that degree I think you will be proven incorrect. Juiced balls provided an immediate bump and it took the league a few years to exploit the altered physics. I remain skeptical that players discovered that these balls really fly with spreadsheets and batted ball data. What will fuel the future increases? It quite probably has been fueled by juiced baseballs. I imagine it is somewhat likely that MLB stifles offense after the records start getting destroyed. At that point some will praise the analytics for solving the offense.
I think it is pretty certain that this is not the era of baseball history where guys are taking their best swings every at bat more than any other. The results just don’t show that. I think players probably watch more tape of their swings than in the past, but I would also bet that they face less live pitching. The historic playing field isn’t level – it won’t be luck when players hit 60 HR a few times. It is hard to imagine how it won’t soon and when it does it will mean a fraction of what it did in prior eras. It should be treated something like the McGwire, Sosa, Bonds accomplishments which I absolutely loved to watch but have a hard time placing in historic context. Maybe they were the best swingers of all time, but everyone should get to play under those circumstances… but they don’t. It is quite possible that what is actually happening on the field is not the best era of baseball history.
I do not think that HR leaders have been the players who take the best swings. Sure, Barry Bonds did but HR leaders have often not been high AVG guys. Strike outs and quality swings do not go hand-in-hand with the best swings either. If you are at all concerned with batted ball outcomes, a swing and miss exhibits less positive results than getting a small piece to the side of the ball that it was completely missed. I am sure some machine disagrees, but a good swing is a consistent one and computers are not great at judging that. Great hitters are no more great HR hitters today than in the past. Yelich is the best hitter in baseball and leading the league in HR or close to it. I don’t think Cecil Fielder was in the running for best hitter of his era. Mike Schmidt was one of the great HR hitters of all time and didn’t hit for a great average. I don’t think that people mistook power with hit in the past, but I think they are beginning to now as it just doesn’t take as much to hit a ball out of the park. At the point where what used to be fly balls are now HR, power isn’t as important as it was. I would say that the weight to be placed on hit has increased relative to power – that’s not how it was in the past. This is a new era. People want to talk about greatness, but that is usually best done after an era.
I imagine there’s a reduction in ROI (for want of a better term) when it comes to the changes in the ball and the batters’ collective approach (trading contact for power and launch angle adjustment). Similar to what Six Ten says about relative advantage, the biggest power hitters were already doing the contact for power/launch angle thing, and an extra 5-10 feet of distance on their batted balls is probably the difference between 5 and ten rows past the fence instead of warning track to HR.
I think this is pretty right on. The only thing that I think is off is use of the launch angle terminology. Players have always been aware that if you don’t hit a ball in the air it never goes out of the park and that you can’t hit them too high. There are a lot of various advertising campaigns capitalizing on launch angle but I don’t know that it is news to the players. Imagine how easy it would be to get praised by progressive baseball fans for saying a vague remark about how cool batted ball data is – you could say it whether you knew what it meant or not. That is going to be the evidence that players are using the data, but I remain unconvinced based on what they usually say. Understanding the data and turning it into performance has always been the trick but I think that gets sold these days more than it actually happens. I think players always knew roughly what they needed to do and it was probably something like what barrels attempts to measure. Good HR hitters have always done what it takes to hit HR. The oddity is that you have players with average power now taking that approach and it gets called launch angle – it even comes with the decreased batting average.
Players actually haven’t always been aware about that. You can ask older players and even a lot of older hitting coaches and they all preach line drives. Up until about 20 years ago the assumption was that the optimal result was “squaring up” on the ball, ie: hitting it such that the center of the bat was aligned with the center of the ball.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2017/03/30/baseballs-new-trend-saying-no-to-ground-balls/99813372/
It’s only recently that anyone has realized that the optimal point of contact is just under the ball.
I can’t find expected rates on ground balls right now and I am at work, so this is enough research for me… but I also strongly remember reading that in the past, ground balls as a whole produced significantly more hits than they do now. Might be that the ball was “more dead” back then, and also the league was way, way faster (which means more defenders catching fly balls, and more hitters beating out grounders).
So the answer is, apparently: They’re hurt. Pretty much all of them.
I wonder if the simplest explanation for why we haven’t had a 60+ HR hitter even with historic league-wide home run rates is that the replacement level pitcher is so much better than 15-20 years ago. If it wasn’t for the rabbit ball, we’d still be in the midst of the new dead ball era that started with the implementation of PED testing and didn’t end until the juiced balls entered circulation mid-way through the 2015 season.
Off topic, but reminded me that Yelich has an outside shot at being the first player since Ty Cobb to win the triple crown (with 0 over the fence HRs mind you), while also leading the league in SB’s. Here are his current NL ranks:
HR- tied-1
RBI – 5
Avg -3
Sb -1
Bellinger actually has a legit triple crown shot as well as he is
HR -1
RBI-2
Avg-2
The juiced ball does not help traditional HR hitters
it only aides the guys who had warning track power, go from hitting 5-10 homers to 25 homers
No, it helps everyone, it just rewards the warning track power guys disproportionately relative to the rest of the league. Of course, in MLB pretty much everyone has at least warning track power.
There was a very good article about this a couple days ago.
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/musings-on-minor-league-home-runs/
TLDR: Juiced ball helps everybody on a similar scale, except the select few that really really don’t have power.
I have plotted the density functions of HR per 700 PA for the years 1998, 2001, and 2019. Basically, the 2019 HR distribution suggests there is a significantly greater chance for a 60+ HR hitter now than in either 1998 or 2001 (density beyond the dashed line). However, in practice such a hitter has to be both a huge outlier in terms of HR ability, and also plate appearances making it extremely unlikely overall.
Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa were freakish.
This is pedantic, but the projections do not expect there to be one 50 homer guy. One player himself is projected for 50, but reasonable error bars could mean it is more likely that the projected number is 2 or more. If you have one player with a 60% chance at 50, and 15 players with 10-40% then you’d predict some of those 15 would hit.
Pete Alonso seems like a worthy candidate. He just hit his 32nd homer in extras against the Giants. He seems like a guy that could explode. Earlier this season he hit 5 HRs in 5 games and now has 7 HRs in his last 20 games.
I still think it’s going to be hard for any player to hit 60, though.
I actually looked at this informally earlier this year, because I thought with the juiced ball and the resulting rise in home runs, with 300 home run-hitting teams and all, there had to be someone challenging Barry Bonds’s record in that. But it doesn’t work that way. The rising tide in home runs doesn’t affect those guys already hitting 40+ where all of a suddenly they start hitting 60+; it most affects those guys who hit five or ten, and all of a sudden they start hitting 20 or more.
My hypothesis as to why this is that a juiced ball doesn’t help big boppers hit more homers, it just helps them hit their homers farther. On the other hand, those guys with warning track power, normally, are definitely helped by the juiced ball to hit more homers, because those flies that were dying on the track are now wall scrapers. That’s likely why a guy like Tommy La Stella was all of a sudden Mike Trout Junior (at least before he went down.)
I have correlation analysis for anyone who wants to see this.
We need another Brady Anderson – someone who has no business hitting a bunch of homeruns suddenly hitting a bunch of homeruns and breaking all of our models.
By far the funniest 50 home run season of all time. He had an ISO of .340 that year and not a single other year where he even managed a .200 ISO
While I don’t harbor illusions that PED are out of the game, Anderson looked like a goddamn professional body builder.
It looks to me from the data the HR leader does correlate greatly with total league home runs. It’s just that truly exceptional seasons are very rare.
Take out six outlier HR leader seasons (1947, 1949, 1961, 1998, 1999, 2001) and the entire rest of the data set falls in a very well fitting threshold on the HR leader v. HR/team graph.
I think you’re on to something with the 700 PA threshold, I just think it’s false to say the league-wide HR rate would have no impact. We’re going to have to have way more 40+ HR and 50+ HR hitters than in years prior, and that makes it easier / more likely that one player goes on a special, healthy run and breaks the 60 HR threshold.
Players have not gotten better at hitting homers. Hitting homers has become easier for everyone, but the best guys are not particularly doing it better than they did it in the past. It seems like juiced balls effect the average more than the maximum. Bad swings result in HR like never before but players are not apparently able to have more quality swings. Its possible that an emphasis on hitting mistake swings for HR yields less consistent results. It is what the downside to the flyball revolution probably looks like.
One dynamic that may be hard to measure directly, but seems significant: with national / world populations increasing, and baseball recruiting expanding across the globe, the pool of talent is expanding much, much faster than the number of teams in MLB. It would make sense that there would be less variability among elite performers, then. I have long suspected that this is also a primary reason why average fb velocity is increasing so rapidly.