What's happened to the .300 hitter?

[t206hound]

I was looking at the stats today (I think to check out Cabrera's info) and was shocked that there are only 24 players batting .300 or higher. Twenty-four! That's horrific.

The average number of .300 hitters over the past four seasons is 25; for the previous 10 seasons (2000-2009) there were 40 .300 hitters per year.

When you look at .310 it's even worse: 12 over the last 4 years vs 22 in the decade prior.

What's up with hitting these days?

[honus94566]

I think it's just better pitching.

[D. Bergin]

Not only better pitching, more specialized pitching.

Less guys on the juice, is an obvious correlation.

Some ballparks have actually moved their fences out, as opposed to everybody moving their fences in a decade and more ago. Colorado is no longer the hitting wonderland it used to be, because of adjustments they've made in the last decade.

Infields are much improved from a defensive standpoint. Astroturf is a much better quality and more forgiving then it used to be, so you don't get the ball bouncing like a superball across the infield like you used to in Minnesota, St. Louis, Kansas City and other places.

Defensive alignments. Defensive metrics have made huge strides in the last 5 years or so, and regular pull hitters who used to regularly bat .300 or close to it are seeing their batting averages plummet as they are lining into perfectly aligned fielders.

[drcy]

Wrong kind of steroids.

[honus94566]

I'd be interested in seeing the statistic for average runs scored per game (entire MLB average), compared season to season. Would be interesting to see how average runs per game have gone up or down over the past few decades.

[TUM301]

Another reason #`s are way down ,especially power, that might go hand in hand with the juice is I think MLB is testing for amphetamines. Lets face it players are still only human and a guy that`s playing say 16 17 days in a row sometimes more has got to be "off" maybe twice a week. In the old days "mother`s little helper" was around like candy while today not so much. Even being a little tired against most pitchers is a huge disadvantage. My 2 cents

[novakjr]

Let's not overreact here. Just off the top of my head, 1968 came to mind...

Here's '68s MLB batting leaders..

1. Rose (CIN) .335
2. Alou (PIT) .332
3. Alou (ATL) .317
4. Johnson (CIN) .312
5. Flood (STL) .301
6. Yastrzemski (BOS) .301
7. Jones (NYM) .297

Yes, only a grand total of SIX... And YES again, you are seeing that correctly, Yaz was the ONLY AL hitter to bat .300

[barrysloate]

I've also noticed there a fewer .300 hitters this year, but it's not an alarming drop, just a statistical blip. Strikeouts are up, so averages will go down.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Let's not overreact here. Just off the top of my head, 1968 came to mind...

Here's '68s MLB batting leaders..

1. Rose (CIN) .335
2. Alou (PIT) .332
3. Alou (ATL) .317
4. Johnson (CIN) .312
5. Flood (STL) .301
6. Yastrzemski (BOS) .301
7. Jones (NYM) .297

Yes, only a grand total of SIX... And YES again, you are seeing that correctly, Yaz was the ONLY AL hitter to bat .300

So are you proposing lowering the mound again like they did after '68?

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

So are you proposing lowering the mound again like they did after '68?

I think we could kill 2 birds with one stone, by lowering the mound to 6 1/2 feet below ground level. It would increase the offense, and also protect the pitchers from comebackers