Year by year review NL
WinPitcher
Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Text
Some recent posts/threads piqued my interest regarding stats. so i decided to take a look. what i found............
in 1955 the NL averaged 1.03 homer runs per game, in 2003 at the so called apex of powerball they averaged 1.05. hmmm interesting I then looked a lil further at some other "stats" and many like hits per game etc all seemes to me anyway to always be in the ballpark. yes thier were ebbs and flows but my basic premise (to me anyway) was that the more baseball changes the more baseball SEEMS to stay the same.
ok skinpinch and co. what you say?
Steve
please let us not allow this thread to degenerate into a wife/mother insult laden fight.
I looked at this info for all of 5 minutes so I am sure I missed a bunch but..................it looks like to me aint nothing really changed.....
edited typo
Some recent posts/threads piqued my interest regarding stats. so i decided to take a look. what i found............
in 1955 the NL averaged 1.03 homer runs per game, in 2003 at the so called apex of powerball they averaged 1.05. hmmm interesting I then looked a lil further at some other "stats" and many like hits per game etc all seemes to me anyway to always be in the ballpark. yes thier were ebbs and flows but my basic premise (to me anyway) was that the more baseball changes the more baseball SEEMS to stay the same.
ok skinpinch and co. what you say?
Steve
please let us not allow this thread to degenerate into a wife/mother insult laden fight.
I looked at this info for all of 5 minutes so I am sure I missed a bunch but..................it looks like to me aint nothing really changed.....
edited typo
Good for you.
0
Comments
3.50 to 4.04, and league ERA hasn't been under 4 since. For the most part, it was consistently at 3.50 to 3.75 (with one year aberrations here and there at 4.00).
1954-1955 was the last time league ERA was over 4 in consecutive years, and then it was a 2 year run. We are in the middle of a TWELVE year run of league ERA over 4.00, and there is no sign it's going to drop below 4 ever again.
Look at the HR numbers.
HR per game have been over 1.0 for seven years in a row. Only one other year in the last 100 years has there been more than one HR per game hit, and that was 1956.
I like how you picked the ONE year out of the last 100 where more than one HR per game was hit...besides that one year, there had never been an average of one HR per game hit until this current 7 year stretch we are in.
Before 1996, there had never been 2000 HRs hit in a year; yet now we are in the middle of a NINE year run of it, with several years in the 2900+ number.
Home runs are being hit in record numbers. They are being hit more frequently per game, are flying out of parks at a record level, indicating yes, it is indeed easier to hit a home run in the last 10 years than at any other point in the history of the game.
There have been less than 100 complete games in the NL for the past 4 years. As recently as 1990, that number was 200(!)
So even with these specialty pitchers, who have a distinct advantage over hitters in only typically having one at bat, league ERA is still spiraling up and up and up.
The game is nowhere near the same beast as it was in the 50s. Look how many complete games were thrown (in your picked) year of 1956: 385(!!!) Hell, Robin Roberts ALONE had 26 complete games in 1956, that's more than some staffs acquire as a unit these days.
I am not quite sure why you continue to insist that the game of today is so similar to how it was in the 50s. You have smaller ballparks now, dilluted pitching talent, and (questionable) training regimens that promote hitting the long ball over just about every other aspect of hitting.
It is easier (based on the numbers alone) to hit a HR in this era than at any other time in baseball's history. All one needs to do is look at the inredibly upward spike in league era over the past decade, the average home runs hit in the past decade, and overall the power side of the game is being done in incredibly bigger numbers.
Abe
<< <i>Axtell, I'm not arguing any of the stats you put up because you've done much more research than I have. The one issue I'll take however is taht the reason for the large ERA jump from 1992-1993 is expansion. There were at least 20 new pitchers in the league that didn't belong there the year before. If you look I would believe there are similar ERA jumps each time there is expansion.
Abe >>
But why wouldn't it settle back down after a couple years? Between the expansion year you mentioned, and the 2004 season, league ERA climbed to 4.30.
