Posted By:
jay behrensSome interesting tidbits from a SABR-l post:
I know it's early in the season and things may settle down, but there are more
(1) Runs/Game this year than last: 10.32 vs. 9.18 (increase of 12%)
(2) HRs/G: 2.45 vs. 2.06 (+19%)
(3) HRs/ABs: 0.036 vs. 0.030 (+20%)
And although there're also small increases in
(4) BA: .2694 vs. .2645 (+2%)
(5) OBP: .338 vs. .330 (+2%)
(6) SLG: .4442 vs. .4189 (+6%)
there's a big increase in
(7) ISP: .175 vs. .154 (14%)
And there's a decrease in
(8) Runs/HR: 4.213 vs. 4.450 (-5%)
(9) Hits/HR: 8.768 vs. 7.522 (-14%)
All of these data point to a greater number and greater influence of HRs this year than last year (and most previous years, too).
So if MLB's new policy on steroids testing has truly eradicated steroids from the game, then these data seem like an indictment of pitchers having used them more than hitters (assuming, of course, that steroids affect performance).
Does this mean that asterisks should accompany HR records set by hitters during the steroids era indicating that the hitters had their totals artificially suppressed by the use of steroids by pitchers?
JP Caillault
I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.