Define the Eras: Hitting or Pitching

[Brian McKenna]

define the eras in baseball history for me - this is for both the statistician and the historian

don't leave any year out 1876-today - don't just say 1880s or 90s etc. that doesn't mean anything - give exact years - we basically know that the dead ball era was a pitchers era but what are the specific years of flucuation since 1876? - were there any years that weren't specifically pitcher or hitter dominant?

example (completely w/o thought or basis):
1876-1892 pitching
1893-1900 hitting
1901-1919 pitching
1920-1942 hitting
1943-1948 pitching
1949 neutral, etc.

[RuthMayBond]

Without breaking down every single year or trying to figure which was neutral

1876-1894 hitting
1895-1908 pitching
1909-1930 hitting
1931-1938 pitching only for NL
1939-1946 pitching for both
1947-1950 hitting
1951-1968 pitching
1969 to date hitting

[Captain Cold Nose]

Without breaking down every single year or trying to figure which was neutral

1876-1894 hitting
1895-1908 pitching
1909-1930 hitting
1931-1938 pitching only for NL
1939-1946 pitching for both
1947-1950 hitting
1951-1968 pitching
1969 to date hitting
Since yours is probably the overall scholarly opinion that matches my pedestrian one the most, (outside of the whole peak thing) I'm curious as to why you have the current hitters era going so far back. I personally think it took a few years for the hitters to catch up with the pitchers after the lowering of the mound in 1968.

[leecemark]

--RMB, the hitters had the best of it for all the 1890s. Hitters had the edge in the 1950s. Pitchers ruled through the 1970s and the 1980s were pretty nuetral. The current hitters era didn't get underway until the early 90s.

[Brian McKenna]

the mound was pushed back beginning in 1893 - did that change anything

outrageous pitching stats put up in the 1880s and 1910s - unsure how they could be hitter's eras

[RuthMayBond]

the mound was pushed back beginning in 1893 - did that change anythingNot right away, but hitting cooled off after 1894

<outrageous pitching stats put up in the 1880s and 1910s - unsure how they could be hitter's eras>

You mean like a league ERA of 6.08 in 1887, and that's just EARNED runs.
And 1911 and 1912 weren't bad. I basically start an era when the trend starts to reverse itself. I just haven't evaluated year-by-year

[Brian McKenna]

Not right away, but hitting cooled off after 1894

<outrageous pitching stats put up in the 1880s and 1910s - unsure how they could be hitter's eras>

You mean like a league ERA of 6.08 in 1887, and that's just EARNED runs.
And 1911 and 1912 weren't bad. I basically start an era when the trend starts to reverse itself. I just haven't evaluated year-by-year

yeah, i see what you're saying - i't hard to flat out classify a year - but it is hard to see incredible pitching numbers put up by hoss radbourne and a host of others and later mathewson, alexander, johnson and others during the teens and consider them hitter's eras - if they were actually hitter's eras - then those men must have come from mt. olympus

[Ubiquitous]

The 50's wasn't a pitchers era nor the first part of the 60's.
Nor would I call anything pre 1900's as a pitchers era. Way too primitive of a game.

[85cards]

1900-1919 pitchers
1920-1940 hitters
1941-1960 average
1961-1968 pitchers
1969-1993 average
1994-2004 hitters
2005-????

[RuthMayBond]

1900-1919 pitchers
1920-1940 hitters
1941-1960 average
1961-1968 pitchers
1969-1993 average
1994-2004 hitters
2005-????Both 1943 and 1950 were average? 1901 was pitcher but 1943 was average?

[538280]

outrageous pitching stats put up in the 1880s and 1910s - unsure how they could be hitter's eras

In the 1870s and 1880s most teams didn't have more than three to five pitchers (some had only one), and that caused the out of this world IP totals. That doesn't mean the pitchers were successful though. They pitched lots of innings, but not at a high level of effectiveness. Of course, until the 1890s it is completely unclear how good the pitchers were because they often pitched underhand and were asked to put the ball where the hitters wanted it. Defense back then was probably like 75% fielding and 25% pitching as opposed to the other way around today.

[plask_stirlac]

Just off my head. Maybe a little off.
1870s-1890 Pitching
1891-1904 Hitting
1908-1919 Pitching
1920-1941 Hitting
WWII - Pitching?
1946-1962 Hitting
1963-1986 Pitching... seriously. Definitely the 70's.
1987 Hitting, with good pitching
1988-1992 Pitching
1993-present Hitting

[Brian McKenna]

bill james analysis:

1876-77 normal era
1878-80 pitcher era (slightly weighted as such)
1881-86 normal or transition era
1887-97 hitters era (heavily weighted)
1898-02 normal or transitional era
1903-19 pitchers era (heavily weighted)
1920-28 transition era
1929-39 hitters era (moderately weighted)
1940-62 normal era
1963-72 pitchers era (moderately weighted)
1973-93 normal era
1994-05 hitters era (moderately weighted)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

bill james analysis:

1876-77 normal era
1878-80 pitcher era (slightly weighted as such)
1881-86 normal or transition era
1887-97 hitters era (heavily weighted)
1898-02 normal or transitional era
1903-19 pitchers era (heavily weighted)
1920-28 transition era
1929-39 hitters era (moderately weighted)
1940-62 normal era
1963-72 pitchers era (moderately weighted)
1973-93 normal era
1994-05 hitters era (moderately weighted)

I agree that '20-'28 was not a hitters era, but what does he mean by "transition era?" That the actual style of the game changed throughout the era, so he can't place a definate label on it?

[RuthMayBond]

I agree that '20-'28 was not a hitters era, but what does he mean by "transition era?" That the actual style of the game changed throughout the era, so he can't place a definate label on it?
NL, 1922, 23, 25, 28...actually had significantly higher scoring than 1933
AL, at least 1921, 25 had slightly higher scoring than 1929

[538280]

I agree that '20-'28 was not a hitters era, but what does he mean by "transition era?" That the actual style of the game changed throughout the era, so he can't place a definate label on it?

How were the 20s not a hitter's era? Batting averages were through the roof, there was good power hitting, all offensive levels were high. The game may have been in trasition, but it was towards favoring the hitters to favoring them even more. the 1920s (particularly in the later part of the decade) were one of the highest run scoring times of all time. To call it not a hitters era IMO is ludicrous.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

How were the 20s not a hitter's era? Batting averages were through the roof, there was good power hitting, all offensive levels were high. The game may have been in trasition, but it was towards favoring the hitters to favoring them even more. the 1920s (particularly in the later part of the decade) were one of the highest run scoring times of all time. To call it not a hitters era IMO is ludicrous.

Understandable Chris. Doesn't it depend on what you're comparing it to? Was it a hitters era compared to this era? Probably not. It was a rare period in baseball because of the rule changes that favored offense, and batting averages were high mostly because of the large outfields and style of hitting. Actual homeruns and SA weren't that high though, and the increase in the late 20's is largely due to the NL just being out of control.

MAJORS

YEAR - HR/G - SA

1920 - .25 - .372
1921 - .38 - .402
1922 - .42 - .401
1923 - .39 - .391
1924 - .36 - .394
1925 - .47 - .411
1926 - .34 - .389 <<<< Introduced cushioned cork center
1927 - .37 - .392
1928 - .44 - .397
1929 - .54 - .416

A few years for comparison.

1995 - 1.01 - .417
1996 - 1.09 - .426
1997 - 1.02 - .419
1998 - 1.04 - .421

[538280]

Understandable Chris. Doesn't it depend on what you're comparing it to? Was it a hitters era compared to this era? Probably not. It was a rare period in baseball because of the rule changes that favored offense, and batting averages were high mostly because of the large outfields and style of hitting. Actual homeruns and SA weren't that high though, and the increase in the late 20's is largely due to the NL just being out of control.

MAJORS

YEAR - HR/G - SA

1920 - .25 - .372
1921 - .38 - .402
1922 - .42 - .401
1923 - .39 - .391
1924 - .36 - .394
1925 - .47 - .411
1926 - .34 - .389 <<<< Introduced cushioned cork center
1927 - .37 - .392
1928 - .44 - .397
1929 - .54 - .416

A few years for comparison.

1995 - 1.01 - .417
1996 - 1.09 - .426
1997 - 1.02 - .419
1998 - 1.04 - .421

Sultan, the modern era is better for home runs/slugging, but in overall run scoring it's actually behind the 1920s:

Runs Per Game, 1920s NL
1920-3.97
1921-4.59
1922-5.00
1923-4.85
1924-4.54
1925-5.06
1926-4.54
1927-4.58
1928-4.70
1929-5.36

Runs Per Game, 1995-2005 NL
1995-4.63
1996-4.68
1997-4.60
1998-4.60
1999-5.00
2000-5.00
2001-4.70
2002-4.45
2003-4.61
2004-4.64
2005-4.45

Really hardly any difference, probably just favoring the 1920s. If you're going to call the modern era a hitter's era (which everyone does), then it doesn't make any sense to say the same about the 1920s.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sultan, the modern era is better for home runs/slugging, but in overall run scoring it's actually behind the 1920s:

Runs Per Game, 1920s NL
1920-3.97
1921-4.59
1922-5.00
1923-4.85
1924-4.54
1925-5.06
1926-4.54
1927-4.58
1928-4.70
1929-5.36

Runs Per Game, 1995-2005 NL
1995-4.63
1996-4.68
1997-4.60
1998-4.60
1999-5.00
2000-5.00
2001-4.70
2002-4.45
2003-4.61
2004-4.64
2005-4.45

Really hardly any difference, probably just favoring the 1920s. If you're going to call the modern era a hitter's era (which everyone does), then it doesn't make any sense to say the same about the 1920s.

Not sure it makes much sense to go by R/G without finding out how those runs were scored. Were they scored because more balls were being put into play in larger outfields? Were stolen bases more common, did the small gloves play a part, were baserunners more aggressive? More needs to go into it than just raw R/G numbers. For slugging, this era is head and shoulders above any other era.

I have no problem calling '20-'28 a hitters era, but only in relation to the decades before. In a straight up comparison to today's game, the '20's look like a deadball decade in terms of slugging.

[leecemark]

--Plus it wouldn't make sense to call only one era a hitters era with the rest nuetral or pitchers. The 20s favored average over power, but was just as offensive. BAs from the 20s/30s need to be taken with the same dose of salt as HR totals form the 90s/present.

[leecemark]

--Sultan, You need to get past your obsession with HR totals. There is more than one way to score runs. BTW, teams were NOT stealing more bases in the 20s than the 90s. They were scoring more runs because they were getting more hits.
--Does it really matter WHY the BAs (and triples) were up so much while HR were lower. The bigger parks were condusive to that kind of hitting, while the smaller ones today are more condusive to the HR. Hitters are going to go with what works and the end result was the same in both cases.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Plus it wouldn't make sense to call only one era a hitters era with the rest nuetral or pitchers. The 20s favored average over power, but was just as offensive. BAs from the 20s/30s need to be taken with the same dose of salt as HR totals form the 90s/present.

Right. The HR/G today is around three times what it was in the '20's, but the league BA in the '20's is only like 15 points higher than today's. Only about a hit a week difference, if that.

Then maybe next to each, you should put Hitting/average next to the 20's. And next to the '90's put Hitting/Slugging

[leecemark]

--A hit a week per player maybe. That is alot of hits per game. Also, while the HR rate has gone up significantly, the extra base hit rate has not gone up nearly as much. Run scoring was achieved by different methods in the 20s, but the end results was about the same (slightly higher in the 20s). You just aren't getting the big picture. Hitters era and HR era are not the same thing.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--A hit a week per player maybe. That is alot of hits per game. Also, while the HR rate has gone up significantly, the extra base hit rate has not gone up nearly as much. Run scoring was achieved by different methods in the 20s, but the end results was about the same (slightly higher in the 20s). You just aren't getting the big picture. Hitters era and HR era are not the same thing.

I stated that earlier when Chris brought up the R/G thing. That runs were scored in the '20's in many different ways, and mostly due to the hitters approach and ballpark sizes which both lead to a higher batting average. And like you said, the larger outfields lead to more extra base hits as well. Couple that with the smaller gloves, the lack of proper scouting in terms of fielders placement, more aggressive baserunners, and you have a high R/G number.

When people were putting down "hitting" for the '20's I just wanted to make it clear that it wasn't "slugging" by any means, but hitting. This era could be both a hitting and slugging era if hitters took a different approach, but they don't. They choose to swing from their arse with 2 strikes. I was saying all along that a hitters era and a HR era aren't the same thing, so I do get the big picture Mark.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--Plus it wouldn't make sense to call only one era a hitters era with the rest nuetral or pitchers. The 20s favored average over power, but was just as offensive. BAs from the 20s/30s need to be taken with the same dose of salt as HR totals form the 90s/present.


Go light on the salt on the 1920s. One of the reasons for much of the high scoring was hitters going to the plate with one thought in mind, make contact, hitters shortening up on the bat with two strikes. It's not all that hitters had their way much of it had to do with it being contact baseball at the time.

I don't dismiss the changes in 1920, the ball, banning trick deliveries and replacing dirty scuffed up balls with new clean balls.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The hitters of the 1990s are not doing bad at all, it's not just home runs. The NL batting average from 1990-1999 was .261. The NL batting average in the previous decade 1980-1989 was .254. Going seven points higher in one decade is a fair leap considering there were no major rule changes. Especially when you consider ther are probably more hitters in the 1990s going for the long ball. I'm sure the words expansion will appear, the ball, the strike zone, all to be considered but all that doesn't change the fact, seven points in a decade is a fair leap.

NL batting average.
1960-69----.254
1970-79----.258
1980-89----.254
1990-99----.261

I used the NL since I went back to the 1960s and it was an easier comparison than the AL over that period with the DH coming into baseball during that period.

Batting average of DH only
1980-89-------.263
1990-99-------.272

The 1990s hitters have more than home runs going their way in the 1990s.

[538280]

I stated that earlier when Chris brought up the R/G thing. That runs were scored in the '20's in many different ways, and mostly due to the hitters approach and ballpark sizes which both lead to a higher batting average. And like you said, the larger outfields lead to more extra base hits as well. Couple that with the smaller gloves, the lack of proper scouting in terms of fielders placement, more aggressive baserunners, and you have a high R/G number.


So, Sultan, do you now realize the 20s were a hitters' era? They weren't a trasition era of anything else, they were certainly a hitters' era.

The part of the picture you're missing is how to determine whether an era favors the pitchers or the hitters. It doesn't matter why hitters or pitchers are doing better, just that they are. You don't really have to look past runs per game for this. Find the historical average of runs/game, and compare each league to that average. If you're over it, hitters' era. If you're under it, pitchers' era. Really as simple as that.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So, Sultan, do you now realize the 20s were a hitters' era? They weren't a trasition era of anything else, they were certainly a hitters' era.

The part of the picture you're missing is how to determine whether an era favors the pitchers or the hitters. It doesn't matter why hitters or pitchers are doing better, just that they are. You don't really have to look past runs per game for this. Find the historical average of runs/game, and compare each league to that average. If you're over it, hitters' era. If you're under it, pitchers' era. Really as simple as that.

If you want to throw a blanket statement out, then sure, the '20's was a hitters era. If you want to define it a bit more, you could try to understand why it was a hitters era, and you'd find out that it wasn't a sluggers hitting era. The batting average was a bit higher because of hitters approach, rule changes, field size, etc. Today's game is not only a hitters era, but a sluggers era for everyone including middle infielders. Three times the number of dongs/game is quite a big difference don't you think.

[leecemark]

--We are not comparing the 20s to the 90s so much as we are to all of baseball history. It was a decade very tilted in favor of batters. Batters approach, at least early in the decade, was the same as it had been in the previous one but the level of batting success was much higher - because conditions favored hitters.
--The 1890s were an even more explosive offensive decade than the 1990s - and HR were even less common than the 1920s. Conditions can favor batters without being condusive to the HR ball.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--We are not comparing the 20s to the 90s so much as we are to all of baseball history. It was a decade very tilted in favor of batters. Batters approach, at least early in the decade, was the same as it had been in the previous one but the level of batting success was much higher - because conditions favored hitters.
--The 1890s were an even more explosive offensive decade than the 1990s - and HR were even less common than the 1920s. Conditions can favor batters without being condusive to the HR ball.

