Run scoring over the years since 1966

[bkzwhitestrican]

Just posting this because I found it interesting, you can draw your own conclusions:

 

Year over Year Team HR Comparison

 

ARI: +40 HRs compared to 2018

ATL: +70

BAL: +20

BOS: +30

CHC: +82

CHW: -9

CIN: +49

CLE: +1

COL: +7

DET: +10

HOU: +73

KCR: +4

LAA: +1

LAD: +35

MIA: +9

MIL: +25

MIN: +131!!!

NYM: +64

NYY: +32

OAK: +24

PHI: +21

PIT: +4

SDP: +53

SEA: +62

SFG: +31

STL: -2

TBR: +61

TEX: +22

TOR: +23

WSN: +49

 

- Only two teams this year have hit less HRs than last year (and there's a good chance only one or none will have hit less, since there's still about 5 games to go)

- Half of all teams have hit at least 30 more HRs this year than last year

- The average team has hit 34 more home runs to this point than all of last season and there have been 18% more HRs in total compared to last year

- Four teams have broken last year's single season HR record

- The Dodgers hit the 2nd most HRs in baseball last season with 235. That total would not even finish in the top 10 this season.

- The Orioles have hit 208 HRs this season, which is the 22nd most in baseball. That total would have been 9th best in baseball last season.

- 55 players this season have hit 30+ HRs compared to 27 players last season

- 125 players this season have hit 20+ HRs compared to 100 last season

 

Keep in mind that every team still has 4-6 games remaining, so these numbers will end up being even more outrageous.

[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 4.83

 

2020 4.65

Edited February 11, 2021 by Bellhorn04

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

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

 

It's worth considering that the MLB raised the mound in '63, so the nadir of offense was '63-68... though a hard-hopper through the middle then was still a base-hit.

 

The mid-70s were maybe the weakest power time, even in the AL with the DH. In '76, only one batter hit over 30 home runs -- Graig Nettles (32). On the Red Sox pennant-winner in '75, the leading HR man was HOFer Jim Rice... with 22.

[Bellhorn04]

Apparently they're de-juicing the baseball a little this year, so the number will likely go down a bit.

[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

 

4.36 so far this year.

[moonslav59]

It's not like the league was trending towards 5+ runs per game, again.

 

If this was all to shorten the games, these guys are dumber than I thought.

[Thunder]

I have fallen back in love with baseball this season. I don't have a single problem with any of the rule changes. If the trend of fewer runs continues, I am ok with that. I love going to the ballpark and watching a pitcher dominate. I personally think that some of the more traditional baseball enthusiasts need to be a little more open minded and embracing of change.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

4.36 so far this year.

 

The big problem in 1968 that made baseball "boring" to detractors was the 340 shutouts (including Gibson's 17-K Game One of the World Series; which was rather exciting to purists). Zero offense just wasn't doing it for fans of a relatively new form of entertainment gaining in momentum: the NFL on color TV!

 

Edit: there were also only 20 teams, instead of 30 -- math men feel free to calculate and compare those percentages of shutouts from ancient times to nowadays.

Edited May 10, 2021 by 5GoldGloves:OF,75

[Bellhorn04]

I have fallen back in love with baseball this season. I don't have a single problem with any of the rule changes. If the trend of fewer runs continues, I am ok with that. I love going to the ballpark and watching a pitcher dominate. I personally think that some of the more traditional baseball enthusiasts need to be a little more open minded and embracing of change.

 

Yeah, baseball is still pretty awesome, especially compared to just about everything else in the world.

[notin]

The big problem in 1968 that made baseball "boring" to detractors was the 340 shutouts (including Gibson's 17-K Game One of the World Series; which was rather exciting to purists). Zero offense just wasn't doing it for fans of a relatively new form of entertainment gaining in momentum: the NFL on color TV!

 

Edit: there were also only 20 teams, instead of 30 -- math men feel free to calculate and compare those percentages of shutouts from ancient times to nowadays.

 

One could argue the expansions starting in 1961 also made baseball a bit worse, as suddenly there were four full teams worth of players in the league who would not have been there in 1960.

 

In fact, the true heyday for baseball was probably 1948 through to 1960. The league still had a limited amount of roster places available, but now had a bigger talent pool from which to chose. (Although some teams did drop the ball using it properly, and for all the wrong reasons.)

[Bellhorn04]

Heyday is a funny word LOL

[jacksonianmarch]

FYI, the new baseball is slightly lighter than prior. Testing is showing that it’s allowing the ball to spin more out of the hand and stay up in the zone at higher velocities, hence severely depressing offense. Manfred should be fired for pushing for this

[Bellhorn04]

FYI, the new baseball is slightly lighter than prior. Testing is showing that it’s allowing the ball to spin more out of the hand and stay up in the zone at higher velocities, hence severely depressing offense. Manfred should be fired for pushing for this

 

Yeah, that's a good point. It's not just that the ball doesn't travel as far, it's that the pitchers are able to spin it more.

[mvp 78]

FYI, the new baseball is slightly lighter than prior. Testing is showing that it’s allowing the ball to spin more out of the hand and stay up in the zone at higher velocities, hence severely depressing offense. Manfred should be fired for pushing for this

 

He's been a joke from day one.

[Kimmi]

Weren't we all complaining about the new juiced baseballs just last year?

[Bellhorn04]

Weren't we all complaining about the new juiced baseballs just last year?

 

Yes, that's a fair point.

 

I think maybe the real issue is that they should never have started tinkering with the baseballs to begin with.

[moonslav59]

Yes, that's a fair point.

 

I think maybe the real issue is that they should never have started tinkering with the baseballs to begin with.

 

Do the even remember the original recipe, or do we need to bring Colonel Sanders back to life?

[jacksonianmarch]

Weren't we all complaining about the new juiced baseballs just last year?

 

Fans would rather see power than putrid offense.

[Kimmi]

Fans would rather see power than putrid offense.

 

I agree most fans would prefer to see more offense. That being the case, it really doesn't make any sense that MLB got rid of the juiced balls that they had last year. Too many homeruns?

 

Bell has it right, they never should have started tinkering with the baseballs to begin with.

[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

2020 4.65

2021 4.53

2022 4.28

2023 4.62

[moonslav59]

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 Pedro 2.61 ERA

1994 4.92 (3.42)

1995 4.85 (3.51)

1996 5.04 (3.70)

1997 4.77 (1.90 led league/ 219 ERA+)

1998 4.79 (2.89 w BOS)

1999 5.08 (2.07 led league/ 313 ERA+)

2000 5.14 (1.74 led league/ 284 ERA+)

2001 4.78 (2.39 missed 13 starts)

2002 4.62 (2.26 led league/ 239 ERA+)

2003 4.73 (2.22 led league)

2004 4.81 (3.90)

2005 4.59 (2.82 w NYM)

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

2020 4.65

2021 4.53

2022 4.28

2023 4.62

 

Look at what Pedro did during the big scoring era!

[Bellhorn04]

Pedro might have been the best ever during that stretch from 1997 to 2003.

[moonslav59]

Pedro might have been the best ever during that stretch from 1997 to 2003.

 

I think stats like ERA+ and ERA- help factor in the eras pitchers pitched in, and Pedro's 7 year stretch is the best in MLB, IMO.

 

ERA- rankings:

1. Slim Jones 30 in '34

2. Pedro 35 in '00

3. Maddux 37 in '94

4. Gibson 38 in '68

5. Maddux 39 in '95 (the best 2 year stretch in MLB history)

6. Pedro 42 in '99

 

9. Clemens 44 in '05

11. Clemens 45 in '97

13. Pedro 45 in '97

17. Clemens 47 in '90

20. Pedro 48 in '03

23. Pedro 50 in '02

39. Maddux 53 in '97

40. Maddux 53 in '98 (A great 5 year stretch: see below)

(Pedro had an ERA- or 53 in 2001 but just 117 IP)

75. Clemens 57 in '98 (A longer stretch of greatness, but not a 7 yrs stretch like Pedro: see below)

83. Maddux 57 in '93

88. Clemens 57 in '86

94. Clemens 58 in '92

 

Comping the 3:

 

Pedro 13 seasons from '93-'05 with all 100+ IP (7 year stretch in RED)

68

80

83

88

45

61

42

35

53 (only 117 IP)

50

48

82

68

 

Greg Maddux 15 seasons from "88-'02 (all 199+ IP) with best consecutive 7 in RED:

87

80

86

87

61 (1992)

57

37

39

64

53

53 (1998)

79

65

71

64 (2002)

 

Clemens: 20 seasons from '86 to '06, all over 140 IP, except the last one:

57 (1986 w SOX)

65

72

77

47

61

58

99

57

86

72 (last season w SOC)

45 (TOR)

57

97 (NYY)

77

80

99

88

68 (HOU)

44

52 (only 113 IP)

 

7 Year numbers, overall:

 

ERA- Pitcher (IP/ FIP)

47 Pedro (1403/2.61) 2nd Johnson at 60, 3rd Brown & Prior 69, 5th Maddux 85

53 Maddux (1675/ 2.59 FIP) 2nd Clemens 65, 3rd Johnson 69, 4th Pedro, Morris & Rijo 71

63 Clemens (1799/2.63) 2nd: Musina at 66, 3rd Guzman 69, 4th Appier & Tudor76

 

Pedro's IP is 270-400 less than Maddux and Clemens best 7 year stretch, but the ERA- is better than Maddux and much better than Clemens.