Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
April 14, 2006
Offense Still Up

Comparing the same time period and using the first six years of this century, offense remains high by comparison.

YearRuns per GameHR per Game
20019.92.47
20029.12.02
20039.72.10
200410.22.22
20059.72.00
200610.82.62

Also, comapre the home run leader board this year vs. 2005. Nineteen players with four or more homers this season vs. seven last year. And the league leader had five.

So what's different? One person in the comments this year suggests the umpires are calling a very small strike zone. However, strikeouts are very much in line with previous years, so I'm not sure that's the explanation (I'd expect strikeouts to be down if the strike zone were smaller). Still, it's something to watch.

I've never bought the intentional juiced ball theory. It's possible Rawlings changed the manufacturing process, but I really don't think the commissioner makes a call and the balls start flying out of the park.

Of course, it might be that steroids helped pitchers more than batters. Sure there were some sluggers who bulked up, but a number of the players caught last year spent their time on the mound. Maybe we've been looking at the whole scandal the wrong way. Instead of the sluggers keeping up with each other, the real abusers were pitchers trying to keep up with hitters.

Or maybe it's just Atlanta's pitching staff falling apart.


Posted by David Pinto at 09:24 AM | Offense | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Could also be the weather. I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Michigan it's been warmer this April than it often is. If significantly less games are played in 40 degree weather, I would expect the a few more home runs.

Posted by: Tom Sinke at April 14, 2006 10:33 AM

Another thing to think about is team strategy - are teams shifting away from "little ball" and slowly, even subconsciously, moving towards a more OBP and SLG approach? Even the White Sox, who were supposedly a "small ball" team, hit a ton of HRs last year. Managers might be sitting their "run manufacturers" in place of guys like Bellhorn and Wily Mo Pena, who K a lot but can also hit hard. Sort of a selection bias, potentially. Great point about the weather too, Tom.

Posted by: Mike at April 14, 2006 11:02 AM

i still think it's really too early to draw any hard conclusions about that data. if the runs per game number were at 13+, well maybe, but right now i'd chalk it up to two things:
1: statistical anomaly (also related to small sample size (for all years on that chart!))
2: the game is changing, and has been changing, but we have the statistical and media tools to track it better. sure, OBP/SLG baseball is still on the rise, and small ball is still around, but most teams have a good mix of guys who do one, the other, or both. whatever philosophies/strategies came out of the turn of the century were put into the minors first, and we are seeing the fruits of that as we speak.

Posted by: BenJah at April 14, 2006 11:16 AM

I don't necessarily believe this (since I haven't really looked into it), but could #s be up because of the WBC. Perhaps players are more prepared for the season. Just an idea.

Posted by: Rob at April 14, 2006 11:36 AM

Have to disagree with Rob, because any explanation has to skew towards the hitters. If players are more prepared due to the WBC, then that should mean pitchers and batters, so the effect would wash out. Now if you argue that the WBC helped hitters more than pitchers, I think that is an argument that can be made. But, you have to first look at players in the WBC vs. Non-WBC players to see if the idea holds water.

Posted by: Kevin at April 14, 2006 12:29 PM

Maybe it's the WBC effect. Hitters were facing live competitive pitching earlier?

Posted by: Steve at April 14, 2006 01:28 PM

I'll go with Benjah's explanation #1: small sample size variability.

Posted by: Dave S. at April 14, 2006 01:36 PM

It's still too early, but the scores keep getting big. Yesterday the majors averaged over 12 runs a game. I love it, but pretty soon everybody's going to be speculating why.

The reader referenced in the David's post was little old moi. I don't think that fewer Glavine strikes (which of course are actually rulebook balls) would necessarily decrease overall strikeout totals. What a less stretched-out corner would do is incline pitchers to throw more towards the center of the plate. This would allow better hitters to wallop the ball further, but would also force lesser hitters to swing (and miss) at more pitches.

