Smoothing the ‘80s and ‘90s (Part 1)
In 2006, major league teams scored runs at the rate of 4.86 per game. A quarter-century earlier, in 1982, they had scored 4.30. Thus there has been an increase over the 25 years of just over a half a run per game, per team (a change which is, in historical terms, quite significant; the average over the period 1901-2006 is 4.38, and there have been just 15 seasons in that span with higher scoring rates than that of 2006).
So we’ve seen a distinct recent trend toward more runs, and we know the long list of factors likely contributing to the change in the nature of play:
– the configuration of ballparks
– the de facto strike zone
– the effective abolishment of the brushback pitch
– the resilience of the ball
– the hardness of bats
– the strength of batters (whether PED-aided or not)
– the ascendancy of power swinging over contact hitting
– the willingness of teams to make roster, lineup, and in-game tactical decisions that favor offense
We may like the more high-scoring game we see today (the attendance boom over the past couple of decades suggests that most fans do—an all-time per-game attendance record was set in 2006), or we may not (I’m not crazy about it myself), but it clearly is in our midst.
What we’ll focus on in this series isn’t the change in scoring rates from the 1980s to the 2000s per se, but rather the path the change took. That path has been interestingly circuitous.
Indeed, the line from the 1982 scoring rate to the 2006 scoring rate was anything but direct, leaping here and diving there:
We see the spike of 1987 and the plunge of 1988. We see the resurgent boom in scoring of 1993-94, scaling ever-higher peaks until 2000, before descending once again.
There are a number of particular reasons that help to explain each particular divergence from the straight line, in every instance the strike zone prominently among them. But for our purposes today, we won’t dwell on why the line meandered exactly as it did. Instead, we’ll consider how the fact that it did meander as it did influenced our perception of the performances of the game’s most prominent players, and how a less swervy path, arriving at the same destination, would have caused us to see our favorite stars quite differently.
Every individual player’s stats are, of course, a product not only of the player’s ability, but also of his environment. Changing game conditions impact everything; there is no such thing as a player’s performance record, no matter how famous or obscure, remarkable or humdrum, that isn’t a function of those conditions.
So let’s conduct a thought experiment around that scoring line from 1982 through 2006. Let’s imagine that the line didn’t meander as dramatically as it did: let’s remove both the big dip of 1988-92, as well as the big balloon of 1994-2000. What we’ll do is take the actual total volume of runs that was scored from 1988 through 2000, but spread them out more evenly, so that the aggregate scoring of both the 1988-92 period and the 1994-2000 period are equal (our methodology is explained below in the References and Resources section). When we do this, we see a relatively “smoothed” line:
In this alternative universe, the eccentric year-to-year fluctuations remain, but the general trend from 1987 to 2001, instead of diving, soaring, and easing back, navigates a somewhat steady upward progression.
How would the most extraordinary individual statistical marks have been different in such a circumstance? Over the next two weeks, we’ll do our best to find out. We’ll be re-casting the year-by-year performances of all the game’s biggest stars, both batters and pitchers, and considering the ways in which our perceptions of them might have been altered.
Here’s a hint at the kind of things we’ll be discovering in the Smoothed MLB: a new National League single season home run record was achieved—in the 1980s. And a new major league record was established in the 1990s, but not by Mark McGwire, who fell short. Stay tuned, it promises to be fun.
In closing for now, we’ll catch a glimpse at a few guys who weren’t necessarily among the game’s elite stars, but who are nonetheless interesting to consider in this regard. Bear in mind that the stat lines that appear in black font are actuals, and the lines that appear in blue are adjusted.
A Pair of Suddenly-Powerful Center Fielders
When Finley was in his twenties, I recall Bill James aptly describing him as “a poor man’s Brett Butler“: Finley was a gap hitter, a pretty typical leadoff or second-slot guy. Then suddenly at the age of 31 he began hitting for power, a talent he never really lost until the last season or two.
A lot of Finley’s transformation was clearly attributable to weight training; whether steroid-aided or not, Finley is as well conditioned a ballplayer as one will ever see. His extraordinary durability and career longevity attest to that. But it also appears that Finley made a deliberate change in batting approach beginning in ’96, turning on the pitch and being a bit less focused on putting the ball in play. At any rate, the coincidental timing of Finley’s new-found power with the high-octane environment of the mid-to-late 1990s made his career shape look more unusual than it might have. In this view it doesn’t appear quite as extreme.
