User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.0833 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
However, as a comprise, we should let in Joe Jackson to the hall of fame, since I believe the Black SOx were under lifetime bans and every member of the Black Sox has died.
I'd lift the ban on Weaver. Joe's ban (like Pete's) should go on forever.
It's not lifetime ban. It's permanent ban.
Doesn't this nitwit sort of answer his own question? Because what McGwire did was bad, but because what Rose did is violate the most important rule in the sport therefore they are not the same. Gee mommy, why is Charles Manson in jail for a longer time than Martha Stewart?
No similarity.
Rose always gave 200%!
This sums up Pete perfectly.
McGwire basically took the 5th when asked to testify to Congress, and then wasn't heard from much at all.
Yes, the column had already run off the tracks 10 words into the subhead: "Why is it the best of times for Mark McGwire . . .
I am more anti-steroids than most around here, but this article is stupid.
All true.
The other difference is, of course, that Pete Rose's gambling on his own team didn't impact the outcome of actual major league baseball games and the statistical output of actual major league baseball games anywhere near as much as Mark McGwire's steroid use did. McGwire's actions also traduced fan expectations of what they were paying to see, and the principle of fair competition, more than Rose's gambling on his own team. That reality isn't changed no matter how breathless the adjectives applied to the rules Rose violated.
That doesn't speak to the general importance of anti-gambling vs. anti-steroid rules, or baseball's relative interest in assuring that the game is free from gambling and steroids and/or deterrence. It does, however, speak truthfully about the true nature of Rose's and McGwire's acts and their impact.
Because they haven't found Stewart's bodies yet.
Like Pete, I too am sorry that I bet on baseball. Last year, spontaneous wagers cost me two six packs and a souvenir ball.
No kidding, huh. How do you spin that as a defense of Rose?
Weren't his bet making buddies steroid dealers who worked out with him?
Wrong again. And every time you repeat this. Even Fay Vincent, who issue the memo, admitted it was without effect as to MLB players.
I wish the old CBAs from that era were available online. I remember reading it once and it listed all of the drugs that were against the rules of baseball and steroids were not on that list.
Wow, this goes without debate?
Maybe we exist in a world far enough removed from gambling scandals that popular perception doesn't recognize the danger. I'm assuming he means that PED use is a lot more plausible in today's environment than gambling?
Even so, if I'm running a professional sports league I see players/managers/owners involved in gambling as one of the top threats to my business, whether such activity is prevalent in contemporary society or not.
Seriously. There's only a few leaps of faith there. Not the least of which is the continued, implicit, ridiculous assumption that anyone pitching to McGwire wasn't using.
I always understood that Jackson didn't really know what he was signing? He certainly didn't play that Series as if he was throwing it (.375/.394/.563, led all regulars in average, slugging and OPS, no errors), and there appears to be a lot of inconsistency and contradiction in the record about what Jackson did or didn't confess to, and what payment he did or did not receive. And according to Wikipedia (if it's on Wikipedia, it's gotta be true!), Jackson never attended the meetings and only confessed after being made drunk.
Nobody assumes that. A ball pitched faster will, everything else equal, go farther when it's hit. It's also tougher to hit, everything else being equal, which is a big reason strikeouts were so high in the Contrived Era.
Juiced hitters making contact less frequently, and hitting more homeruns when they do. That's the numerical story of the Contrived Era in a nutshell. Where's the surprise?
According to the Dowd Report, one of Rose's bet takers was a steroid dealer named Paul Janszen. Rose also went on trips to card-signing events with him and they also shared a home one year during Spring Training.
I don't see how Rose's gambling didn't affect any single game he was involved in.
1. Even if we believe Rose that he only bet on his team to win, the games he didn't bet on were sending a message to the gambling people he was tied to.
2. Major League Baseball is full of friendships and loyalties. I'm sure Rose had friends. Let's say he has a buddy on the Padres, who are playing against the Giants, and Pete bet on the Giants. If the Padres are out of the race, his buddy may not give his all to get to a ball in the outfield, or groove a pitch, or tip off the hitter on what's coming.
There is no way you can assume that Rose's gambling had no effect on game outcomes or individual statistics.
Joe Jackson lived many many more years. He never once said he was tricked, he never once said he didn't confess, he never once said he was innocent. The only thing I believe he has ever refuted was the "Say it ain't so, Joe" story. During Joe's life the common view was that Joe threw the games and that he confessed to throwing games. He never once came out and said he didn't throw games and that he didn't confess. He was interviewed at least several times and he never makes any kind of remark that would lead one to believe that Joe thought he was innocent or that people were telling the wrong story.
