BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Newsweek: Starr: The Benching of Barry Bonds

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Newsweek: Starr: The Benching of Barry Bonds

Starr: Jaundiced liver pool-8 - MLB-7.

Back in 2000 the average team hit a whopping 190 home runs. In 2006 teams still averaged 180. Last year that total dipped to 165, and this season, if the current pace continues, the average will be 147—with four teams hitting fewer than 100 homers. But it’s not just home runs that are diminishing; it’s all kinds of hits. While hitters tend to heat up along with the weather, the average team batting average in the American League is currently just .256 and in the National League .258. That is a decline of 14 and 8 points, respectively. Which helps explain why Monday night, in the five A.L. games on the slate, just 27 runs were scored, or three fewer than the Texas Rangers put on the board in their best outing last season.

Personally, I have been enjoying this new beginning, the start of the post-Bonds-and-Clemens era. Major League Baseball is proving once again to be every bit as unpredictable as the NFL. Putative contenders like the Mets, Yankees, Indians, Braves, Tigers, Rockies and Padres have been somewhere between disappointing and disastrous, while teams like the Marlins, Orioles, Rays and Twins that were expected to trail the pack are off to respectable starts. (And everyone should appreciate the healthy effect of the Torre tonic on the Dodgers.) Coming off the most wretched off-season of the modern era, baseball is enjoying a remarkably promising year. Why would anybody want to swallow a poison pill right in the middle of it?

Repoz Posted: May 08, 2008 at 06:23 PM | 17 comment(s) | Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, Special Topics, Steroids

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.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Dock Ellis on Acid

Posted: May 08, 2008 at 06:45 PM (#2773946)

How was the Frank Catalanotto signing a disaster/major disappointment? And how can Jose Guillen's contract be called "perfectly good?"

2. kubiwan Posted: May 08, 2008 at 06:45 PM (#2773947)

the start of the post-Bonds-and-Clemens era

Is his thesis really: we got 'roids out of baseball. Getting hitters off 'roids reduced offense. Getting pitchers off 'roids also reduced offense.

3. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: May 08, 2008 at 06:56 PM (#2773964)

How was the Frank Catalanotto signing a disaster/major disappointment?

Beats me. Cats will never be confused with Honus Wagner, but he can play outfield and first base, has always been a decent major-league hitter, and gives a team a left-handed PH / platoon-DH option. He makes $4M a year, but jeez, this is the 21st century; reliable veterans just make that kind of money.

4. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: May 08, 2008 at 08:41 PM (#2774095)

while teams like the Marlins, Orioles, Rays and Twins that were expected to trail the pack are off to respectable starts.

Man, no love for the A's. We're tied for the best record in the AL, and it's the Twins and Orioles who are off to the respectable starts?

5. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: May 08, 2008 at 08:46 PM (#2774100)

Steroids or no, I like the fact that the games have been lower-scoring thus far. It's been more interesting to watch.

6. cardsfanboy

Posted: May 08, 2008 at 08:47 PM (#2774101)

Man, no love for the A's. We're tied for the best record in the AL, and it's the Twins and Orioles who are off to the respectable starts?

I don't think anyone projected the a's to trail the division, pretty sure Texas was the consensus pick there.

7. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: May 08, 2008 at 08:50 PM (#2774104)

I don't think anyone projected the a's to trail the division, pretty sure Texas was the consensus pick there.

And most people thought that the Twins would finish ahead of the Royals, anyway.

I'd say that the A's being 22-14 is more surprising than the Orioles being 16-18.

8. A triple short of the cycle

Posted: May 08, 2008 at 09:01 PM (#2774117)

I don't think anyone projected the a's to trail the division, pretty sure Texas was the consensus pick there.

Except for the brilliant minds at the SF Chronicle

9. A triple short of the cycle

Posted: May 08, 2008 at 09:09 PM (#2774120)

And while there are few unions harder to embrace than the baseball players', a union that views its members' welfare strictly in dollar signs

Well the Union is investigating the possibility of collusion, an issue that encompasses more that strictly money. The Union has also stood up for its members' constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure (arbitrary drug testing).

Why would any owner want to sign a gimpy ballplayer who will turn 44 this summer, whose skills are declining—he hit .248 after the All-Star break last season—and who is widely regarded as a cancer in the clubhouse?

170 OPS+ in 477 PAs in pitchers' park

10. cardsfanboy

Posted: May 08, 2008 at 09:17 PM (#2774123)

I'd say that the A's being 22-14 is more surprising than the Orioles being 16-18.

I agree, just like I agree about the Cardinals with their 22-14 record, but outside of the Twins, the teams they listed were teams that are bad year in, year out and were projected to continue being bad again. I thought nearly everyone had the A's at around .500 record, the Orioles were projected as hands down one of the three worse teams in baseball (with Pirates and Giants) The Twins listing is in my opinion the odd one, not really sure why they get put on a list like that.

11. Walt Davis Posted: May 08, 2008 at 09:18 PM (#2774124)

Steroids or no, I like the fact that the games have been lower-scoring thus far. It's been more interesting to watch.

That's one I just don't get. Scoring in the NL is down .1 r/g (per team so I suppose .2 r/g overall). You really notice the difference in the game when the teams combine for 1 fewer run every 5 games? NL scoring was lower in 2005 and nearly the same in 2004. True, in the AL, scoring is down .5 r/g per team (apparently all the steroid users were in the AL ... and only the Red Sox have held onto theirs :-). You're seeing about 1 fewer HR every 3-3.5 games in the AL -- do you really notice? Still, are 4-2 games that much more exciting than 4.5 to 2.5 games? And this year's AL is scoring at about the rate as the 2005 NL -- see how much excitement you AL fans have been missing! Most of that is probably Tony Pena's fault -- it's one thing if you can't outhit Micah Owings but I'm not sure he can outhit Micah Bowie. :-)

12. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: May 08, 2008 at 09:27 PM (#2774131)

Still, are 4-2 games that much more exciting than 4.5 to 2.5 games?

That's not really how increased offense gets distributed. When offense goes up, you see a lot more 13-7 games, and no, I don't like that.

13. Elston Gunn Posted: May 08, 2008 at 10:55 PM (#2774197)

Jaundiced liver pool-8 - MLB-7.

Well, Jaundiced Liverpool sadly lost in the Champions League semis.

14. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 08, 2008 at 11:24 PM (#2774212)

Yellow bastards.

15. Greg (U)K Posted: May 08, 2008 at 11:47 PM (#2774226)

Or when you're a Jays fan you REALLY notice the lower scoring games

16. Chip Posted: May 09, 2008 at 12:05 AM (#2774237)

Isn't April scoring generally lower than the season-long average? I seem to recall similar claims early every year since they started testing, about the beautiful return of little ball. By mid-season, the numbers had moved back up.

17. Kiko Sakata

Posted: May 09, 2008 at 12:30 AM (#2774267)

Isn't April scoring generally lower than the season-long average?

Yes. For example, in 2007, for the major-leagues as a whole, batters hit .256 and teams scored 4.54 runs per game thru the end of April. So far this year, batters are hitting .258 and teams are scoring 4.52 runs per game. The difference is eye-popping!

edit: and home runs are down from 0.92 per game in March/April, 2007, to 0.91 per game this year. It's like it's a different sport!

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Newsweek: Starr: The Benching of Barry Bonds

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics