Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Indicative Range for Hitter/Pitcher Year?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,112

    Indicative Range for Hitter/Pitcher Year?

    In accordance to baseball's cyclical nature, what is the range of R/G that indicate a year favorable to hitters, pitchers, or neutrality? Off the top of my head, the magic number seems to be 4.0 R/G. A season near this number seems to be neutral, neither favoring pitcher nor hitter. I'd say the range is 0.2 R/G, so any season 3.8-4.2 R/G is neutral. Below or above means the environment favored pitching or hitting. I plan on making a graph to illustrate things. For now (maybe someone has better data; I'm in a rush), what is the best range of R/G that says whether hitting/pitching/neutrality was prevalent in a given year? Let's keep it post-1900.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrus4189Cobb View Post
    In accordance to baseball's cyclical nature, what is the range of R/G that indicate a year favorable to hitters, pitchers, or neutrality? Off the top of my head, the magic number seems to be 4.0 R/G. A season near this number seems to be neutral, neither favoring pitcher nor hitter. I'd say the range is 0.2 R/G, so any season 3.8-4.2 R/G is neutral. Below or above means the environment favored pitching or hitting. I plan on making a graph to illustrate things. For now (maybe someone has better data; I'm in a rush), what is the best range of R/G that says whether hitting/pitching/neutrality was prevalent in a given year? Let's keep it post-1900.
    From the BBREF home page, click on Seasons, then choose "All Teams," or input baseball-reference.com/leagues directly. This is a wonderful page but hard to find because the sequence is seasons--teams--leagues.

    You'll get a table of MLB totals from 1876 and from 1871. Right now it gives 202,500 games for 1,835,056 runs per game or about 4.5/team. That seems higher than the average, but I may be remembering ERA. Also, as will be obvious, you have to divide by 2 to get runs/game/team.

    You can easily find the post-1900 values:

    You'll also get links to the leagues' seasons. Either MLB batting or pitching should give you what you want, a table including columns for runs and games, so you can get the full array of descritpive stats, including the SD.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
    You'll also get links to the leagues' seasons. Either MLB batting or pitching should give you what you want, a table including columns for runs and games, so you can get the full array of descritpive stats, including the SD.
    Yep I got everything I need. My graph and calculations are done I just need to brush 'em up. I use the variance instead of the std dev because it provides less of a statistical spread for my purpose

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrus4189Cobb View Post
    Yep I got everything I need. My graph and calculations are done I just need to brush 'em up. I use the variance instead of the std dev because it provides less of a statistical spread for my purpose
    Cool. Looking forward to seeing the results. I think we all have a vague idea how the mean behaves over time, but it will be nice to see some specifics and analysis.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
    Cool. Looking forward to seeing the results. I think we all have a vague idea how the mean behaves over time, but it will be nice to see some specifics and analysis.
    Glad to hear it. I'm writing it as a primer, so 90% of the information will be familiar to those on this site. Contributions will be appreciated, whether they be feedback, corrections, or disputes. I should have it up by the end of the day.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,112
    To my frustration, I don't know how to upload the graph I made using my Macbook's "Numbers," the Apple counterpart to Microsoft Excel. Here are the results without the cool, flashy graph, and my accompanying analysis. I appreciate any feedback. Disputes or contributions to the analysis are welcome.

    1900s (post-1903): 3.61 runs per game
    1910s: 3.92 R/G
    1920s: 4.81 R/G
    1930s: 4.93 R/G
    1940s: 4.31 R/G
    1950s: 4.45 R/G
    1960s: 4.04 R/G
    1970s: 4.16 R/G
    1980s: 4.30 R/G
    1990s: 4.68 R/G
    2000s: 4.76 R/G
    2010s: 4.33 R/G


    Intro:

    To you, reader, the above compilation of pixels may not strike you as anything more than a curvy line plotted according integers which do not exceed 5 and do not dip below 3. Yet within these 10-point Helvetica bounds lies over a century of baseball history, lore, myths, characters, and struggles. That is, our National Pastime. To look upon them is to gaze at the different eras of our beloved sport, crafted ever so carefully since the early 1800s so that the runs scored per game for each decade past the 20th century have not deviated beyond the horizon of two numbers, 3 and 5. To spare the reader countless books, articles, and lectures, this primer will attempt to educate him/her in the trendy history of how the game has been played, for there exists so much more to the illustrious bat-and-ball game than a decimal of runs scored.