Joe got up on to the stand and admitted that he was part of the fix, that he knew how much he was supposed to get, was upset that he didn't get what was promised, knew that Cicotte hitting a batter was a signal that the fix was in, and told Chick half way through the series that he was out of the fix because he didn't get the money he was promised.
Or it could be that strikeouts have been gradually increasing every year since Babe Ruth (with one spike in the 60s). The 3 highest season K-rates are 2007, 2008 and 2009. So steroid use has continued to grow since testing was put in place?
That has no impact on actual baseball games. It might impact the gambling pattern on actual games.
Major League Baseball is full of friendships and loyalties. I'm sure Rose had friends. Let's say he has a buddy on the Padres, who are playing against the Giants, and Pete bet on the Giants. If the Padres are out of the race, his buddy may not give his all to get to a ball in the outfield, or groove a pitch, or tip off the hitter on what's coming.
If he told his friend and asked him to take a dive, he's guilty of attempting to fix games. There's no evidence of that in the Dowd Report, and no allegation of that. I'm not sure how you'd imagine a guy would tank -- a crime -- because a friend has a bet on the game. That has nothing to do with baseball personnel betting, it has to do with friend betting and tanking.
There is no way you can assume that Rose's gambling had no effect on game outcomes or individual statistics.
I didn't say "no." In reality, it had very little.
and it's not even close.
This isn't close to being true:
National League K rates:
1969: 5.98
1977: 5.40
1981: 4.92
1986: 6.01
1993: 5.88
One's left wondering whether, when it comes to steroid apologia, you even go through the motions of putting your ideas to the test before writing them.
It's worth remembering that the Black Sox didn't try to lose every game. Don't have the stats handy, but IIRC Jackson played very poorly in the games that were being thrown and much better in the ones they were trying to win. Hit less than .200 in the thrown games, I believe. Not sure about the errors, but there were an unusual number of (usually rare) triples to left, too. As noted in #33, there wasn't much doubt about Jackson's guilt at the time of the events in question.
If the fan doesn't think the game he's watching is between two teams trying their hardest he probably is less willing to spend his money on it (Though I guess pro-wrestling disputes that)
If the fan thinks players are using PEDs to improve their play...I'm not exactly sure what happens then. I haven't really researched it, but over the past 15 years or so it's been pretty obvious that something was going on (I was 14 in 1998 and my reaction to the McGwire-Andro thing was akin to my reaction to Michael Stipe officially announcing he was gay..."everyone already knows!") and as I recall fans didn't seem to mind.
I don't know if I'd dispute your claim that Rose's actions didn't effect stats as much as McGwire's. But I would adamantly argue that Rose's violated the assumption fans have of fair play far more than McGwire. I can't think of anything more antithetical to fair play than game fixing.
Yeah I was far too quick on the gun with that one. Upon actually looking at it what I said is true of the AL, not baseball as a whole.
EDIT: Actually B-Ref has NL k rates as
2009 - 7.06
2008 - 6.97
2007 - 6.73
2009 and 2008 are #1 and #2...where are you getting your numbers?
2nd EDIT: Because I'm just that dense...you were disputing the gradual increase, not the top 3 k rates of all time right? The trend is pretty simple to see if you look at B-Ref's NL or AL page.
1910s - around 3.77
1920s - 2.7 to 2.8
1930s - 3.5
1940s - 3.5
1950s - 4 to 5
1960s - 5 to 5.8
1970s - back down to around 5
1980s - 5.5 to 6
1990s - 5.9 to 6.8
2000s - 6.5 to 7
That's the general numbers in the NL. I've actually just managed to confuse myself, what precisely are you disputing again?
Ah, that's not how I meant to word that.
If Rose bet on a game, he's more likely to play/manage more intently/harder in that game than in any others. You could argue that Rose not betting on a game was similar to betting against his team in that game.
Additionally, his managing patterns would be much different. In a game he bet on, he might be more likely to ask his ace pitcher to go an extra inning or two, not caring that it will affect future games. After all, he doesn't have money on those games yet!
It's not explicitly asking someone to tank; if Pete's friend knows he has a bunch of money riding on a game, he might subconsciously "take a dive", or figure, "Why be aggressive on the basepaths here?"
Again, I don't know any of this, but you don't know the contrary, either. Just like trying to determine how steroids affected actual numbers, trying to determine how gambling affected actual numbers is a futile and pointless task, at least today.
I'd agree, if Rose fixed games. It wouldn't be close and the number of games impacted wouldn't matter. Fixing one game is worse than taking steroids for your whole career. Hell, betting on your team to lose one time is worse than taking steroids your whole career. Those weren't Rose's offenses, though; indeed, the Dowd Report, footnote 3, says "No evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Cincinnati Reds." Not "we found some, but couldn't confirm it's reliability," or "we found some, but others dispute it," -- no evidence.
haven't read through the thread, so my apologies if its been pointed out.
the only question you need to ask re jackson is did he take the money? the answer is yes.
of course his ban should stay in place, as should rose's.
That's why if it were up to me I'd hold my nose and let Rose in the HOF, but if I was an owner I wouldn't let him anywhere near my team, the clubhouse, the players etc...
My statement had a pretty strong implication that Rose fixed games, which is a mistake on my part since it wasn't really the point of my point.
What I was trying to say is that if I was running a baseball league I would be SO much more concerned about game fixing that even a hint of gambling would strike me as a graver threat to my league than PED use. What Rose did is more dangerous even if he never fixed a game, because he contributes to a popular association between MLB and gambling in the public mind. Maybe I'm biased by being a rabid anti-gambler and fairly unconcerned about PEDs, but that would be my justification for treating Rose far far far more harshly than McGwire.
This isn't close to being true
NL K/G, AL K/G, 1925-2009:
1925 2.75 2.69
1926 2.72 2.81
1927 2.83 2.75
1928 2.76 3.00
1929 2.82 2.91
1930 3.11 3.31
1931 3.13 3.27
1932 3.11 3.26
1933 2.85 3.21
1934 3.41 3.48
1935 3.30 3.23
1936 3.39 3.26
1937 3.69 3.57
1938 3.35 3.47
1939 3.41 3.51
1940 3.51 3.82
1941 3.55 3.56
1942 3.42 3.39
1943 3.27 3.65
1944 3.16 3.43
1945 3.13 3.42
1946 3.60 4.21
1947 3.65 3.72
1948 3.82 3.48
1949 3.69 3.53
1950 4.05 3.68
1951 3.82 3.72
1952 4.24 4.15
1953 4.27 3.97
1954 4.13 4.13
1955 4.40 4.37
1956 4.58 4.70
1957 4.97 4.72
1958 5.03 4.88
1959 5.26 4.92
1960 5.51 4.86
1961 5.35 5.14
1962 5.56 5.28
1963 5.88 5.71
1964 5.70 6.12
1965 5.93 5.95
1966 5.76 5.89
1967 5.84 6.14
1968 5.84 5.94
1969 5.98 5.57
1970 5.88 5.63
1971 5.42 5.39
1972 5.67 5.48
1973 5.41 5.07
1974 5.13 4.89
1975 5.04 4.93
1976 4.94 4.73
1977 5.40 4.97
1978 5.10 4.49
1979 5.11 4.48
1980 5.06 4.58
1981 4.92 4.60
1982 5.30 4.81
1983 5.52 4.83
1984 5.63 5.10
1985 5.50 5.20
1986 6.01 5.76
1987 6.00 5.93
1988 5.69 5.45
1989 5.83 5.43
1990 5.74 5.60
1991 5.90 5.71
1992 5.83 5.38
1993 5.88 5.71
1994 6.32 6.03
1995 6.61 6.00
1996 6.72 6.20
1997 6.83 6.38
1998 6.76 6.32
1999 6.64 6.14
2000 6.68 6.20
2001 6.92 6.39
2002 6.71 6.19
2003 6.56 6.08
2004 6.68 6.41
2005 6.51 6.07
2006 6.73 6.27
2007 6.73 6.50
2008 6.97 6.54
2009 7.06 6.74
The fact is that K rates have been steadily increasing in both leagues since the 1920s, despite a slight downward dip in the 1970s.
The drop in the NL between 1969-81 is around 20% -- hardly "slight." Strikeouts were lower in the NL in 1993 than in 1986. NL strikeouts were higher in 1965 than in 1993.
The second clause of your sentence utterly negates the first.
While strikeouts have increased since the 20s, it's utterly impossible to look at those time series and see a pattern of steady increase, without wanting to.
