Dwindling HR totals?

Am I the only one to notice that guys in the Majors this year are just not producing as many homers as we've gotten used to in recent years? I mean, A-Rod is doing great, with 52 homers so far, but it seems that some of the names that are usually associated with 40+ HR seasons are not making it to that plateau this year.

Albert Pujols is the first, who after having hit 40+ in the last four seasons, is now at 31, and, therefore, may finish the season off with a career low (his lowest HR total in one season was 34, in 2002).

David Ortiz, who has hit 40+ in the last three years (including 52 last year) is also at 31, with less than two weeks left of season.

Other sluggers with relatively-unimpressive HR totals this year are:

Carlos Beltran, 30
Lance Berkman, 30
Ken Griffey, 30
Jim Thome, 30
Paul Konerko, 29
Barry Bonds, 28
Alfonso Soriano, 28
Jermaine Dye, 27
Andruw Jones, 26
Chipper Jones, 26
Adrian Beltre, 25
Vladimir Guerrero, 25
Gary Sheffield, 25
Sammy Sosa, 20

In short, it seems like home run totals are down this year. In the last decade we got used to seeing a dozen guys belt 40+ HRs every year (and at least a couple of them hit 50+, and maybe even one or two hit 60+). This year it seems like only 5 guys will end up in the 40+ plateau. Now, 5 players hitting 40+ is not bad at all, compared to one or two, which was the average in the 80's; but we hadn't seen such a low season total of 40-HR players the strike-shortened season of 1995!

Everyone who follows baseball is aware of the fact that, since then, HR totals suddenly increased significantly. Most of it is blamed on steroids; for which reason the most recent period of baseball history is given the name the "Steroid Era." But now we see only 5 guys do it and we're surprised! Could it be that we're reaching the end of the Steroid Era?

Let's look at the number of players per year that have reached the 40-HR milestone, in the period between 1985 and 2007:

1985: 1
1986: 1
1987: 4
1988: 1
1989: 1
1990: 2 (one of whom hit 51)
1991: 2
1992: 2
1993: 5
1994: 2 (strike: 116-game season)
1995: 4 (1 of which hit 50; strike: 145-game season)
1996: 16 (2 of which hit 50+)
1997: 11 (1 of which hit 56)
1998: 13 (4 of which hit 50+; 2 of which hit 60+; 1 of which hit 70)
1999: 16 (2 of which hit 50+; which 2 also hit 60+)
2000: 16 (1 of which hit 50)
2001: 12 (4 of which hit 50+; 2 of which hit 60+; 1 of which hit 73)
2002: 8 (2 of which hit 50+)
2003: 10
2004: 9
2005: 9 (1 of which hit 51)
2006: 11 (2 of which hit 50+)
2007: 5 (1 of which hit 52)

So we see the dramatic boom of the late 90's (remember when the main issue was not whether it was steroids but whether the "ball was juiced"?!); and we also see a slight decrease in the first half of this decade.

The relatively-low number of players in the 40-HR club this year could be an indication of things to come--or is it simply a slump that these guys are having collectively, and which they will all eventually get out of?

Paul Gerke doesn't think so. He wrote an article this past May, "MLB Home Run Totals Down: Are New Steroid Rules to Blame? Home Runs Down to Lowest Total Since 1993", where he predicted that, due to multiple factors, HR productions would slow down this year and in years to come. However, a different perspective is offered by David Vincent, who wrote a very well-researched article titled "Was the 1990s Home Run Production Out of Line?", where he argues that the recent HR production in the Majors was not extraordinarily high, but was simply part of an ever-increasing trend, and that such trend is naturally going to keep increasing.

In the end, who knows? Only time will tell.