Run scoring over the years since 1966

[Bellhorn04]

1966 3.99

1967 3.77

1968 3.42

1969 4.07

1970 4.34

1971 3.89

1972 3.69

1973 4.21

1974 4.12

1975 4.21

1976 3.99

1977 4.47

1978 4.10

1979 4.46

1980 4.29

1981 4.00

1982 4.30

1983 4.31

1984 4.26

1985 4.33

1986 4.41

1987 4.72

1988 4.14

1989 4.13

1990 4.26

1991 4.31

1992 4.12

1993 4.60

1994 4.92

1995 4.85

1996 5.04

1997 4.77

1998 4.79

1999 5.08

2000 5.14

2001 4.78

2002 4.62

2003 4.73

2004 4.81

2005 4.59

2006 4.86

2007 4.80

2008 4.65

2009 4.61

2010 4.38

2011 4.28

2012 4.32

2013 4.17

2014 4.07

2015 4.25

2016 4.48

2017 4.65

2018 4.45

2019 4.85

[Bellhorn04]

I started with 1966 just to show the 2 years before 1968, the Year of the Pitcher. After 1968 they lowered the mound.

[notin]

I started with 1966 just to show the 2 years before 1968, the Year of the Pitcher. After 1968 they lowered the mound.

 

Next season, the pitcher should pitch from a hole...

[Bellhorn04]

The average number of runs per game for the 50 year span from 1969 to 2018 was 4.44 (or close to it).

[Bellhorn04]

The all time high was 5.14 in 2000. Was that the peak of PED use? It was the year before Barry Bonds hit 73 homers.

[notin]

The all time high was 5.14 in 2000. Was that the peak of PED use? It was the year before Barry Bonds hit 73 homers.

 

The biggest jumps are from 1976 to 1977 and from 1992 to 1993 (0.48 runs each time). Both were expansion years.

 

Interestingly, the latest expansion year (1998) saw only a 0.02 increase...

[Bellhorn04]

The biggest jumps are from 1976 to 1977 and from 1992 to 1993 (0.48 runs each time). Both were expansion years.

 

Interestingly, the latest expansion year (1998) saw only a 0.02 increase...

 

From 1972 to 1973 there was a jump of .52.

 

That was the year Atlanta became the only team to ever have 3 players with 40 HR's. It's conceivable that had something to do with PED's.

 

Tom House was on that team and later admitted to using PED's.

[notin]

From 1972 to 1973 there was a jump of .52.

 

That was the year Atlanta became the only team to ever have 3 players with 40 HR's. It's conceivable that had something to do with PED's.

 

Tom House was on that team and later admitted to using PED's.

 

Oh, Mr. Clarifier.

 

Maybe Atlanta was the first team with 3 players with 40 home runs, but not the only team ever.

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/COL/1996.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/COL/1997.shtml

[Bellhorn04]

Oh, Mr. Clarifier.

 

Maybe Atlanta was the first team with 3 players with 40 home runs, but not the only team ever.

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/COL/1996.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/COL/1997.shtml

 

Yeah, I wasn't sure about that.

 

But technically, when I said they became the only team, that means they were the only team at that point in time. I didn't say they were still the only team.

[notin]

Yeah, I wasn't sure about that.

 

But technically, when I said they became the only team, that means they were the only team at that point in time. I didn't say they were still the only team.

 

Re-read your sentence and decide if you still want to stand by that...

[Bellhorn04]

Re-read your sentence and decide if you still want to stand by that...

 

I've re-read it and I stand by it. The statement is in the past sense. It's true that in 1973 the Braves were the only team to do it.

 

It would be less ambiguous if it said 'the first team', of course.

[notin]

I've re-read it and I stand by it. The statement is in the past sense. It's true that in 1973 the Braves were the only team to do it.

 

It would be less ambiguous if it said 'the first team', of course.

 

And it might also have been, as you put it, less ambiguous to not call them “the only team ever,” which really does negate your point since you didn’t say it between 1973 and 1996, when it stopped being true...

[Bellhorn04]

And it might also have been, as you put it, less ambiguous to not call them “the only team ever,” which really does negate your point since you didn’t say it between 1973 and 1996, when it stopped being true...

 

I concede the point. I was too lazy to check if any teams had done it in later years.

 

But just to drag this out a bit further...what if I said this:

 

In 2004 the Red Sox became the only MLB team to ever win a best of 7 playoff series after trailing 3-0.

 

Is that statement wrong?

[notin]

I concede the point. I was too lazy to check if any teams had done it in later years.

 

But just to drag this out a bit further...what if I said this:

 

In 2004 the Red Sox became the only MLB team to ever win a best of 7 playoff series after trailing 3-0.