Agreed.

1920-'28 - Hitters (heavy average)
1993-present - Hitters (heavy slugging)

[csh19792001]

Eras: I'll going to put the time in and try to be as comprehensive as possible. I'll try to report all the important statistics and we can pick them apart.

I'll put the highlight the historical zenith in each respective category in RED, the nadir in BLUE. I won't comparatively include the pre foul strike rule eras because with that rule difference (along with many others) comparison of the rate stats is irreconcilable.

I'll do it by rate stats first (batting average/on base percentage/slugging/home run percentage/ERA):

The Nascent Years
1876-1892
.253 .305 .338 0.60% 3.32

The Wild 90's
1893-1900 (Foul strike rule- 1901 NL, 1903 AL)
.287 .353 .383 0.73% 4.32

The Deadball Era
1903-1918
.253 .316 .332 0.45% 2.83
NOTE: The deadball era would easily be the lowest in OPS- making it the worst era for hitters in baseball history.

The Birth of the Modern Game
1919-1939
.281 .344 .396 1.33% 4.11

WWII
1940-1945
.260 .328 .362 1.36% 3.65

The Golden Age
1946-1960
.259 .332 .387 2.29% 3.94

The Decade of The Pitcher
1961-69
.249 .314 .374 2.42% 3.56

The Game Finds Balance
1970-1992
.258 .324 .383 2.29% 3.79

The Homerun Era
1993-2004
.267 .337 .423 3.10% 4.47

Caveat: The Designated Hitter rule skews things a bit. The AL line since 1973 has gone .265/.333/.407, the DHless NL .259/.326/.392. Therefore, eras like 1919-39 should go up EVEN MORE in relative terms, since those kind of numbers were being put up with pitchers hitting.

Guys: This took A TON OF TIME. I'd also like to go back and research the fluctuations of stolen bases, runs (as well as on a per game/rate basis) another time.

Thoughts on my lines of demarcation, or general responses?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Eras: I'll going to put the time in and try to be as comprehensive as possible. I'll try to report all the important statistics and we can pick them apart.

I'll put the highlight the historical zenith in each respective category in RED, the nadir in BLUE. I won't comparatively include the pre foul strike rule eras because with that rule difference (along with many others) comparison of the rate stats is irreconcilable.

I'll do it by rate stats first (batting average/on base percentage/slugging/home run percentage/ERA):

The Nascent Years
1876-1892
.253 .305 .338 0.60% 3.32

The Wild 90's
1893-1900 (Foul strike rule- 1901 NL, 1903 AL)
.287 .353 .383 0.73% 4.32

The Deadball Era
1903-1918
.253 .316 .332 0.45% 2.83
NOTE: The deadball era would easily be the lowest in OPS- making it the worst era for hitters in baseball history.

The Birth of the Modern Game
1919-1939
.281 .344 .396 1.33% 4.11

WWII
1940-1945
.260 .328 .362 1.36% 3.65

The Golden Age
1946-1960
.259 .332 .387 2.29% 3.94

The Decade of The Pitcher
1961-69
.249 .314 .374 2.42% 3.56

The Game Finds Balance
1970-1992
.258 .324 .383 2.29% 3.79

The Homerun Era
1993-2004
.267 .337 .423 3.10% 4.47

Caveat: The Designated Hitter rule skews things a bit. The AL line since 1973 has gone .265/.333/.407, the DHless NL .259/.326/.392. Therefore, eras like 1919-39 should go up EVEN MORE in relative terms, since those kind of numbers were being put up with pitchers hitting.

Guys: This took A TON OF TIME. I'd also like to go back and research the fluctuations of stolen bases, runs (as well as on a per game/rate basis) another time.

Thoughts on my lines of demarcation, or general responses?

First of all, great work Chris. That MUST have took a grip of time, well done. My only question would be; why did you lump everything together from '19-'39, when there was clearly a difference from '19 -'28 and '29 - '39. As you stated it, the HR % was 1.33 when it's all one big chunk, but from '19-'28 it was more around .35 or somethin'. Do they not deserve distinction?

[538280]

The Golden Age
1946-1960
.259 .332 .387 2.29% 3.94


First of all, great work Chris. It helps us see much more clearly which eras fit into different categories.

A few things with eras I would have done differently though. I would have probably included 1919 and the 1920s as separate from the 1930s and the early 40s. I would have made the eras 1919-1929 (or '28) could be "The Birth of the Modern Game", and then 1930-1941 could be "Offense continues" or something like that. I don't know why you included 1940 and 1941 in the WWII era either, players really started getting called 1942-1945. After that, very minor. You just should have included 1961 in "The Golden Age" and 1969 should have been in "The Game Finds balance".

One more question, why exactly do you call 1946-1960 "The Golden Age"?

[csh19792001]

First of all, great work Chris. That MUST have took a grip of time, well done. My only question would be; why did you lump everything together from '19-'39, when there was clearly a difference from '19 -'28 and '29 - '39. As you stated it, the HR % was 1.33 when it's all one big chunk, but from '19-'28 it was more around .35 or somethin'. Do they not deserve distinction?

Thanks to both Randy and Chris for the recognition of my efforts.

To answer your questions- I lumped 19'-39' together because although offensive levels did fluctuate during that period a bit, overall I just think of it as the biggest offensive era in history. I noticed a long time ago that once the 40's started, the game just seemed to (coincidentally?) get back to normal. Perhaps not coincidentally- I've read that once the War started, out of necessity companies began using different (less resillient) yarn in baseballs.

In any case, in case you guys are interested :
1919-1928
.283 .345 .393 1.12%

1929-1939
.280 .343 .401 1.56%

Overall, the 30's were slightly better for hitting than the 20's.

Chris:
I didn't include 61' in The Golden Age because it was the beginning of expansion. The era is called as such in so much of the literature I've read- it refers to the way the game- and America in general- was remembered by those who lived through that era. It could (and has) been stretchd a few years each way at various times, but you get the idea.

I deemed 40-45 to be the war years because A) The War was actually raging in Europe, even if we weren't involved till Dec of 41' :) and B) because as I noted earlier, 1940 marked the beginning of the decline in offense back to normal levels.

Also, I think of post WWII as a new age because of integration, and because the league was back to full strength again.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Thanks to both Randy and Chris for the recognition of my efforts.

To answer your questions- I lumped 19'-39' together because although offensive levels did fluctuate during that period a bit, overall I just think of it as the biggest offensive era in history. I noticed a long time ago that once the 40's started, the game just seemed to (coincidentally?) get back to normal. Perhaps not coincidentally- I've read that once the War started, out of necessity companies began using different (less resillient) yarn in baseballs.

In any case, in case you guys are interested :
1919-1928
.283 .345 .393 1.12%

1929-1939
.280 .343 .401 1.56%

Overall, the 30's were slightly better for hitting than the 20's.



Ok, maybe a stupid question, but what do you mean by HR %? Cause by HR/G, the two era's aren't that close Chris. BTW: the yarn thing is up for debate even though I've read that too.


YEAR - HR/G

1919 - .19
1920 - .25
1921 - .38
1922 - .42
1923 - .39
1924 - .36
1925 - .47
1926 - .34
1927 - .37
1928 - .44

AVG - .36


1929 - .54
1930 - .63
1931 - .43
1932 - .55
1933 - .43
1934 - .54
1935 - .53
1936 - .55
1937 - .57
1938 - .60
1939 - .58

AVG - .54

Pretty sure SO/G also went up during the 30's even though their BA stayed at .280.

[leecemark]

--There was a very significant difference in the two leagues in the 1930s. The AL enjoyed two decades of rabbit ball, but the NL made a change to their ball in 1931 after the offensive explosion peaked in 1930. The senior curcuit saw offense levels drop to historical norms nearly a full decade before the AL.

[Ubiquitous]

The AL and NL pretty much had the same ball in use by 1934 or so.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--There was a very significant difference in the two leagues in the 1930s. The AL enjoyed two decades of rabbit ball, but the NL made a change to their ball in 1931 after the offensive explosion peaked in 1930. The senior curcuit saw offense levels drop to historical norms nearly a full decade before the AL.

This gives some info on those changes in the 1930s.