WP's contention has always been that the dillution of pitching talent is not to blame as MLB can now recruit from a much larger population (world population as opposed to primarily US people).
I believe whole-heartedly that the climbing of the league ERA is due simply to the dillution of the pitchers in the majors, and the smaller and more hitter-friendly ballparks.
Therefore, league ERA being at it's highest levels in the history of the league over the longest period since MLB came into existence simply proves that hitting a baseball for power in this era is the easiest it's ever been. Which means we should take that into account when we start praising these modern day players who are hitting as many home runs as they are.
That is all i am saying.
As for your HOME RUNS being hit in record numbers the fact remains that in 55 (my chosen yr) 1.03 per game were hit in 03 1.05 were hit. YES more homers were hit WE have twice as many teams now then we did then.
as for the pitching and complete games the relief specialist took care of that. Look at stolen bases, seem to have stayed pretty even over the yrs. MY POINT is simply that a 4.00 era and a 3.75 ERA are not miles apart, yet at the same time they can be argued to be just that.
One can look at stats and see what you see or see what i see.
Edited to add: they can also see what they want to see.
please do not imply what my contentions were or are.
this is a new day a new thread.
thanks
sd
I am looking at a 10+ year era, and seeing home runs hit consistently that was once considered an aberration.
Yes, in your ONE year you chose, more the one home run was hit per game. It was the only year it had ever happened in the history of the league, and then it then was more than 40 years before that happened again, and then it's happened every year SINCE then.
You are looking at a one year aberration, I see a long term trend that has dramatically CHANGED the game of baseball. It's nowhere near the same game as it was in the 50s.
i also chose it cuz it bared out my thought that the more things change the more they seem to stay the same.
yes baseball is always changing, one thing happens then somthing is done to counteract it.
because of the pitching being diluted the yr of expansions didnt MLB the last time it expanded have the teams wait 3 years before they played a game? that way they could have their programs in place. Each expansion was different. in 61 the power numbers and averages were up too.. it then settled back to where we see the best pitching in decades!
sd
from 1901 till 2005. that is where you and I differentiate.
of course the game is different now then it was in the 50's i say that in the "the more baseball changes part of my cliche.
SD You are choosing to look at a one year aberration of statistics, WP.
No Ax i was looking at the whole ball of wax.
ok Ax just for fun...i looked at 1956 i think it is .96 homers....in 1996 its .98
and what about hits? they have remained steady between 8 and 10 a game, that is if you consider 2 hits per game diference steady.
stats can be seen through eyes in vastly different ways.
they can be explained in ways that will allow a person to prove a point. stats are just that stats.
HR per game from 1993-2005
.86, .95, .95, .98, .96, 1.00, 1.12, 1.16, 1.15, .1.01, 1.05, 1.10
Now check out the Home run rates from the twelve years before that 1992-'81
.65, .74, .78, .70, .66, .94, .79, .73, .66, .72, .67, .56
1998 started the run of 1 homer per game. Now if you don't think the significane of 1.12 homers per game vs. .66 you are missing a bunch. Remember, that is over a sample size of over 2,000 games!!
Winpitcher, a seemingly small difference in rate or percentage isn't that small when you consider the sheer amount of at bats in a given year! If you looked at it in per at bat ratio, a typical year in the live ball era would be one home run every 30 at bats. A typical year in the 12 years immediately before the liveball era would be about one every 48 at bats!! That is a very large difference!
Also A 15 point difference in batting average 80,000 at bats is a large difference.
YOu are correct on the 50's in regard to homers as that was a higher period too.
HOWEVER, using total home runs isn't the proper measure of hitting. YOu must use the SLG% and OB%, as that encompasses the total realm of hitting, and not just a single event, for example....
If you looked at the 30's the home run rates per game are quite low at around .55 per game, but home runs alone don't tell the story when evaluating a batter.... as the BA, OB% and SLG% do tell.