So the overall effect on strikeouts might be small for all hitters combined, but the mashers would pump scoring by hitting more balls a long way.

Just a theory, but Bill James once said an inch in the strike zone is worth ten feet in the outfield. My guess is that a few inches in the strike zone are worth more than all the steroids BALCO ever sold.

Posted by: Casey Abell at April 14, 2006 01:47 PM

Small sample size. There's no logical reason, unless you want to blame the WBC for warming up hitters, to explain what's been happening lately. So many ace and ace quality pitchers have been rocked lately (Carlos Zambrano, Santana, Peavy, Colon) that runs per game almost has to be higher then usual. And yes, Atlanta's pitching staff has almost certainly played a role in jacking up the total even higher.

Also while it would be easy to blame the WBC, I'm curious to see how WBC players are performing compared to non-WBC players. It would, again, be a small sample size, but it could prove fairly interesting. I can think of at least one Mariners 3B whose spectacular WBC didn't carry over...

Posted by: the other josh at April 14, 2006 01:50 PM

Oh, just one more tidbit of support for my strike zone theory. In 1963 the strike zone was expanded a few inches up and down. Runs per game dropped 11.5%.

After the 1968 debacle, the strike zone was shrunk by a couple inches up and down (admittedly along with other changes to increase offense). Runs per game increased 19.1%.

Maybe Bill James was right. At any rate it's way too early to draw a conclusion that hitting is back on the upswing. But Selig has publicly stated that he expects a new attendance record this year. He mentioned a 77 million figure for tickets sold, compared to last year's 74.3. If baseball is even more interested than usual this year in pumping the gate, they would tend to tighten up the strike zone

Posted by: Casey Abell at April 14, 2006 02:13 PM

While I was playing baseball historian, I checked on the effects on strikeouts per game in 1963 and 1969.

Strikeouts per game did increase in 1963 with the expansion of the strike zone, but not by much. About six and a half percent.

The really funny thing is that, with the smaller zone in in 1969, strikeouts per game didn't budge much. The rate actually increased in the NL by about three percent and fell in the AL by about six percent.

So the last time the strike zone was officially shrunk, the overall effect on strikeouts per game was surprisingly small. Hm, along with David, I would have expected more of an impact. Especially because 1969 saw other changes to benefit the hitters.

Posted by: Casey Abell at April 14, 2006 02:26 PM

Takes me a while, but it finally dawned on me that higher-scoring games generally mean more hitters are coming to bat each game. So overall strikeout totals and the strikeout-per-game rate might not change much, simply because more hitters per game are getting the chance to whiff gloriously.

The real rate to look at would be strikeouts per plate appearance. Don't know how that's going.

Posted by: Casey Abell at April 14, 2006 03:08 PM

Well, I checked. Last year 16.4% of plate appearances resulted in strikeouts. So far this year...drum roll...only 10.6% of plate appearances culminate in mighty whiffs.

Yeah, I'd say something's happening with the strike zone. Or every hitter got laser surgery in the off-season.

Posted by: Casey Abell at April 14, 2006 03:19 PM

Sorry, my bad. The strikeout rate this year is about 16.1% of plate appearances. Down slightly from last year but not that much. So maybe it ain't the zone, or maybe we're seeing 1969 again. Or maybe it's that ol' devil, small sample.

Although the sample's getting bigger every day.

Posted by: Casey Abell at April 14, 2006 04:20 PM

Weather-wise, California has been surprisingly wet since about mid-March, with even a few rainouts. Not sure what effect that would have.

Posted by: Adam Villani at April 14, 2006 05:34 PM

well, seems like darn near every game that HRs flyin out of darn near every ballpark - like 50 of em yesterday? and barry bonds not involved???

so yall can't hardly blame him for this.

you might go on about the small sample size, but it's been true in every ballpark there is.

unless people gonna insist that hitters got some magic stuff pitchers don't know about

Posted by: lisa gray at April 14, 2006 05:45 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?