Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Categorizing the Eras

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Categorizing the Eras

    I was hoping for some help on how every baseball era has been skewed, whether towards hitting or pitching (or if they've been neutral). I know the deadball era was skewed towards pitching, as was the sixties. I know the thirties, late nineties, and at least the beginning of this millennium were skewed towards hitting. But I don't know the other eras particularly, and I don't know exactly when some of those eras ended. Did the low scoring of the sixties extend into the early seventies? If so, how far?

    Thanks for the help.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

  • #2
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL.shtml
    Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
    Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

    Comment


    • #3
      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)

      Additional thoughts:
      http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=51196

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for the info
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

        Comment


        • #5
          but just because an era was a hitters era for example does not mean that there were more good hitters and fewer good pitchers. I think its wrong to call these hitters or pitchers eras, but rather high or low offensive eras.

          Is there any evidence that certain eras actually had more talent on the pitcher side or on the hitter side?

          Comment


          • #6
            Actually, I had just assumed that it was more or less balanced on both sides - I just referred to them as hitters eras or pitchers eras because hitters put up better numbers in high offensive environments, and pitchers put up better numbers in low offensive environments.

            But if an era actually had more talent on one side, that would change things, wouldn't it? If an era would be offensively neutral, but there were better pitchers in that era, we would view it as a low offensive era, which would mean we value a pitcher's performance less.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bkmckenna View Post
              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)

              Additional thoughts:
              http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=51196
              pretty good but not quite there- 1888 to 1892 was the most heavily weighted pitchers era in baseball history. Both leagues hit below .240 in 1888, and although the following few seasons had higher averages, remember- this was without the foul strike rule, which would cause averages to plummet later on.

              And I think 1921-30, instead of being a transition era, was a heavily weighted hitters era, when the NL averaged over .290 each year and in 1930 topped .300 (as it had done in 1894). In the AL too, averages were higher in the 20s than the 30s- the 30s was simply more of a slugging decade as the home run became ever more common.
              "Here's a crazy thought I've always had: if they cut three fingers off each hand, I'd really be a great hitter because then I could level off better." Paul Waner (lifetime .333 hitter, 3,152 lifetime hits.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Wade8813 View Post

                But if an era actually had more talent on one side, that would change things, wouldn't it? If an era would be offensively neutral, but there were better pitchers in that era, we would view it as a low offensive era, which would mean we value a pitcher's performance less.
                I've asked that question and nobobdy seems to want to touch it in the stats forum. It probably upsets that apple cart too much. It could be determined by comparing players who lasted longer or moved around.

                Comment


                • #9
                  --I think that is a very hard question to answer. You can look at the rules and parks to explain why some eras favored pitching and other batting (or were balanced for both). To say that is the WHOLE equation is quite a leap though. There is no reason to believe that the talent balance between hitting and pitching has been constant throughout history. Some eras almost certainly had more talent on one side than the other. That said, there are some obvious reasons for most of the big swings that have nothing to do with the players.

                  Comment

                  Ad Widget

                  Collapse
                  Working...
                  X