Your statement of "the more things change the more they stay the same" has a ring of truth to it. IN FACT the relative consistency of baseball is exactly what allows a great degree of validity to the studies and stat research that I and others have done. There are certainly different shifts in all of baseball, but boy the work to narrow it down has been great.
A lot of the assumptions you make aren't correct, and have proven not to be. It is easy to dismiss everything with a single statement of disbelief or opinion in light of strong evidence, ala Carl Everett not believing in the existence of dinosaurs. Yeah everyone has an opinion, as does Everett, but that doesn't make the opinion close to truth. If you are to dismiss a scientific study, which these are, then a rebuttle in the form of scientific method must be done to do so. Picking out a year like you did to formulate evidence for your "things change" statement probably get you about .00000000000001 percent to showing good evidence for your claim.
The research, based on strong evidence, logic, and mathematical figures of baseball stats is 98% right on. The relative consistency of baseball stats thankfully has allowed studies like those possible. BUt don't misconstrue "consistency" as there are some majoy differences throughout the paradigm.. and some differences in percentages that are seemingly small, but are in fact light years apart from each other.
Skin that is all I have been trying to say all along.
baseball stats constantly evolve, they go up...they go down but they always seem to follow a relative consistency. I made it clear in my original post that I didn't want to follow any 10 yr periods, that i used 1955 because it was 50 years ago, was a time when intergration was possibly in full swing and was quite close to what had happened (statiscally speaking) to the late 90's 00's. Homeruns were used just as a point of reference, not as a tell all. Hits have remained pretty constant as well. What i did see and it amazed me was that run average was almost always .50 higher then ERA. I guess that means that the defense gives up a half a run per game on average.
I will look into those stats more as I find it interesting that after the 50's power surge the late 60's into the 70's shows a decline in offense.meaning that the pitching became tougher. I wonder if the generation of managers plays any part in this. what I mean is in the 60's many managers were players from the 30's and 40's and I wonder what impact they had on the stats.
Steve
great post as usual skin.
Steve
Your choosing to focus on one, or 2 years of study just isn't valid as the sample size isn't beig enough.
If you want to know why runs and HR and what not went down after 1955, it was simply returning to its normal state...which it remained at fairly consistently until the steroid era of 1993.
Like skip said, you may say that the difference between .85 HR per game and 1.10 HR per game may seem like not that big a deal, but again, as he said, over the thousands and thousands of at bats that make up that sample size, its a HUGE difference.
And I am just not sure why you are so unwilling to admit that HRs are so much easier to hit now that at any other time in baseball's history? That this era is seeing home runs hit in such numbers and at such consistency that it speaks volumes to how easy it is to hit home runs now on today's dilluted pitching and tiny ballparks? Are you afraid it's going to take something away from your favorite players of today's game?
WP, tell me something: if hitting a home run today were as difficult as it were in say the 50s, then tell me, why have home runs per game climbed steadily per game, and pitching ERA has climbed even faster? Even with the advent of the 7th, 8th, and 9th inning pitching specialists (which can have their effect seen on the drastic reduction in complete games)?
Yes hits per game have stayed relatively flat over the course of baseball history. But the number of home runs has gone up tremendously.
It went something like this ..... Cy Young was great in his day, and during his day Walter Johnson showed to be just as good as he continued the torch after Young was retired. THen during Walter Johnson's day, Dazzy Vance was just as good for a time and he carried the torch longer, then during Vance's time Lefty Grove grabbed the torch, then Grove's contemporary carried the torch and passed it on until it met Pedro Martinez.
If Johnson was as good as Young, and Vance as good as Johnson, and Grove as good as Vance, and so on, then Pedro is as good as Young!! This is obviously only during prime years, not measuring a career value. But if all of those guys were able to do as good as the next while they played with each other, then you could see that the BEST players from now to then really haven't changed much.
