I hardly think we're heading towards another 'dead ball era' in baseball. More likely a natural correction towards the proper balance between hitting and pitching. Has anyone thought that the problem is not a loss of talent in hitting but rather a return of talent in pitching after being absent for nearly 20 years?
Perfect games are not very good indicators, the first two were pitched within 5 days of each other in 1880, another wasn't seen until nearly a quarter of a century later in 1904. There wondrous accomplishments, they represent the very pinnacle of the sport, but the difference between a perfect game and a 1 error no-hitter, or even a 1 hit shutout, isn't really a difference in talent, it's just that the defense in a perfect game had a little more of a psychological edge or, most probably, a little more luck. To make broad speculation based on the number of perfect games doesn't seem very prudent.
The last 20 years have been a batters game, almost more like cricket than baseball, you can try to blame this on steroids, but the pitchers were also taking them and the pitchers would stand to benefit much more than hitters (with the exception of the number of home runs stat), the extra speed a pitcher can get from more strength would help more than the strength of a batter, whose primary skills are perception, reflexes, and muscle control (Provigil will do a lot more for a batter than steroids ever could). The more likely explanation for high slugging percentages/OBP's/average runs per game/etc. during the 1990's and 2000's is simply bad pitching (and possibly changes to the ball, but that's another discussion). That also explains the relative lack of parity, as the most wealthy teams could buy the few above average and good pitchers available (not that I'd support a salary cap, only a few things in this world are more pleasurable than watching the humiliating defeat of the Yankees to a team with 1/8th their payroll...and it seems to happen so often
But to say that the hitters were better over the last 20 years than during other eras of baseball seems to be a bit of a stretch, it's like saying that players were faster during the first two decades of the 20th century because of the relative lack of triples in recent years. I'd be shocked if I lived to see someone break Chief Wilson's record of 36 in a season and no one who's played into the 30's or since has ever surpassed 200 career triples. But it's not that people are slower or worse hitters today, it's simply that the nature of the game has changed for a plethora of reasons. It's always a stretch to compare current players to past players, and simply absurd to compare on basic statistics. People can ultimately only be compared to the other players of their time.
As for home runs, there's only one record that I can think of that truly stands out and surpasses all others, in 1927 Babe Ruth hit more Home Runs than any other team
in the American League. I'm still waiting or anyone to even come close to that.