Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some questions about stats changing

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

  • Some questions about stats changing

    I'm not sure if this belongs here or in History of the Game, but I have a few questions I was curious about regarding changes in offensive stats.
    1. When offensive statistics started to rise in the '90s, one common reason given was expansion teams, with another being more hitter-friendly parks. I noticed that offensive numbers were up in '93 compared to the previous five seasons, but why would the addition of two new ballclubs be a factor. In the '60s, there were a ton of new teams and throughout the decade, pitching was still big. And in '72, three years after the mounds were lowered, there was a lot more pitching than hitting. So why were two new teams during the '93 season seen as a factor for offensive rising, when pitching remained dominant in the '60s even after that decade had eight new ones.
    2. How come offensive stats plummeted so much in the '88 season after increasing the way they did the year before?
    3. How come pitching was so dominant in the '72 season?
    4. How come Mario Mendoza batting averages and strike-outs became so common during the 2010s? A friend of mine says he believes that so many hitters have been trained to swing with an upper-cut approach that allows them to hit the ball farther, but also makes them miss more. I believe him, but wonder if other things have factored in it, too.


    Last edited by Paladin Cecil; 03-03-2020, 11:10 PM.

  • #2
    1. I don't really see how expansion teams would automatically mean more offense. Maybe you could argue there would be more low quality pitchers in MLB, but there would also be more low quality hitters. I think the rise in offense in the 90's was largely due to the increasing use of steroids and just more and more emphasis put on power. The most popular, high valued players were the HR hitters, so more and more players trained themselves to hit for more power.
    I've heard that in the 70's and 80's players were discouraged from even even doing weight lifting. That clearly started to change in the 90's.


    Last edited by Oak1; 04-12-2020, 06:52 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Oak1 View Post
      1. I don't really see how expansion teams would automatically mean more offense. Maybe you could argue there would be more low quality pitchers in MLB, but there would also be more low quality hitters. I think the rise in offense in the 90's was largely due to the increasing use of steroids and just more and more emphasis put on power. The most popular, high valued players were the HR hitters, so more and more players trained themselves to hit for more power.
      I've heard that in the 70's and 80's players were discouraged from even even doing weight lifting. That clearly started to change in the 90's.

      Parks built in the 90s got smaller to create seating where most seats got a good view.
      Colorado parks alone raised NL offense by about 2%.
      Batters also were lifting weights more, and became willing to strike out in exchange for harder hits.
      The strike zone got a little smaller in '88 and a little larger in '96 which is a little counterintuitive to the offensive levels. http://m.mlb.com/glossary/rules/strike-zone

      Comment


      • #4
        They definitely juiced the ball in '87 and used a less juiced ball in '88 forward. I always thought they brought the juiced ball back after the strike.
        "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post
          They definitely juiced the ball in '87 and used a less juiced ball in '88 forward. I always thought they brought the juiced ball back after the strike.
          True, if I recall they made what they called a "correction" in the strike zone in 1988.
          I doubt it had anything to do with the change in the strike zone. Are they saying they screwed up the strike zone for one season, 1987.
          I think it was all about a juiced ball in 1987. Agreeing with your call, juiced in 1987 and then back to the old ball in 1988

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post
            They definitely juiced the ball in '87 and used a less juiced ball in '88 forward. I always thought they brought the juiced ball back after the strike.
            There was a massive jump in offense from 1992 to mid 1994 though.
            1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

            1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

            1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


            The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
            The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

            Comment

            Ad Widget

            Collapse
            Working...
            X