    The Graph:
    To start, the graph should be explained: first the obvious, then the mechanics. The preceding chart illustrates the runs scored per MLB game for each decade since 1903. For example, from 1930-1939, the average runs scored per game throughout the enitre decade was 4.93, the highest since the turn of the 20th century. The run is the unit of ambiguous measurement for play; to accumulate them favorably in a given game spells victory. Likewise, to scrimp on them on the scorecard is to leave the field with your head hung in shameful defeat.

    Baseball was originally played to adhere to a benchmark. The first team to 21 runs (known as “aces”) won the game. Like cricket, all batters were given a chance to hit before the side was retired. Over time, baseball gave way to nine innings of play. Each side was allowed three “putouts” to score as many runs as possible before turning over the field to retire the other team. Choosing the term “pitcher” purposefully distinguished him from a “thrower.” This member, who had yet to be specialized and could be anyone on a team on any day, was instructed to “pitch” the ball in accordance to specific rules for a legal delivery, such as keeping the arm straight at all times and delivering the ball below the waist to a location of the batter’s choosing (either high or low). The pitcher was in place to serve up the ball for hitters so that they could connect with the ball and score. The defense, not the pitcher, would ensure the putout (which included catching any ball on a single hop).

    When the first Major League was created, baseball had shifted to focus around the central dynamic of the pitcher vs. the batter, which we recognize today. Because the conflict isolates the two, the outcome is much more exclusive than other sports, which is why baseball statistics are the most followed of all sporting statistics. Fans of all varieties enjoy looking at the performance of the hitter/pitcher, which is independent to most outside things and quite dependent on the most important thing: a player’s skill. Thus, the pitcher became the central figure in the prevention role. Strip all the technicalities of baseball and it’s comprised of the pitcher and the positional players. It is the pitcher’s job, with the aid of his defense, to allow as few runs as possible. It is the hitter’s job, with the aid of his bat and the tactics of those on base, to score as many runs as possible.

    However, the responsibilities of runs concern winning. The focus of this primer isn’t to guide the reader through the art of winning. Nor is it to profile specific players, explain baseball’s origins, or any other similar notion. We will examine the advantage the defining figures, the pitcher and batter, held against one another throughout the past century of baseball play at the highest level. It serves not only as a statistical guide, but an important chunk of baseball history. Hopefully the reader also finds it to his/her enjoyment.

    With that out of the way, let’s go on to the mechanics of the graph. If the reader is inclined to ignore math, he/she may wish to skip this section for the comfortable preference of the actual history. At one point, this sectioned should be read. Runs per game, R/G, holds an obvious definition, one which, like many upcoming things of this primer, will be explained for the sake of clarity, for the reader’s intelligence is not in doubt and the writer does not wish to provoke any hostile emotions. Runs per game, R/G, is the amount of runs scored in a game. This graph plots R/G per decade since 1903. Total the runs scored for the entire MLB in a decade and divide by the total games played in that same decade, considered to start at ’00 and end at ’09 (1910-1919, 1940-1949, etc.). Post-1903 was chosen because 1904 is the first year baseball felt the full effects of the dead-ball era, to explained later. Baseball is extremely streaky prior to 1904 because of the various rule changes it was undergoing every year. It wasn’t until 1901, the birth of the American League, that baseball resembled the balanced game of offense and defense that we know today.

    There are twelve decades on the graph (1900s-2010s). The average R/G per decade is the sum of the R/G per decade divided by twelve. We do NOT add all of the runs scored since 1903 and divide by all the games played because this would give us the R/G since 1903 and not the average of each decade since 1903. It may seem nit-picky but the difference is important. We are taking an average of twelve chunks to examine the chunk-by-chunk differences, not an average of all chunks. If we compared the post-1903 R/G to each decade, we would be comparing total MLB play to each decade of play, which includes every change in the game. We want to compare average decade play to each decade of play. This is as confusing to read as it is to explain, so we’ll sum up by saying we don’t want the overall R/G since 1903.

    The average R/G per decade is the sum of the R/G per decade divided by twelve. If a decade is ’00-’09, then the first one is only 60% complete with six seasons (1904-1909). The last decade is only 30% complete (2010-2012). So, they shall be weighted accordingly so we can take a weighted average. The R/G from 1903-1909 was 3.61. At 60% value, this is equal to 2.17 (3.61*0.6). The 2010s is equal to 1.30 (4.33*0.3). Add these to the total R/G per decade. Instead of dividing by 12, we divide by 10.9 (10 decades, 60% of a decade, 30% of a decade) to get the weighted average of 4.39 R/G. Had we not accounted for the partial decades, the average would be 4.36. Pretty close, and you can see how the lesser values (3.61 and 4.33) bring things down when they are equal to one unit. Still, we want to be accurate, so any reference to the average means the weighted average of 4.39 R/G.

    Next is the variance. An average is a statistical determination of central tendency. The variance is a determination of spread. How far are these numbers spread out? The formula for the variance looks much more difficult than it is. In statistics, finding the variance of a sample group is referred to as s2

    s2= this equation

    The variance equals the summation (hence the Greek letter sigma) of the square of the x values, in this case our R/G per decade, minus the average, which we determined to be 4.39. Take each individual number and subtract the average then square the result. Add up all of these and divide by the sample size (n) less one. For us, it would be 9.9, as we determined the weighted sample size to be 10.9 because of the partial decades. Doing all of this (again easier in practice) gives us a variance of roughly 0.14. The statistical data varies by 0.14 R/G. Note that we could find the standard deviation, s, by square rooting the variance. However, this gives us too much of a spread.

    Our variance gives us a range of 4.39 +- 0.14. If the average R/G per decade falls within 0.14 of the weighted average (4.25 to 4.53), we can assume that decade was statistically neutral. Based solely on this, a decade was favorable to hitters if its average R/G is above 4.53 since hitters were getting more runs across. Decades below 4.25 saw the advantage swing to the pitcher.
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,112

    History

    Everything mentioned is accomplished in the name of objectivity. However, baseball history tells us all we need to realize which eras favored which side. Now we can use the history to define the patterns. Based on the graph, the advantage is clearly cyclical. Baseball started out the 20th century as favorable to pitchers (not a lot of R/G). Then it went to hitters, neutral, to pitchers, to hitters, and in 2012 the pendulum is swinging back to pitchers.

    1900s (post-1903)
    Key players: Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Honus Wagner, Rube Waddell, Sam Crawford, Ed Walsh, Mordecai “Three Finger” Brown, Frank Chance, Nap Lajoie
    Trend: Pitcher-friendly; 3.61 R/G. The National League’s competition was limited since its 1876 formation. It clearly outshone the three other leagues that formed during its time (two collapsed after one year). In 1901, the American League formed and was here to stay. With the new rule of a foul ball being a strike, hitters now got into quicker 2-strike counts. Pitchers began the more prevalent use of doctored pitches. Spit, Vaseline, and belt buckles were being used to alter the ball so it moved more in its flight. Because baseballs were not replaced during games (unless lost), the constant scuffs from hard grounders hit by thick ash bats caused the ball to move even more. On top of that, the constant scuffing discolored the ball to the hue of the field. Thus, it was difficult to detect it after being pitched. When players did connect, the actual ball was denser than its modern counterpart. This quality of being “dead” leads to the name “dead-ball era.” There is also accounts of groundskeepers transforming the field favorably for the home team, like raising mound heights or watering down the areas in front of home plate.

    Furthermore, the mentality of play discouraged home runs, meaning pitchers weren’t as liable to get stung for poor pitches. Hitting a home run in the vast outfields of the day was extremely difficult, especially with a discolored, dead sphere being twirled at the batter. Managers took to the “small ball” approach. Instead of swinging for the fences, a hitter should emphasize contact. Other tactics like the bunt, stolen base, and hit-and-run would inch the runners across the diamond.

    1910s
    Key Players: Grover Cleveland “Pete” Alexander, Ty Cobb, Joe Jackson, Tris Speaker, Walter Johnson, Eddie Collins, Frank “Home Run” Baker, Gavvy Cravath, Zack Wheat
    Trend: Pitcher-friendly; 3.92 R/G. The dead-ball era continues, but pitching loses a little ground. This may be due to hitters figuring out tactics and/or the development of a newer, tighter-wound ball. The existence of an actual “dead” ball remains debated. The introduction of the modern baseball is supported by the increased R/G as well as the increase in home runs. A third baseball league, the Federal League, existed for the 1914 and 1915 season. Factoring in its numbers may also affect the R/G for the 1910s.

    1920s
    Key Players: George Herman “Babe” Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Charles “Dazzy” Vance, Rogers Hornsby, George Sisler, Urban “Red” Faber, Leon “Goose” Goslin, Pete Alexander
    Trend: Hitter-friendly; 4.81 R/G. Ray Chapman was killed on the field in 1920 when a baseball struck his temple. Baseball believed Chapman lost track of the ball because of its discolored camouflage. As a result, baseball set into effect the requirement for a ball to be replaced if deemed too scuffed by an umpire. All doctored pitches, particularly the spitball, were henceforth banned except for a select group of pitchers who had grown to rely on it. This included future Hall of Famers Red Faber and Burleigh Grimes.

    In that same tumultuous year, eight players of the Chicago White Sox were banned for life when it was revealed that they had conspired to throw the World Series of the preceding year. Fans grew disgruntled with the gambling plagues of the sport. Babe Ruth allegedly saved baseball through his charm and emphasis on the power game. Fans became infatuated with his home runs, made easier with the mentioned renovations in the ball. Other players followed suit. Pitchers, stripped of their weapons, were powerless to stop the onslaught of free-swinging sluggers. Only those who had played a majority of their careers in the 1910s still adhered to holding back, either out of disdain for the new game or the fact that they were simply not accustomed to the ways of the slugger.

    1930s
    Key Players: Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig, Bob Feller, Jimmie Foxx, Robert “Lefty” Grove, Bill Dickey, Joseph “Arky” Vaughan, Carl Hubbell, Mel Ott, Al Simmons, Hank Greenberg, Paul Waner
    Trend: Hitter-friendly; 4.93 R/G. Though the Roaring Twenties had ended, hitters continued to feast of pitchers. Not only were the effects of the 1920 transformations lingering, but hitters were taking advantage of the lack of diversity. Year after year, they faced the virtually the same pitchers throwing virtually the same types of pitches at the same rates of speed. Lack of relief pitching meant starting pitchers were expected to finish games they started. By the fifth, sixth, or seventh innings, fatigued pitchers allowed even more offense. Black and Latino players had yet to offer their diversity. For now, you could expect the same pitchers for the same teams (since Free Agency was thirty years away) most likely tossing a fastball, curveball, or change of pace. The forkball and slider were in their infancy.

    1940s
    Key Players: Joe DiMaggio, Bob Feller, Ted Williams, Hal Newhouser, Jackie Robinson, Stan Musial, Warren Spahn, Bob Lemon, Tommy Bridges, Harry Brecheen, Lou Boudreau
    Trend: Neutral; 4.31 R/G. For the first time, neither side has a significant advantage. After Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, the skills and diversity brought with integration would gradually take place. Pitchers were beginning to tinker more and more with the forkball, the sinker, and the slider, which went on to become a huge weapon for many pitchers as baseball entered the next decade. From 1943-1945, many of baseball’s stars enlisted in WWII, meaning lesser players did not have to compete against certain stronger players. The R/G during these seasons was 4.09, whereas it was 4.40 if we exclude the war years. Pitchers have clearly regained some footing.

