Options
1968 - *WHY* so little offense?
Tabe
Posts: 5,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Since 1968 came up, with quite a bit of discussion, in another thread, I thought it might be good to bring the topic into its own post.
My question is: Specifically WHY was 1968 such a down year for offense? Was it simply a bunch of pitchers have career years? Was the baseball changed? It can't just be park effects - no parks where changed from 1967 to 1968 yet offense went way down. 1100 fewer runs, 300 fewer home runs, etc.
0
Comments
Different balls?
What was the drop off in league wide BA?
1 ) The strike zone was expanded in 1963, and then in 1969 contracted back to where it had been before. I think the more time that passed with the big strike zone, more pitchers learned to change their pitches to adapt to it.
2 ) New cavernous ballparks opened throughout the 60's, culminating when the A's moved to Oakland in 1968, into the deadest hitters park in MLB.
3 ) Pitcher's mounds were officially limited to 15 inches high in 1968, but I think there was a lot of creative groundskeeping that made some even higher than that, and the average height had been increasing throughout the decade. In 1969, they were lowered to 10 inches and that limit was enforced.
The above are in no particular order because I have no idea how much each contributed to the death of offense in 1968. And I make no claim that these are the only factors at play, just that I think they were among them. There is always some variation from season to season, and some of that is due to pitchers and/or hitters simply being relatively better or worse in different years. But what happened throughout the 1960's and well into the 1970's was simply too dramatic to be attributed entirely, mostly, or even significantly to the relative quality of the hitters and pitchers.
Some interesting charts in with the analysis: http://www.thisgreatgame.com/1968-baseball-history.html
Very interesting read all around 🍻
Why was the AL effected so much more than the NL?
The country was in turmoil in 1968: the Vietnam War was raging, two devastating political assassinations, rioting in major cities, and these factors would have contributed to keeping players from devoting their full attention to the game.
.....
1968 was Mickey Mantles's final season. The batters may have intentionally backed off from their best performance so that Mickey wouldn't look so bad in comparison.
Frank Howard and Willie Horton were good that year. Good catch on Harrelson!
Don't forget Killebrew missed the second half after a serious All-Star game injury. Mantle was way down from his usual OPS numbers as was Frank Robby who seems to have been hurt that year.
Looking at the pitching, there were several great pitchers who had short careers who had great years that year. Tiant, McDowell, McNally, McClain and Bahnson. Even Dean Chance was pretty good that year.
He only played everyday four seasons in his entire career. One big year in '68, but when he played full time he averaged 29 HR. Funny he didn't play more!
Hawk broke his leg badly in spring training in 1970, and missed almost the whole season, then retired early in 1971 in order to, I kid you not, try to make the PGA tour.
PGA tour? No broken bones I guess.
Still, in 1965 he "clubbed" 23 HR, traded the next year to the Senators and traded again TWICE in '67 back to KC and then to Boston, where he became an all-star and was promptly shipped to Cleveland 10 games into the 1969 season.
Other than Carew, I can't think of a great 2nd baseman during that time. Odd that he was moved around so much in the short time he played.
Frank Howard hit 10 home runs in 6 games in 1968... So there was offense but it was not widespread nor shared and failed to last consistently throughout the season.
And in all fairness, Howard had an excellent season- not quite as good as 1969 and 1970 but let's be honest... If he had played for a pennant contending team in any of these three years, he would have had greater consideration for MVP. He should have been MVP in 1970. And that is not a dig at Boog Powell. Howard had the better season but the Senators were not pennant contenders. I am certain many here will disagree and I am okay with that. Howard will always have something legendary that goes beyond statistics. Very few players are in his class in connection with hitting the longest home runs in MLB history. And that was something that had to be seen to be appreciated. I am thankful to have witnessed one of his "moon shots" in 1969.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I am not a big Yasztremski fan, but he should have been MVP in 1970 in my opinion. Oliva or Harper prolly deserved 2nd place.
Killebrew, Howard and Powell were all pretty close in offensive production.
All true, but you left out one name. Add Roy White to the list of players in contention for 2nd place. I know his numbers don't pop out at you, but he was playing in a pitchers park, he was a very good outfielder, good on the bases, and he made his hits count with men on and RISP.
Duly noted. He was a little light on SLG, but otherwise a FINE year.
Let's put Fregosi on the list as in the running for 2nd place as well.
Both of those records will never be matched (lowest BA for league batting champ, lowest score for ASG). Mark my words.
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
Absolutely! I was going to add him, too, but I thought one out there addition was enough for one post.
Fregosi, a Gold Glove shortstop, was in the top 10 of offensive WAR eight straight seasons. The list of shortstops who can make that claim, well, I'm not going to look it up, but I bet it's very short and includes nothing else but HOFers. Fregosi was headed for what I think everyone would have recognized as a HOF career, but missed big chunks of 1971 and 1972 with injuries, got traded, and never got a regular starting position again. Bill James has Fregosi as the 5th best player in the AL over his years as a regular shortstop (behind F. Robby, Yaz, Killer, and Howard), ahead of Brooks, Oliva, Kaline, Boog, Cash, etc.
Only because he's getting a MASSIVE boost in WAR for positional adjustment since pretty much every other SS at the time was awful. From 1965-1973, he slugged .400 once. He was a fine player, no question, but let's not get crazy. Even in the prime of his career, pre-injury, he was putting up OPS+ numbers like 108, 111, and 114 (along with a 125, 127, and 141).
Put another way, regardless of what Bill James was saying, is there a single GM that would draft Fregosi 5th overall among AL players at the time? Of course not.
Just to be clear, Bill James doesn't use WAR and doesn't give "positional adjustments". Also, it was offensive WAR where Fregosi had his 8-year run in the top 10, and the positional adjustment is a component of defensive WAR. So, in case you hadn't already made up your mind and were just looking for a way to statistically justify your preconceived notion, your first sentence is simply incorrect.
But I assume the argument you're making wasn't intended to be a serious one because you chose 1965-1973 as your point of reference. As I already mentioned, Fregosi was injured in 1971 and 1972, and struggled mightily when he came back the first half of 1973. Since his 8-year stretch as a regular was 1963-1970, obviously you would have used that stretch if you were serious, and he slugged .409 overall for those 8 years. And he did that in Anaheim, the deadest hitters park in the league until the A's moved to Oakland in 1968. You also gave away your bias, by the way, when you said he slugged .400 once in the irrelevant 8-year period you picked - it was twice.
As for where Fregosi was ranked by GMs, obviously there is no way to know. I'll note that Fregosi got MVP votes in each and every one of those 8 years, he was an All-Star in six of them, and he was being paid the same as Oliva. Recognizing that the period in question is the 8-year period where Fregosi played every day, yes, I think GMs at the time would have recognized that Fregosi was the 5th or so best player over that specific period, and that his injuries derailed what was on track to be a HOF career.
Only if all they were looking at was hitting.
You are right, he would get picked higher than 5th.
Really. That's not a smart a$$ reply, A guy like that might even get picked 2nd or 3rd. Yaz might go 1st, but who else is going to help your team as much as Fregosi? Doesn't he DESERVE a positional adjustment?
I'm looking at 1963-1970.
A GG type Shortstop who hit an average of 25 doubles 8 triples and 13 home runs, 240 Total Bases a year, without missing a game? He missed fifteen '64.
His competition over the years 1963-1970 looks like it would be; Yaz, Kaline, Killebrew, Oliva, Brooks Robinson and Bill Freehan, maybe Norm Cash. Some other guys weren't there for the entire time.
Yaz and maybe Kaline were better over that period, although Kaline was missing games by 1968 and playing some 1B. Yaz also had a couple of years around 120 in OPS+. Freehan is another guy I imagine you will scoff at, but he was a GREAT catcher! Another very important position.
If you just look at hitting, Fregosi doesn't make the top 10, but if I'm picking a team, I'm looking hard at the SS position. If I were drafting, Fregosi and Freehan would either be 1-2 or 2-3 (sorry Harmon!). I would pick Yaz anywhere between 1-3 but no lower.
One of the other comments I fail to understand is when a player gets "downgraded" because "there were no other guys at his position at the time that were any good". To me that's a good thing! By the way Luis Aparicio and Campenaris were pretty good SS too, but not as good of hitters.
Jim was superior to everyone else at his position. In this case for 8 straight years. That's really good in my eyes. Certainly not his fault everyone else was "awful".
Bill James has Fregosi as the 5th best player in the AL over his years as a regular shortstop (behind F. Robby, Yaz, Killer, and Howard), ahead of Brooks, Oliva, Kaline, Boog, Cash, etc.
Killebrew missed much of 1965 and '68 with injuries. Robinson didn't arrive in the AL until 1966 and played in only about 130 games in three of the years in question, from 1967 on Howard was a STUD, but before that not so much. Hard to argue about Yaz being the best of that period.
I think, given the importance of his position, Fregosi has a legitimate claim to be considered the 2nd best/most valuable player (NOT hitter) in the AL 1963-70.
I wonder where James has Freehan rated?
Thank you. And I'll add that Fegosi may miss the top 10 for hitting alone, but if he does he barely misses. Again, he was in the top 10 of offensive WAR for each of those eight years, and there is no positional adjustment in offensive WAR.
And the claim that every other AL shortstop was "awful" is just wrong. In addition to Campaneris and Aparicio, there was also Petrocelli, Ron Hansen, Zoilo Versalles and Woodie Held; all of them, better than average to very good hitters historically for shortstops. NL shortstops over those years were pretty "awful" hitters - Dennis Menke was the best - but not the AL.
I saw Versalles (and checked his stats) he had some nice years but was a bit inconsistent, he was known to make a spectacular play and then not be able to make the routine. 1967 on his hitting went way down. I looked at Petrocelli too and he was pretty good. Monster year in 1969.
And just to be clear, I'm not claiming that Versalles or the rest were historically great hitters, but they were all at least good hitters among shortstops. Hitters of the quality of Fregosi, who could also win a Gold Glove playing shortstop, are historically rare, and for the bulk of the 1960's Fregosi was the only one. Even before the dawn of the advanced stats, or even the awareness of the concepts behind them, I don't think it is at all a stretch that AL GMs would have ranked Fregosi among the top 5 players they'd most like to have on their team.
Bill James rates Fregosi as the 15th best shortstop of all time, but since he retired he was passed by Ripken, Yount, Larkin, Smith, and Trammell (plus some others who weren't on James' list yet 20 years ago), so he was in the top 10 at the end of his career. James' comment on Fregosi:
I missed this earlier. Freehan's best 8-year stretch is '67 - '74, and over that stretch James shows Freehan as the 6th best player in the AL (behind Yaz, Reggie J., Reggie S., F. Robby, and Bando. (And add, if they weren't already there, Reggie Smith and Sal Bando to your list of great players from the second deadball era that most people don't realize were great.)
I'll bet not too many would have thought THAT!
I don't scoff at Freehan. He belongs in the HOF.
Zoilo had a career OPS+ of 82. C'mon. Yes, terrific in 1965 but...
I made no claim on behalf of Versalles beyond "above average", and when you consider the other AL shortstops who haven't been mentioned, there's Eddie Brinkman (career OPS+ 65), Larry Brown (76), Mark Belanger (68), Ruben Amaro (71), Jerry Adair (80), and Ray Oyler (48). And none of them remotely capable of having a single "terriffic" offensive year if given 100 years to try.
Versalles was an above average hitting shortstop; the shortstops against which Fregosi would have been compared while he was playing were not "awful". Shortstops don't hit as well as players at any other position. That was as true in the 1960's as it has been in every other decade of MLB's existence.
Not that anyone cares, but when I get curious and look up a bunch of stuff I feel compelled to post it here.
Looking at everyone who played SS at any point during 1963-1970 would take forever and whatever it produced would be of dubious value. But I did look up everyone who was each team's most used SS in 1967, a proxy for the entire period.
The average career OPS+ for the AL shortstops was 81, with Fregosi at 113 and Oyler at 48 at the top and bottom. In the NL the average was 73, with Menke at 103 on top and Lanier at 50 at the bottom. If you want to see what an average SS looked like in those days, check out Bud Harrelson (triple crown stats for 162 games of 1, 28, .236, OPS+ 76) or Larry Brown (7, 36, .233, OPS+ 76). A replacement level SS would be someone like Bobby Wine (4, 37, .215, OPS+ 55).
My apologies for an incorrect assumption. I figured if you didn't give Fregosi extra credit for playing a high value position (although he didn't win the GG every year like Bill did), you wouldn't like Freehan because of his hitting.
I just looked at the AL catchers for the time. WOW not to much competition for Freehan either!!!!!!
Not sure if I would put him in HOF, but wouldn't be upset if he was in.
you seem to make a lot of them.
Yes I do. There should be at LEAST one person here who is imperfect, it seems that would be me!
I would apologize to you for whatever I did to put a "bee in your bonnet" if I knew what that was.
Have a great week!
Freehan hit well enough and had top 3 MVP finishes. Add in elite defensive skills for over a decade? Yeah, HOFer.
Put him in!
Fregosi was an average player, not great, not bad.
Consider this, the standard of greatness had been set in a dead ball era, and that standard was Honus Wagner.
Compare Fregosi to Wagner and you'll get his true value.
Just because Fregosi was a big duck in a small pond doesn't make him a HOF'er.
Put him in the ocean and he gets ate alive.
1970's said it best. The AL just had crappy hitters in that era.
Look at the baseball cards. Most players then were skinny as a rail. They look like
the guy that got beat up at the beach in those Charles Atlas advertisements.
Throw in some great pitching and those hitters were simply overmatched. They sucked, plain and simple.
Having said that, that era was much better than the steroid era.