1920s - 2.74
1930s - 3.26
1940s - 3.44
1950s - 4.01
1960s - 5.69
1970s - 5.28
1980s - 5.52
1990s - 6.28
2000s - 6.69
That looks like a gradual trend to me, as I say, with a spike in the 60s. And as I also said, 2008 and 2009 are the two highest strikeout years of all time, so it's not slowing down post-testing.
The second clause of your sentence utterly negates the first.
OK, come clean, now: are you RossCW?
Offense surged in 1971
They expanded the zone in 1969 (and lowered the mound), I'm not aware of any official rule change in 1971- but I suspect that Umps resisted the new zone at first (especially in the NL) and really didn't stop calling the high strike until 1971...
But notice 1976, offense was low and so were Ks
The ball was DEAD in 1976, real mushy so to speak, pitching to contact made sense, 1977, MLB changed ball manufacturers and offense spiked
Other than the 1960s EVERY SINGLE DECADE* has increasingly more strikeouts. How is that not a pattern?
*I'm not going to do it, but I imagine if you arbitrarily end decades in some other way (1934-1943, or 1936-1945 etc.) you'd get the same result.
I don't see a gradual trend; strikeouts were lower in the 1980s than the 1960s.(**) Calling the 1960s a "spike" doesn't change that.
(**) And in the NL, were lower in 1993 -- the eve of the full-blown Contrived Era -- than in 1965.
and you would be 100% right. the owners come in for a lot of heat here and rightly so, but on this one they have their eye on the ball so to speak. and its instructive to see how much noise they are making about PEDs. not a whole lot, from what i can tell.
No, it dropped off in '71. It had surged in 1970.
They expanded the zone in 1969 (and lowered the mound), I'm not aware of any official rule change in 1971- but I suspect that Umps resisted the new zone at first (especially in the NL) and really didn't stop calling the high strike until 1971...
No, I was there, and nothing like that went on. Umps called the new zone right away, and the impact (along with the lowered mound) was dramatic in 1969. However, the impact was delivered in the form of increases in hits, HRs, and walks, and not in a decrease in Ks.
But notice 1976, offense was low and so were Ks
The ball was DEAD in 1976, real mushy so to speak, pitching to contact made sense, 1977, MLB changed ball manufacturers and offense spiked
MLB switched ball manufacturers (or the manufacturer switched manufacturing sites, I can't remember which) in 1974, and the result was a very noticeably less resilient ball in use in 1974-75-76. Power numbers were way down, and the ball was widely seen as the culprit. The manufacturing process/site was restored in 1977, resulting in the good ol' fashioned live ball again.
Come on ... it is you, isn't it, Ross?
Actually if you graph it, it does look like steady increase-
Actually 1925 to 2009 is pretty smooth line- except- 1960s increase in Ks accelerates (hint- they were monkeying with the strike zone and letting teams jack up the mound)
Then in 1970s Ks drop (hint, they shrunk both the mound and the strike zone- then added the DH)
Absent rule changes it looks like a slow and steady increase in Ks is the prevailing trend
Then in 1970s Ks drop (hint, they shrunk both the mound and the strike zone- then added the DH)
Absent rule changes it looks like a slow and steady increase in Ks is the prevailing trend
Absolutely, positively right.
Interesting point. I would hate, hate, hate to be watching a staged or fixed event (let alone to be betting on it). However, it was pretty obvious that McGwire was starting to hit home runs at a giddy rate. You can dislike that aesthetically, but the effects are still happening pretty obviously in front of you.
BAseball switched from Spalding to Rawlings in 1977
Ok I got you on one.
also here
OK, and Spalding had switched its manufacturing site to Haiti beginning in 1974. The deadened ball in 1974-75-76 was widely noted and commented upon at the time.
EDIT: I wrote an article exploring this subject:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/enlivening-the-mid-1970s-part-one/
The thing is I DO dislike it aesthetically and I'd like it to change, and that's why I'm so adamant that PEDs not be treated like the sole cause of the nature of baseball of the past 15 years.
Everything from bat specifications, the balls, stadium size, batter's ownership of the inside part of the plate contribute to what baseball is today. The idea that if we get rid of PEDs baseball will return to the perfect game it was is a wild goose chase. I don't know how much of an effect PEDs had, no one does really, but I think all the people who think getting rid of them will significantly alter the game may be in for a surprise, there's just too much else going on as well.
Insofar as it goes, which isn't very far. It's like the conclusion that the stock market has "steadily increased" over time even though it took until 1954 to get back to where it was at the peak in 1929.
There's a big difference between describing something in a way that isn't wrong, and describing it thoroughly. Strikeouts in the National League were lower in 1993 than they were in 1965. The only reason to ignore that is to serve a pre-existing conclusion.
Ok I got you on one.
Prior to that, when did Spalding start making the American League ball instead of Reach? I could look this one up myself but I'm too lazy.
Most certainly. And this has been vividly demonstrated by the fact that since the testing-and-penalties-with-teeth protocols were enacted in 2006, the nature of HR rates/scoring etc. have hardly budged. There are only two possible explanations for this: (a) the testing regime is easily beaten, and thus worthless, or (b) PEDs have virtually no net impact on HR rates/scoring (which could well be explained by pitchers gaining just as much value from them as hitters).
There's a big difference between describing something in a way that isn't wrong, and describing it thoroughly. Strikeouts in the National League were lower in 1993 than they were in 1965. The only reason to ignore that is to serve a pre-existing conclusion.
There's our RossCW! You gotta be him.
At the same time McGwire is denying the reason, which he did to SI in 1998 just after the andro story broke.
Meanwhile, Rose, while not betting against the Reds, tips off his creditors to the fact that Reds probably aren't going to win certain games. The bookies make their money back on those games thanks to Rose's "favors".
He never bet against his team. But give me the proof that he never financially benefited from the Reds losing. Quite frankly, he could have bet the same amount on every Reds game ever played, and you still wouldn't be able to prove that he didn't fix games here and there when he needed someone else to make a lot of money. For me, THAT'S why what Rose did raises enough doubts to keep him out of the game forever.
The increase from the 1970s to 1980s hasn't been addressed. It is admittedly a comparatively small increase, but the fact that the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s all saw similar increases suggest a trend. What is behind those increases? Or do you consider them just random fluctuations that all happen to be upward?
This does leave the fact that the 1990s increase was the largest since the 1960s, which certainly leaves room for your assertion that PEDs caused an increase in the strikeout rate (or rather, a speeding up of what was already happening). I would argue that the other factors I mentioned in my previous post also helped out, how much of an effect each of these individual factors had, who knows.
For starters they simply ignored the age of the baseballs and assumed that all the balls were stored exactly the same or as close to it. They assumed that a 40+ year old baseball core would have suffer from no ill effects from that aging and that a two year ball would be in the exact same condition as that 40+ year old ball.
When somebody actually looked at a lof baseballs from a single season (1999-2000) what they discovered is that the baseballs are within spec but at the high range of that spec. What my view is is that as we move forward the ability to make a consistent ball has gotten better and better so that as we move back in time what we see is increase in range of performance out of baseballs. We have old time pitchers (even the 70's era pitchers) talking about selecting and discarding baseballs until they found ones with loose covers and so forth and that how nowadays that simply isn't possible.
Secondly in your link they state that you should believe the URI studies over the UMass studies because MLB funded the study. Yet when you talk to Dennis Hilliard he'll tell you that he finds no fault with the UMass findings.
The Spalding and Reach ball were the same ball but with a different logo on it from somewhere around the 1910 or so. I forget exactly when.
I'd add the "Mark Reynolds" factor
I have no proof for this, but I believe that in the past the odds of someone like Reynolds getting CHANCE to play in the MLB were a lot lower than now, basically, Mark Reynolds 1975 gets stuck in AAA, the assumption being that with his Ks MLB pitchers would eat him alive, and his AAA homers are due to AAA pitchers being unable to throw curveballs for strikes...
I only linked it to buttress the 1977 date that manufacturers changed.
I agree that the URI study's methodology was crap
Oh, there's no question that league-wide K rates (and HR rates, and all other rates) are, as well as being a function of conditions, are also a function of the type of player that teams are willing to play in the regular lineup. This function is part of the explanation for the dip in Ks (and the dip in HRs) that took place in the 1970s: with the great increase in artificial turf, teams put speedy slap-hitters without power into their lineups at a greater rate than before or since.
The sudden across-the-board increase in power stats across both leagues can scarcely be explained by anything other than a more resilient ball. All of the other things (the parks, the strike zone, the bats, weight-trained hitters (with or without steroids), etc. etc.) still applied of course, but none of those things can explain a sudden league-wide shift.
A "gradual increase since the 1920's" does not mean that every year set a new record.
Tim Donaghy, anyone?
Someone mentioned that Dowd found no evidence that Rose bet against the Reds. However, Dowd has since stated that he did have some evidence that Rose bet against the Reds, but that it wasn't of the level of quality that he required to include information in his report. He also claims that Rose never bet on the Reds to win when Mario Soto was pitching.
Someone also suggested Rose may have used steroids, because he associated with a known steroids dealer. There's an ESPN story where Larry Starr gave some interviews, and the essence is that the Reds had an outfideler who gained 30 pounds of muscle, and Rose told the guy to tell the newspapermen at his locked "what steroids can do for you" but that Rose figured he was too old to gain much from it himself by the time he realized that steroids might help a ballplayer. Decide what you will, but if the story's accurate, Rose condoned steroid use in his clubhouse, but didn't do them himself.
That's utterly at odds with what he wrote in his report. "No evidence" is fundamentally different than "evidence that didn't meet our standards" or silence one way or the other, which was also an option. Dowd knows the difference in the words and there's no reason to believe his claims -- assuming he actually said that and not something particular factions are interpreting as that.
No, but when K rates are lower in 1993 than 1965, attributing post-1993 rises to general trends over time is beyond silly.
Only if you're an intellectually dishonest cherrypicking troll engaging in "gotcha" games.
The modus operandi of one RossCW, to a T. I'm just sayin'.
Just caught up. I noticed you keep saying this like it proves something. The NL K rates are higher in 1993 than 1964 or 1966. My statement, like yours, proves or disproves nothing of the statement of "K rate generally trending upward since the 20's"
I have come to the conclusion that SBB is bad at math.
I would say that "steady" or "gradual" increase != "monotonic" increase, but I suspect that wouldn't help the situation.
In the 1960's, the gradual increase in strikeout occurrence was accelerated to a spike to 6 per game, caused in part by the increase in the size of the strike zone being called, and the higher mounds.
The strike zone was shrunk, the mounds were lowered, and strike-outs quickly went back to the pre-1963 norm. Then, with the increase in the number of artificial turf stadiums, there was a negative spike, as teams went with slap hitters and contact hitters to take advantage of those conditions.
Then, around 1982-83, you start to see the upward trend re-assert itself.
This simply isn't true. A man with a bet on today's game may use a pitcher differently than one who is thinking for the long-term. That's just one example of how betting on your own team to win can affect the outcome of games over. There are lots.
Fully agreed, although I would say that there was a little hyper-increase in the frequency occurring in the mid-to-late 1950s. This was likely a function of the dramatic increase in the frequency of night games that was taking place in that era (and the lighting systems in most stadiums in those days were pretty bad, rendering visibility a lot poorer than in day games), as well as the greater sophistication of the usage of bullpens, as well as the increasing population of players in the majors born and raised entirely in the 1920s/30s, with no institutional memory of the deadball era and its manner of hitting. The change in the style of play in MLB from the beginning to the end of the 1950s was quite dramatic; it's a decade we tend to regard as static, but the truth is it was far from it.
Then, around 1982-83, you start to see the upward trend re-assert itself.
Strikeouts in the National League were lower in 1993 than in 1969, the first year the mound was lowered and the same as in 1970, the second year the mound was lowered.
If there was a negative spike after 1968 because of conditions, there was a positive spike after 1993 because of conditions, as steroid use multiplied and teams/players were more apt to accept strikeouts, given the perceived (and actual) likelihood they'd be paid back with more HRs. HRs increased 28% in the National League between 1993 and 2004. (All numbers are per game rates, of course. BB-ref is the source.) The idea that conditions impact strikeouts is entirely consistent with the theory that the steroid era approaches and conditions impacted strikeouts and, more to the point, if conditions impact rates, that means things other than time impact rates -- exactly what I said.
Most definitely. Although if one requires a graph to detect the trend indicated by the columns of numbers in #46, well, I guess one might be "bad at math." :-)
See "gradualism" in evolution as opposed to Punk Eek.
McCoy, or Srul... Is this the memo that Fay Vincent retracted or amended? Do you have the retraction?
If Mac would just hold "a full news conference," then I promise I'll forgive him and stop writing these piling-on articles.
(Mac holds news conference. "But wait, it wasn't a full news conference. There were only 85 writers there and it only lasted 7 hours and he only answered 124 questions and he only called on me 7 times and...and...and....)
Even if it were circulated doesn't it require approval by the MLBPA before becoming a rule?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main