One question:
How come all the 60+ home run season have taken place outside of the DHing American League? It just seems odd that that would be the case.

Saying that all the 60+ home run seasons have taken place outside the DHing AL is a bit disingenuous, considering 2 of the seasons occured way before there was a DH.

Many DH's tend to be players who are either older and can no longer play the field or sluggers who really don't have a position. Just sayin' but steroids tend to help these types of players the most and the new testing may have sucked the confidence and ability right out of their bats (think Jason Giambi). So teams may find themselves stuck with older no-longer productive players who can't play the field but whose contracts mean they have to be in the line-up. (Again - think Giambi as the posterboy).

Just sayin'

It took me a second to catch what you meant in the fifth paragraph, until I realized you meant "... it's that AL pitching has finally passed NL pitching."

Didn't the NL outhit the AL last year for about the first 4, 4 1/2 months?

seems to be there have been a lot more pitchers than usual giving up a LOT of runs in the starts, but more in the NL than the AL.

this sounds like the smokin gun i been lookin for - the DH sucks....

hehhehheh

How do the power numbers compare for the two leagues? You refer to Oakland and Cleveland: "It also could be that the single, walk, three-run homer strategy doesn't work well without the single." For the A's, the problem isn't a lack of singles, but a lack of homers. I think they are last in the league in SLG.

Since the AL adopted the designated hitter in 1973, there has been exactly one (1) year when the NL scored more runs per game than the AL. That was 1974, and the difference was a less than titanic 0.10 runs per game.

Every other year the AL has been the higher-scoring league, sometimes by big margins. The average margin has been 0.64 runs per game. Last year was a fairly typical 0.74 - 10.02 for the AL vs. 9.28 for the NL. Which makes me think that the first one-fifth of the 2005 season may just be a fluke.

Interestingly, in the ten years before the AL adopted the rule, they were outscored in runs per game seven times by the NL. Shows what a significant and immediate difference the DH made.

Of course, take the NL's answer to the DH, Coors Field, out of the stats, and the differences would be even bigger for recent years. Let's check back on this one at the end of the season.

Not really Sabernar, I was including the pre DH-AL (that's why I said "outside the DHing AL", and not NL.) But especially with all the 60+ HR seasons since 1998 (McGwire 1, Sosa 3, Bonds 1) and the whole steroids imbroglio, why hasn't there been a 60 HR season in the AL? One would think that there were some AL players taking steroids and trying to hit home runs; but they just couldn't get to that 60 plateau. It's just kind of odd that all thre outliers happened to play in the same league.

Any advantage from the DH is wiped out in a league in which the 3B and CF hit like middle infielders:

OPS for AL 2005
1B .752
RF .748
DH* .740
LF .718
C .656
2B .695
SS .694
3B .694
CF .691

That's an interesting list, J.P. The first thing I thought about when reading it is what a unique team the Orioles must be.

The O's top OPS values belong to their 2B, SS, C, and 3B, in that order. Not exactly the positions most of the other teams are getting their production from.

Baltimore's CF isn't doing too poorly either; Matos has an OPS of .775.

Here's something else to consider. The AL teams in Detroit, Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, and New York are playing in cold weather. The NL teams which correspond to those cities are Chicago, New York, Pittsburg and maybe Philadelphia, where it's been pretty warm this season. Since the weather has been cooler than usual for more AL teams, that could have something to do with it. This is just a thought; it's not too scientific or anything.

wait! so its been warmer at Shea and Wrigley than it has at Yankee Stadium and US Cellular?

just kidding...

I think you could include Cincinnati in the NL list. The question is...has it been warmer in Pittsburgh, Philly, and Cincy than Boston, Cleveland, and Detroit? It seems likely. If john's post above about the NL outhitting the AL early last season is true, then warmer weather might be the main contributing factor.

As someone who lives in the Northeast, this has been one of the milder springs in a while. There have been bad days, but there's been plenty of nice days also. My guess is that in the northeast (as opposed the the midwest), this year is warmer than average.

Yes, but how are the AL DH's doing compared to the NL pitchers? I suspect they are hitting better. What other position imbalance is compensating for this difference?

The point behind the DH causing more run production is that there's 9 supposedly productive hitters in a lineup instead of 8 supposedly productive hitters and one guy batting .125. So the overall run production goes up. But for a particular batter, having the DH doesn't do anything major to his production, unless the guy can DH on days when he needs to rest. So the fact that the number of 60+ home run hitters have all come without the DH isn't really relevant. At this point there's a very limited number of such seasons in history, so I don't think it's statistically significant that they've come under the one case and not the other.

Especially since we're only talking about 3 different men who have hit for 60+ HR since the DH started. 3 guys all coming from one league or another isn't really statistically significant.

If you look at the 50+ HR seasons since the DH began, for which the sample size is 20, much higher, you find 10 in the NL, 9 in the AL, and one from McGwire the year he switched leagues.

As an aside, it's pretty stunning that Hank Aaron's highest single-season HR total was only 47. He was a very consistent slugger.

First of all, in evaluating offense, R/G can be misleading, due to rain-shortened games and extra inning games. Also, when dealing with a relatively small sample, clutch hitting (or lack thereof) can distort the results. So I prefer to look at RC27. In 2005 the AL average per team is 4.61; the NL average is 4.79. That's a 4% difference in favor of the non-DH league!

Whatever is going on, it isn't a league-wide phenomenon. The Top 2 offensive teams are both in the the AL (Bal., Bos.) The AL has 5 of the 8 teams creating over 5 runs a game. No surprise there.

The problem is at the other end of the spectrum. The AL has 5 teams creating 4 runs or less per game (LAA, Cle., Sea., Oak., KC). No NL team is below 4.15 RC27. Note that, of the 5 "cold" AL teams, only the Indians are generally considered a cold weather team. The disparity between best and worst is only 1.4 RC27 in the NL, 2.4 in the AL.

You know, I've felt the DH concept has utterly failed all through this "era of offense". Being DH's are solely offense, shouldn't they be hitting .400 with 55 HR's and 150 RBI's every year? Or if you don't want a slugger, your DH should have a .480 OBP with 100 steals and 150 Runs scored.

I mean, those DH's that never play a field position, should ONLY be working on their batting. I mean, you never see a pitcher (another "specialty" position) practice outfield, do you? It would be insane. So, since a DH has nothing to do but hit...they really should be only practicing hitting, & far and above the rest of their team at offense. Always. If they're not, I don't think they're doing their job at all.

I suppose managers must take the view of "well, he's a better hitter than the pitcher, so it's an upgrade" when a DH hits .250 with 15 HR's and 56 RBI's. Which is actually ridiculous.

If the next man who hits .400 isn't a DH....pfft.

And now I'm thinking...how long will it be before someone "reinvents" the DH role?

I believe the GABP is a pitcher's park overall, for singles, doubles, and triples, but a hitter's park for home runs. This is based on Lahman's database for the overall, and Diamond Mind for the components.

As I said, let's check back on this one at the end of the season. History tells us that the NL is about a thrity to one underdog to outscore the AL on a runs-per-game basis.

Sometimes longshots pay off. See Derby, Kentucky. But a fifth of a season doesn't mean much against thrity-plus years of experience with the DH.

Hm, misspelled thirty twice, and in exactly the same way. What are the odds against that?

In the NL it seems to me that the pitcher has a negative effect on the 8th place hitter as well. You get a lot Mark Lemkes hitting there. Most NL 8th spotters wouldn't get a job hitting in the AL.

Actually, I'd think that a slugger in the AL would have a better shot at more HRs than one in the NL, if only slightly. Especially on teams with a great DH as they will more likely have longer innings than an NL team would, as the NL has to throw away an out every time through (Dontrelle/Hampton aside). Innings where the teams bat around must happen noticeably more frequently in the AL than the NL which would give a good hitter more ABs to get more HRs. Of course the team isn't batting around every game but the DH production should generate a few more ABs and a good slugger can turn those into a few extra HRs.

As far as the scoring, I think it's because players are staying increasingly longer (retiring later) because of the DH and such things that the DH has declined in it's productivity (no numbers at hand). Raffy Palmeiro is still better than a pitcher, but by not too terribly much.

It could also have something to do with the play style. NL teams are much more likely to squeeze runs out of opportunities (bunting, stealing) while AL teams seem to focus more on the longball, which might have lower effectiveness. NL teams probably convert more baserunners into runs than an AL team.

I feel the main reason is that few teams have a DH that is a pure power guy. You have Graham Koonce wasting away in AAA, and the Yankees want to put Bernie Williams at DH. At some point, the idea that a DH should be a high SLG guy has subsided...no idea why.