    1950s
    Key Players: Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Robin Roberts, Warren Spahn, Edward “Whitey” Ford, Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Eddie Mathews, Hank Aaron, Lawrence “Yogi” Berra, Roy Campanella, Edwin “Duke” Snider, Ernie Banks, Hoyt Wilhelm, Nellie Fox
    Trend: Neutral; 4.45 R/G. The 1950s represents the most neutral decade in history. Integration broadened the pool of talent from which managers could dive. The slider revolutionized pitching because it became another member of the traditional arsenal along with the curve and changeup. Their swift, disappearing sweep along the same plane as a fastball led to less damage when pitchers threw poor sliders. Relief pitching also entered its pioneer era. Pitchers like Jim Konstanty, Hoyt Wilhelm, Ellis Kinder, and Roy Face were given the duty of finishing games if needed. Along with integration, replacing fatigued pitchers with a fresh arm specializing in a certain pitch added a necessary variety. Hitters were now less inclined to exploit the tiring curves of an overused pitcher. Still, enough offense existed to restrict pitcher domination, though it arrived in the following decade.

    1960s
    Key Players: Frank Robinson, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Sandy Koufax, Luis Aparicio, Don Drysdale, Carl Yastrzemski, Roberto Clemente, Bon Gibson, Hoyt Wilhelm, Ron Santo, Joe Morgan, Vada Pinson, Juan Marichal, Harmon Killebrew, Brooks Robinson
    Trend: Pitcher-friendly; 4.04 R/G. Hitting succumbs to pitching for the first time in 40 years. The increased use of integration and relief pitching is encouraged when baseball expands following the 1960 and 1961 seasons. Adding more teams, a practice that continues for the next three decades, creates a necessity for more players, such as relievers and nonwhites, and supplements pitchers with the element of unfamiliarity. Hitters are now facing more pitchers throwing more types of pitchers, abolishing the practice of exploiting the same overused pitchers year after year.

    To compound matters, baseball saw the lowest years of R/G since the 1900s because of the gameplay. Not only did a higher pitching mound (15 inches compared to today’s 10) give a velocity advantage, but the strike zone called for an area starting at the top of the hitter’s shoulders and extending down to the bottom of his knees. Covering such a large area, particularly the top of the strike zone, proved very difficult for hitters. Furthermore, it was common practice for pitchers, most notably Bob Gibson and Don Drysdale, to throw at batters. Forcing hitters to dodge unexpected pitches fueled a large psychological advantage.

    Pitching culminated in 1968, now known as “the year of the pitcher,” when the R/G were the lowest since 1908. That year, only one player in the entire American League managed to hit above .300. Both leagues awarded their Most Valuable Player Award to pitchers. Don Drysdale threw a record 58 consecutive scoreless innings, Denny McLain became the last pitcher to win 30 games, and Bob Gibson averaged one measly run for every nine innings he threw. Baseball battled the heightened pitching after the 1968 season by reducing the strike zone and lowering the mound.

    1970s
    Key Players: Jim Palmer, Gaylord Perry, Rollie Fingers, Reggie Jackson, Carl Yastrzemski, Nolan Ryan, Joe Morgan, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Rod Carew, Don Sutton, George Brett, Mike Schmidt, Johnny Bench, Tom Seaver, Billy Williams, Bert Blyleven, Rich “Goose” Gossage, Pete Rose, Phil Niekro, Carlton Fisk
    Trend: Pitcher-friendly; 4.16 R/G. Changing the rules did little to combat the ongoing expansion of baseball. Free Agency, in which players were no longer bound to their teams after their contracts expired, caused in influx of team-changing to further frustrate hitters. The most significant development was the 1973 adoption of the Designated Hitter. From then on, American League teams did not need to place their pitchers in the hitting lineup. Instead, a non-fielding, hitting-only player could take a slot of the lineup. Pitching suffered slightly in the American League as a result, but use of a DH was reserved for mostly for aging or benched players who filled the role simply to replace the pitcher’s bat. A specialized, slugging DH was a few decades away.

    1980s
    Key Players: Dennis Eckersley, Cal Ripken, Roger Clemens, Eddie Murray, Dwight Evans, Wade Boggs, Gary Carter, Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Tony Gwynn, Robin Yount, Goose Gossage, Alan Trammell, Rickey Henderson, Ryne Sandberg, Ozzie Smith
    Trend: Neutral; 4.30 R/G. Amidst more expansion and relief, hitting picks up as a result of modernization of the sport. Nutrition, training, and equipment enters a sophistication never before seen, much to hitters’ advantage. As part of the modernization in sports sciences, certain forces introduced performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs).