WHAT HAS CHANGED is the value of the numbers used to measure them, and in some cases the style of play to change the numbers!!! That is where all the stat work has come into play. That is where the population study, and measuring vs. contemporaries has come into play, to show that just by looking at the raw numbers to judge players you aren't getting accurate measurements. Otherwise the numbers slant extremely biased towards only certain era's....now and Pre War. Using logic and common sense, and looking at the lineage of the players we know that the best players didn't just reside in those era's as some of the stats may lead one to believe! That is where I come in.
NOTE that I say best Players! The additin of exta players and the population facts change the league as a whole. But with the consistencies of stats through time, we can account for this. You can even just forget abot stats too and realize that the best player of now is just as good as the best player of then. THe second best now is equal to the second best then. Obviously a spot or two could change, but you get the idea.
NO i was not! i was looking at 50 years 100 years,
I was also not just looking at HOMERUNS
I was looking at ALL STATS
OK?
Please stop inferring what I am looking at AX your not in my chair.
I used homeruns in my original post as a STARTING point.
I have looked at Runs, ER's, SB, CG, GS, ETC ETC
i have also looked at all 100 years not just 2 like your trying to imply.
Hope this cleaqrs up what you think.
steve
There are whole books on this stuff. Any baseball fan should read them. I can't put all this info on a message board, even my own original stuff, because it takes book lengths of writing to show things. Methods, evidence etc...
nothing more or less
just the whole ball of wax.
i understand that different era's produce its best players, and that one can't nor should they compare them.
Im just simply saying that baseball stats remain somewhat constant over the years. they go up they go down they stay even for various periods of time.
I appreciate the way you see the stats, appreciate the way i see them as well.
Im not trying to prove anyone right or wrong in this matter.
just simply stating that stats can be viewed a multiple of ways. i guess.
steve
Baseball stats can be VIEWED different ways, but most of the times they are VIEWED inccorrectly. Whole books have been written to show this. Of course, one could just ignore the evidence with Carl Everett, I can't change that. ALL I can do is push the stats as close to truth as possible...and in the course of baseball stats they have been pushed VERY close to truth once a few more touches are made. Lots of good interesting and complex stuff at work. The stat books aren't just stats per say, they provide good knowledge of the history of the game and put things into perspective.
I know all about the consistencies of stats and how they go up and down etc...I already appreciate that point of view, but I passed through that stage of stats YEARS ago. I also appreciate the 'romantic' view of baseball etc....I prefer baseball fans that engage in discussion of best ever(and use stats to justify) etc...(as you have), should get the best understanding possible. All fans should do that, not you specifically.
OK AX if that is truly the case then what you are saying is that THIS ERA IS AN ABBERATION, not the 1950 to mid 60's (thats 15 years) that i was showing.
and they didnt dive down after 55 they remained constant. look at the text before you make claims, between 1953 and 1961 HR's were CONSTANTLY at .90 or better. with a HIGH in 55 at 1.03
Steve
IT did like hell. in 1968 well before the steroid era HR were at an almost alltime low. .55 is not constant with .90's
steve
<< <i>Skin what i think you are missing from my POV is simply I do not care nor do I insist who is the best player. I am looking at baseball in an in general sense.
steve >>
Baseball in a general sense?
So what about the fact that league era has been well above 4.00 for a dozen years straight now? And that the longest period of time prior to this current 12 year run of league era being over 4 was 2?
What about the proliferation of pitching specialists, who are there to make hitters less effective, yet league era continues to skyrocket? You say you've looked at complete games, shouldn't that tell you alone that the game is nowhere near the game it was in the 50s, the fact that pitchers don't finish games anymore?
Yes you can look at hits per game and see it being somewhat consistent. But if what used to be a single is now a home run (as evidenced by league era and home run numbers), how is that not make the game today vastly different than it was in the 50s?
You claim that the more it changes, the more it stays the same? How can that be when teams no longer need to steal bases in order to manufacture runs? Because they know that power can come from just about any player in the lineup, and not just the 3-4-5 guys?
You say you are looking at baseball in a general sense, and not looking at one particular area. Is it coincidence that you are looking at just those areas (hits, SB, etc) but I'm just not sure how you can avoid looking at the stats that directly affect scoring (HR and ERA) and not see that it's easier to score runs and hit home runs now than at any other time in history?
Skin that is where I guess you and I disagree.
my basic premise is that their is no right way nor wrong way to view stats, stats can be manipulated as to where the person studying them can see what they want
AX is a perfect example of that in that he just said the HR's remained constant from the 1950's up to the so called steroid era.
if that is not seeing what one wants to see then I dunno.
is it wrong? not in his eyes it aint and I can respect his POV. he must feel that .90 and .55 are not that far away perhaps.
Steve
You want to go deeper into stats then i do. that is where we differ. is anyone right? no is anyone wrong? no again.
one other point and this should clarify my posistion
when I say baseball changes yet it seems to stay the same.
the important word is SEEMS
yes with the advent of the relief pitcher cg are rare, that also could be clubs don't want guys going deeper into the game as they have lotsa dough invested in them.
yes the game evolves yet it essentially stays the same. maybe that is a better way to say it.
no argument from me about your view of stats.
steve
ERA?
It's arguably the single most important pitching statistic, yet you continue to 'overlook' it?
As far as the home runs being hit, does it not seem odd that more than one home run per game is being hit and has been for seven years in a row? Even with the advent of the pitching specialist? And that prior to this seven year stretch, there was just ONE year in the entire history of the game where home runs were hit in such numbers?
I am simply unable to grasp why you are so unwilling to concede this point? Why can't you admit that as much as you want it to be, home runs and scoring runs is at this point in baseball history easier than at any other time in history?
Why, WP?
why do u insist on arguing?
I have already said that I am looking at baseball as a whole, what part of that do u not understand?
Not sure where I used just one stat (era) I think when i said that ita nd run avg were .50 apart? is that when....look ax lets meake a deal i wont reply to any thread you make, don't reply to any I make. you seem to just want to pick and choose ceratin sentences.
you made a statement befiore that homeruns remained constant from 1955 up till the steroid era. why do u keep insisting that?
steve
why? cuz I have a point of view that differs from yours. simple
i do not feel that runs in this era are easier to come by then, say the era of 1876 to 1900 ok? yes I agree that if you want to claim that they are in fact easier then say 1968 tol 1978 I agree
but when looking at BASEBALL as a whole the do not.
Steve
You can't just view stats anyway you want just because you want to....well you can, but you will be wrong. You have to back it up scientifically my friend, and it has been done. Your premises have a loooong way to go to be considered anywhere near valid.
If I want to go around and say triples are rare, and so and so has 15 triples so that makes him the best player because no other player can do what he does, that is fine, but i would be wrong about my assessment. More importantly is for GM's to understand stats, and some of them, like fans make big mistakes. So there is more than just historical context, GM's need to understand it more. Since you invest time and emotion into the sport, that would have some relevance to you.
If your stance is simply going to be "stats can be manipulated any way you want, despite overwhelming evidence claiming otherwise," then you should post on the Carl Everett dinosaur board as he has the same stance.
It's apparent you want to be blissful in your entire 'the more the game changes, the more it stays the same' line of thinking that tells you that a home run hit today has the same value as it did in the 50s.
It's apparent you want to talk stats and facts when it backs up your side of the argument, but are completely unwilling to do so when it causes conflict with your thinking.
I think any one who looks objectively at the entire picture can see clearly that home runs are being hit now in record numbers; that run scoring is way, WAY up (looking at league ERA), and that therefore the conclusion must be drawn that a run scored today and a home run hit today do not have the same worth as ones in eras gone by.
I am done with this thread WP. You posted in your first post 'it looks like to me aint nothing really changed'. How in the world can you possibly think that?
Good luck WP. Hope with some more careful insight you might be able to see how VASTLY different the game is now than it was then.
my view is different then yours. who is right? who cares.
sd
again im worn down after trying to just infer a simple point. I wonder what the stats are on that? how when someone tries to infer a simple point how many times does it go off into 1000 tangents.
please no more.
i agree with you
ok skinpinch and co. what you say?
Steve"
WINPTCHER, that was your quote. You made a first grade assessment of a complex area and then threw down the statement "OK skinpinch and co. what you say?" as if you just discovered the cure for cancer and tried to 'show me up'.
Then I (plus Axtell's many good points) proceeded to just knock your first grade assessment right off the block. I was nice during the whole process even though you tried to throw down the gauntlet. Gosh, your logic, knowledge, and methods of proof are quite possibly the worse I have seen in my entire life. The more I read your statements, and your bravado statements of nothing, the more I realize your not worth even talking to.
My suggestion is to search out Carl Everett, then both go to Egypt and sit by the Nile, because you are both in de-Nile anyway!
because you made this claim!
and it isnt .85 and 1.10
it was .96 and 1.03 (averaged)
and over the at bats? well my friend in the 50's we had 8 teams in the nl. today there are 16! do the math
sd
it was said with respect
possibly a poor choice of words for sure.
steve
Ok?
skin i also said:
k skinpinch and co. what you say?
Steve
please let us not allow this thread to degenerate into a wife/mother insult laden fight.
Of all the stuf I researched and of the stuff I created, I put them through the same questions you ask to make sure the findings were valid. In fact, I put them through even tougher standards. In the end, it was always very difficult to refute the findings. IN the end, it wasn't a matter of opinion or manipulation of stats, it is truth.
As for the lineage, I posted that because I thought you might like a study of that nature, as it seems to jive with your point of view. I don't have the full study on hand, but if I come across it, any fan would find it interesting. It shows how baseball is very possible to compare cross era's if done right. Unlike football or basketball where the changes, and nature of the game, make such analysis VERY difficult and opinion comes much more into play.
I must always remember, not everyone is interested in delving as deep into it as myself. But there is a level for everyone.
Anyway WIn, my apologies again. Enjoy your Sunday.
-SKIN
funny thing is that after i wrote it I said to myself "can that be taken wrong" i said nah and left it as is.
it was though, a poor choice of words.
i singled you out cuz I value your opinions.
u 2 have a wonderful sunday
steve
i was just looking at the american league and sure enuff a whole different ballgame there,
just one tidbit
era was over 4.00 for 17 years 24 thru 41
numbers seem to stay relatvely constant as you say and that is what makes people able to 'delve" into them as you so stated.
Steve
<< <i>Skin
i was just looking at the american league and sure enuff a whole different ballgame there,
just one tidbit
era was over 4.00 for 17 years 24 thru 41
numbers seem to stay relatvely constant as you say and that is what makes people able to 'delve" into them as you so stated.
Steve >>
ERA is of course going to be higher in the AL because of the DH.
Sd
Can I ask why you choose to look at ERA when it appears to support your argument, but were adamant about NOT looking at ERA when it didn't?
And if you want to get to the meat of it, ERA in the AL is on the high side of 4, nearing 5:
Since 2004:
4.63
4.53
4.46
4.47
4.91
4.86
4.65
4.57
5.00(!)
4.71
4.80
4.32 (1993...the start of the steroid era)
From
These numbers are a far cry from the ERAs you cite:
1924-1941:
4.23
4.40
4.03
4.14
4.04
4.24
4.64
4.38
4.48
4.28
4.50
4.45
5.04
4.62
4.79
4.62
4.38
4.15
I am not going to argue a fine point such as this...as it appears you are completely hung up on round numbers (It's above 4.00 ERA...its as bad as the NL picture!), just like you seemed completely hung up on Raffy's accomplishments (3000 hits and 500 HRs!)
If you don't put these numbers into context, you can push them into any way you want. My point with ERA in the NL chart was that just ONCE in the history of the game, had there been a year where league ERA was over 4. We are in the midst of a 7 year run of 4.00 ERAs in the NL, and it's unlikely to drop anytime soon. I added in the appearance of the pitching specialists (which you would assume would make it tougher to score runs), the diminishing number of complete games (again, the proflieration of the relief pitcher's proiminence), and I came to the logical (to me at least) conclusion that it's easier to score runs at this point in the history of baseball than at any other time in the history of the game.
Now if you want to sit here and try to spin whatever minute piece of data you find in these tables ('hits and stolen bases have remained constant!'), go right ahead. I have made my point, I have followed the logical conclusion that comes from the presentation of those facts.
I just want to know what is it you are trying to prove with your debate here? You don't really seem to say anything other than 'the more things change the more they stay the same', yet when you are called out with factual evidence on that very point, you change your tune and start arguing different topics. Which is it?
The very FIRST post you made on this topic was how in ONE year, in 1955, home runs in the NL averaged over 1 per game. Then you say how 2003 was the height of the powerball era, and home runs averaged about the same. You failed to mention that that one year in 1955 was the only year in the entire history of the game where home runs were hit at that rate until this current 7 year (soon to be 8) stretch of averaging more than one home run per game.
You don't want to admit that the hitters today are having an easier time of it than at any other point in history? That home runs are easier to come by than at any other point in history? That you don't want to admit that expansion has dilluted the pitching pool and made it easier for hitters?
I can't help but think it's because you want to think the players playing today are the greatest ever, because they are the ones you are watching; but I just don't see how you can look at the overwhelming evidence that is presented and not see they are having the easiest time in history of hitting the ball?
era was over 4.00 17 times from 1924 thru 1941
how you got from that simple statement to your above diatribe is beyond me
no i was not trying to insinuate anything.
that seems to be your problem. re read my post
it was to skin and it was a mere tidbit of what i looked at and saw
y must you be so argumentative?
you can believe what you want as i can
agreed?
sheesh
i look at hits u say the same thing i look at HR same thing...sb yep same thing run average you guessed it.......you look to far into what i am saying and what ive tried to say.
its simple and it is ONLY MY OPINION
I dare not say it again.
how many damn things can I write about at any one time?
I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT ALL THE STATS
I can come to any conclusion that i want,.
as you can
<< <i>ax i made a simple statement
era was over 4.00 17 times from 1924 thru 1941
>>
So which is it? Does ERA matter or not WP? You fail to recognize it as a meaningful measure in the NL argument, but suddenly its your proof when you bring up the AL?
And what exactly were you trying to prove with your first post? I, like skip, took it as 'hey I found this graph that proves I'm right and you're wrong!'
i have said all along a thousand times that your not right nor are you wrong.
stop reading into crap that aint there.
sd
it seems to matter to you enough that you keep throwing it up in my face.
Im not sure exactly what you mean?
I am sure thhough that you do not know what I mean that is for sure.
end of discussion
<< <i>
its simple and it is ONLY MY OPINION
I dare not say it again.
>>
And what is your opinion? You've said it's just your opinion 100 times, but you haven't said what your opinion is?
Is it that baseball is the same than it was 50 years ago? (it's not...you can nitpick that hits and SB are the same over 50 years, but leave out more of those hits are home runs now than at any other stretch in history).
Is your opinion that hitters today are as gifted as they were in the 50s? Even though with the advent and proliferation of the pitching specialists, ERAs and HRs have continued to rise?
What exactly are you trying to say with your post?
<< <i>So which is it? Does ERA matter or not WP
it seems to matter to you enough that you keep throwing it up in my face.
Im not sure exactly what you mean?
>>
I brought up the continued rise in ERA in the national league stats, showing the sustained 7 year run over 4.00 for league ERA. Historically, only one other year was ERA over 4. You dismissed that fact, said it didn't matter.
Then you try to bring up league ERA in the AL when you think it bolsters your argument. So which is it? Is ERA an indicator of how well hitters are faring against pitchers or not?
END OF DISCUSSION
understand that?