 

Is that statement wrong?

 

No. Because no one has done it since...

[Bellhorn04]

No. Because no one has done it since...

 

I'm aware. But if someone does it this year, does that statement change from true to false?

[notin]

I'm aware. But if someone does it this year, does that statement change from true to false?

 

False, as they will no longer be the only team to ever do it...

[Bellhorn04]

False, as they will no longer be the only team to ever do it...

 

I disagree, because that statement is expressed in past tense and only applied to the conditions that existed at the time. It's not negated by future events.

[notin]

I disagree, because that statement is expressed in past tense and only applied to the conditions that existed at the time. It's not negated by future events.

 

But you’re wrong.

 

First off, the definition of the word “ever” is “at all times,” and is not limited to the present.

 

And second, as you made your original statement in 2019, both 1996 and 1997 would be considered the past anyway. By your argument, saying “Abraham Lincoln was the most recent US President” is a true statement since it was phrased in the past tense. And hey, in reality it was only negated by future events. But is it true?

[Bellhorn04]

But you’re wrong.

 

First off, the definition of the word “ever” is “at all times,” and is not limited to the present.

 

And second, as you made your original statement in 2019, both 1996 and 1997 would be considered the past anyway. By your argument, saying “Abraham Lincoln was the most recent US President” is a true statement since it was phrased in the past tense. And hey, in reality it was only negated by future events. But is it true?

 

You need to take into account the CONTEXT of my statement. I was clearly only talking about WHAT HAPPENED IN 1973, starting with the fact that runs increased by .52.

 

I think we need a third opinion to break the deadlock. I nominate Kimmi.

[notin]

You need to take into account the CONTEXT of my statement. I was clearly only talking about WHAT HAPPENED IN 1973, starting with the fact that runs increased by .52.

 

I think we need a third opinion to break the deadlock. I nominate Kimmi.

 

No, we need you admit you made a mistake and to realize they stopped being the “only team ever” in 1995, long before your statement. Had you said “first team” or “only team at the time,” then your point would be correct. End of story...

[Bellhorn04]

No, we need you admit you made a mistake and to realize they stopped being the “only team ever” in 1995, long before your statement. Had you said “first team” or “only team at the time,” then your point would be correct. End of story...

 

Nope. Still disagreeing with you.

 

I already admitted that I failed to look up if there were teams who did it later.

 

What I'm arguing about here is semantics. I don't think you're an expert on that subject.

[Kimmi]

You need to take into account the CONTEXT of my statement. I was clearly only talking about WHAT HAPPENED IN 1973, starting with the fact that runs increased by .52.

 

I think we need a third opinion to break the deadlock. I nominate Kimmi.

 

Nomination accepted.

 

First off, I'd like to state that I'm surprised this debate is even still going on.

 

That said, because of the phrase "at the time", I would have to agree with Bell. Sorry Notin.

[notin]

Nomination accepted.

 

First off, I'd like to state that I'm surprised this debate is even still going on.

 

That said, because of the phrase "at the time", I would have to agree with Bell. Sorry Notin.

 

His original statement did not say “at the time” and simply said “only team ever.”

[Bellhorn04]

His original statement did not say “at the time” and simply said “only team ever.”

 

But it said 'became', a word that is in the past tense, meaning at the time.

 

Keep trying, man, you get full points for stubborn.

[Kimmi]

His original statement did not say “at the time” and simply said “only team ever.”

 

My bad, I must have read "at the time" in another post. Either way, "at the time" is implied because he is talking about a certain year in the past.

[notin]

My bad, I must have read "at the time" in another post. Either way, "at the time" is implied because he is talking about a certain year in the past.

 

Actually it’s not. The phrase “at the time”’ means the exact opposite of his chosen word “ever.”

 

Just remember. Bellhorn nominated you and dragged you into this..

[Bellhorn04]

Actually it’s not. The phrase “at the time”’ means the exact opposite of his chosen word “ever.”

 

Just remember. Bellhorn nominated you and dragged you into this..

 

Will you "ever" give up?

[notin]

Will you "ever" give up?

 

I gave up at the time. Isn’t that the same thing?

 

[Kimmi]

Actually it’s not. The phrase “at the time”’ means the exact opposite of his chosen word “ever.”

 

Just remember. Bellhorn nominated you and dragged you into this..

 

Nope. They were the only team ever at the time. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

And with that, I will leave this debate as quickly as I entered it.

 

Unless I get nominated to come back in.

[Bellhorn04]

Nope. They were the only team ever at the time. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

And with that, I will leave this debate as quickly as I entered it.

 

Unless I get nominated to come back in.

 

Thanks Kimmi. I promise not to call on you unless it's an argument emergency.