    1990s
    Key Players: Greg Maddux, Cal Ripken, Chipper Jones, Tom Glavine, Ken Griffey, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, John Smoltz, Mike Piazza, Randy Johnson, Ryne Sandberg, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Rafael Palmeiro, Alex Rodriguez, Rickey Henderson, Roger Clemens, Mariano Rivera, Craig Biggio, Barry Larkin, John Franco, Pedro Martinez, Ivan Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Trevor Hoffman, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Tony Gwynn
    Trend: Hitter-friendly; 4.68 R/G. PEDs surged in the late 1990s, so much that the home run increase returned fans, dissapointed with baseball’s season-ending 1994 strike, to the stands. Pitchers also used, but increased velocity did not counter the faster, stronger guys at the plate. Fly balls became charged moonshots, leaving pitchers helpless. There is also the argument that baseball’s expansion (30 teams by 1998) created very watered-down competition amongst pitching staffs. The only thing keeping this decade’s R/G lower than the 2000s is the short-lived pitching revival prior to the 1994 strike, mostly due to a resurgence in the changeup pitch and transition to a one-inning closer.

    2000s
    Key Players: Curt Schilling, Barry Bonds, Mariano Rivera, Alex Rodriguez, Mike Piazza, Pedro Martinez, Albert Pujols, Trevor Hoffman, Miguel Cabrera, Vladimir Guerrero, Ichiro Suzuki, Randy Johnson, Joe Mauer, Manny Ramirez, Billy Wagner, Gary Sheffield, Derek Jeter, Roy Halladay, Ivan Rodriguez, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Chipper Jones, David Ortiz, Chase Utley, David Wright, C.C. Sabathia, Mike Mussina, Francisco Rodriguez, Johan Santana
    Trend: Hitter-friendly; 4.76 R/G. A second decade favoring the pitcher, PED use sharply declines around the mid-2000s. Batters pound pitchers as if the effects of PEDs remain permanent despite the lessening of their use. Many players from Latin America continue to join the ranks along with Japanese players. Umpires notoriously favor batters in their determination of the strike zone, prompting pitchers to pitch to more hittable locations.

    2010s
    Key Players: Clayton Kershaw, Dustin Pedroia, Josh Hamilton, Brian Wilson, Albert Pujols, Adrian Beltre, Mike Trout, Miguel Cabrera, Joey Votto, Tim Lincecum, Robinson Cano, Adrian Gonzalez, Justin Verlander, Prince Fielder, Joe Mauer, Craig Kimbrel, Evan Longoria, David Wright, Matt Cain, Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay, Matt Kemp, Ryan Braun, David Price
    Trend: Netural; 4.33 R/G. At the close of the 2012 season, the new current decade is continuing to see many new bright stars. With this comes another neutral year. Any lingering effects of PEDs have mostly died out, and the new ballparks being built are featuring slightly larger dimensions. Straight fastballs are losing ground as the primary pitch. Many pitchers boast fastballs that move (cutters, two-seamers, running fastballs) in place of straight heat. Those who do rely on straight fastballs procure vast velocities. More and more relievers are entering games and throwing speeds of 98+ MPH. Hitters are finding it difficult to face one reliever one inning and a new one in the next, both of whom reach the upper 90s. The decade is still young. New stars will be expected as we go forth. Unforeseen developments may surprise us, but if history is precedent, this decade will most likely remain neutral, paving the way for a pitcher-friendly 2020s.

    The reader probably expects a closing paragraph of endearing thoughts, to which the author is obliged to fulfill to his fullest extent. Perhaps that is for another day. Reading this primer, equivalent to a lengthy magazine article, takes a lot out of any reader. Other than the 2020s prediction, which we model using data and historical trend, the only thing left to say is to comment on how baseball’s lush history has made all of this possible. Of each decade’s average runs scored per game, the decimals tell a thousand stories. If reading a primer is a mental strain, then mining the entire depths of every character of every decade is a task that speaks for itself.
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •