This has, for some reason, been dubbed the Year of the Pitcher, as if we are in the midst of an historic season.
On the cover of Sports Illustrated. In stories leading up to the All-Star Game. Every time the insufferable Chris Berman opens his mouth. Suddenly, it is in vogue to suggest that pitchers are dominating major-league baseball.
But before you go repeating this “Year of the Pitcher” nonsense, Bob Gibson would like a word with you. And he’d like to point out his 1.12 ERA from 1968.
Yes, there have been some spectacular performances this season. Dallas Braden and Roy Halladay threw perfect games. Armando Galarraga threw the Perfect Game That Wasn’t. Travis Wood took a perfect game into the ninth inning. Ubaldo Jiménez threw a no-hitter. Edwin Jackson threw a no-hitter, many-walker.
In fact, Jiménez went into the All-Star break with a 2.20 ERA and a 15-1 record, which put him on pace to go 28-2, which would be some sort of record. I think.
So it’s almost understandable why this has been declared the Year of the Pitcher. After more than a decade of steroids-fueled Years of the Hitter, it’s almost as though baseball has entered another Deadball Era.
Except that it hasn’t. Which points out the importance of historical perspective. Which points out the fact that the Year of the Pitcher is all relative.
Heading into the All-Star break, the major-league ERA was 4.16, which is, indeed, a decline from recent years. We’ll prove it. Here are the numbers for the past decade:
Year ERA
2010 4.16
2009 4.32
2008 4.32
2007 4.47
2006 4.53
2005 4.29
2004 4.46
2003 4.40
2002 4.29
2001 4.42
So yes, ERAs are down this year. Especially if you believe that baseball started in 2001 or, say, in 1994.
But it’s kind of like when Oscar Robertson averaged a triple-double in 1962. That year, the typical NBA game had a total of 142 rebounds available. Nowadays, there are more like 80 rebounds per game. Total.
Robertson’s numbers are incredible. But lauding the averaging of a triple-double means you are ignoring the historical context.
Same thing with calling this the Year of the Pitcher. So let’s add some context.
Since 1920, with the advent of the lively ball, there have been 91 major-league seasons. In 61 of those — 67 percent — the ERA has been below this year’s 4.16. Therefore, when placed in the context of baseball history, this season favors the hitters.
OK, more fun with numbers. Here is the major-league ERA for each decade since the Deadball Era (we’ll lump this season with the previous 10 years):
YEARS ERA
2000-10 4.40
1990-99 4.28
1980-89 3.86
1970-79 3.69
1960-69 3.58
1950-59 3.97
1940-49 3.75
1930-39 4.28
1920-29 4.04
For the sake of comparison, here are the ERAs for the Deadball Era: 1910-19, 2.96; 1900-09, 2.90. Those were the Decades of the Pitcher.
So far this season, baseball’s offensive numbers remain high from a historical perspective, even if they are down compared with recent years. Batting averages are down three points from 2009; home runs have declined by 11 percent.
But there still are more runs being scored than were typical during the careers of Mickey Mantle or Babe Ruth or Willie Mays or Stan Musial or Mike Schmidt or just about any great hitter. During Mantle’s career, the typical ERA was 3.75; during Barry Bonds’ career it was 4.28.
Which brings us to the real Year of the Pitcher. In 1968, the major-league ERA was 2.98. Gibson had that 1.12 mark and struck out 17 in Game 1 of the World Series. Denny McLain won 31 games. Don Drysdale set a record with 58 consecutive scoreless innings.
Even the not-quite-immortal Jim Nash had an ERA of 2.28, which points out … something. I don’t know.
But consider this: David Price’s 2.42 ERA, which leads the AL this year, would have ranked ninth in the 1968 American League.
The major-league batting average in 1968 was .237, and the on-base percentage was .299. Which means that watching baseball was like watching a game in which all 18 hitters are Yuniesky Betancourt.
That was a problem.
So the owners decided to shrink the strike zone, lower the mound, and expand by four teams, which always helps offensive numbers.
This year’s numbers haven’t dipped to those miniscule 1968 levels. Baseball will be in trouble if they ever do. Yet this season’s slight decline has led some to suggest that pitchers have restored balance to the game.
That always strikes me as a silly declaration. Throughout the history of baseball, the statistics have been subject to the changing conditions of the sport.
In 1905, Fred Odwell led the major leagues with nine home runs. In 2001, Bonds hit 73 homers. It was the same game, but the conditions were vastly different. The ballparks, the training methods, even the ball itself had changed.
So who is to say what is the proper balance? Who is to say that a 4.16 league ERA is more ideal than a 3.50 ERA or a 5.50 ERA? Statistics ebb and flow over time, and determining the proper balance is merely a matter of personal preference.
Yet regardless of what your preference might be, declaring the 2010 season to be the Year of the Pitcher is asinine.
Question or comment for By the Numbers? You can reach Greg Jayne, Sports editor of The Columbian, at 360-735-4531 or by e-mail at greg.jayne@columbian.com. To read his blog, go to columbian.com/weblogs/GregJayne