Year Age AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS 1989 24 219 38 56 5 2 3 27 15 32 .255 .304 .334 .638 1990 25 468 50 123 18 4 4 40 32 56 .263 .311 .342 .653 1991 26 602 91 176 31 10 10 59 42 69 .292 .339 .428 .767 1992 27 613 91 183 32 13 6 60 59 67 .299 .360 .425 .785 1993 28 544 68 144 15 13 9 44 27 67 .264 .300 .389 .689 1994 29 370 59 100 15 5 10 30 26 48 .270 .318 .420 .738 1995 30 557 96 162 22 8 9 41 54 58 .291 .354 .409 .763 1996 31 649 116 189 42 9 27 88 51 81 .292 .344 .512 .855 1997 32 556 93 142 25 5 25 85 40 85 .255 .305 .455 .760 1998 33 614 85 149 38 6 13 62 41 96 .243 .291 .387 .678 1999 34 585 92 151 30 11 31 95 58 87 .259 .325 .504 .829 2000 35 535 92 147 25 5 32 89 60 81 .274 .347 .520 .867 2001 36 495 66 136 27 4 14 73 47 67 .275 .338 .430 .768 2002 37 505 82 145 24 4 25 89 65 73 .287 .368 .499 .867 2003 38 516 82 148 24 10 22 70 57 94 .287 .358 .500 .858 2004 39 628 92 170 28 1 36 94 61 82 .271 .333 .490 .823 2005 40 406 41 90 20 3 12 54 26 71 .222 .271 .374 .645 2006 41 426 66 105 21 12 6 40 46 55 .246 .320 .394 .714
Anderson’s 1996 was surely one of the great fluke years of all time, but like Finley, his particular actual numbers are amplified by the dramatic shift in conditions between the early and mid-to-late ’90s. Here the ’96 still sticks out, but the overall pattern doesn’t look all that strange.
Year Age AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS 1988 24 327 34 71 14 4 1 23 23 79 .218 .270 .298 .568 1989 25 268 48 57 13 2 5 17 43 48 .213 .322 .334 .656 1990 26 236 26 56 5 2 4 26 31 49 .237 .326 .326 .653 1991 27 258 43 61 13 3 3 29 38 46 .237 .336 .341 .677 1992 28 629 109 175 31 10 27 87 99 104 .278 .376 .487 .864 1993 29 559 86 146 37 8 14 65 80 102 .261 .354 .432 .786 1994 30 450 72 116 24 5 11 44 52 70 .257 .335 .405 .740 1995 31 550 100 141 31 11 15 59 80 103 .256 .351 .430 .781 1996 32 574 108 167 35 5 45 101 70 98 .291 .368 .607 .975 1997 33 585 90 165 37 7 16 67 77 97 .282 .366 .454 .820 1998 34 476 78 110 26 3 16 47 69 72 .231 .328 .402 .730 1999 35 559 101 154 26 5 22 75 88 97 .276 .375 .459 .833 2000 36 502 82 126 25 0 17 46 85 96 .251 .359 .403 .762 2001 37 430 50 87 12 3 8 45 60 77 .202 .300 .300 .600 2002 38 80 4 13 4 0 1 5 18 23 .163 .316 .250 .566
A Pair of Gopher Ball Specialists
Okay, it isn’t fair to characterize Browning that way; he was a good pitcher. But yowza, he was, shall we say, unafraid to challenge the hitters. That’s a National League-record-tying home runs allowed figure there in ’88.
Year Age G IP W L H HR BB SO ERA 1984 24 3 23 1 0 27 0 5 14 1.54 1985 25 38 261 20 9 242 29 73 155 3.55 1986 26 39 243 14 13 225 26 70 147 3.81 1987 27 32 183 10 13 201 27 61 117 5.02 1988 28 36 251 18 5 212 46 65 131 3.60 1989 29 37 250 15 12 250 40 65 125 3.58 1990 30 35 228 15 9 243 31 53 105 4.01 1991 31 36 230 14 14 250 41 57 121 4.42 1992 32 16 87 6 5 112 8 28 35 5.36 1993 33 21 114 7 7 158 16 20 55 4.87 1994 34 7 41 3 1 33 7 12 20 3.90 1995 35 2 10 0 2 13 2 5 3 7.52
And this guy, who actually set the new NL record in 2000, falls just a bit shy of tying it here.
Has anybody ever gotten more career mileage out of a couple of good years?
Year Age G IP W L H HR BB SO ERA 1994 21 3 7 0 1 11 2 3 6 12.53 1995 22 15 74 3 9 83 9 17 34 5.67 1996 23 39 73 5 6 84 12 20 55 5.29 1997 24 52 75 1 6 77 8 15 58 4.90 1998 25 33 233 16 8 222 31 29 157 3.43 1999 26 35 246 21 10 249 27 40 174 3.32 2000 27 33 196 7 16 244 44 63 115 6.17 2001 28 32 166 6 12 197 35 38 84 5.54 2002 29 20 68 4 6 86 12 21 33 7.77 2003 30 14 73 8 3 80 7 26 32 4.91 2004 31 36 170 13 5 178 33 34 93 4.07 2005 32 32 169 5 16 219 31 61 80 6.99 2006 33 4 17 0 4 25 3 10 12 9.87
The Tornado
Viewed in this context, the lean times before Nomo encountered after his big early splash and before his late-career revival don’t look quite so rough. He had wicked nasty stuff.
Year Age G IP W L H HR BB SO ERA 1995 26 28 191 13 6 120 13 72 219 2.36 1996 27 33 228 16 11 175 21 78 217 2.96 1997 28 33 207 14 12 187 21 85 216 3.94 1998 29 29 157 6 12 126 17 86 155 4.57 1999 30 28 176 12 8 168 24 72 149 4.21 2000 31 32 190 8 12 185 28 82 168 4.40 2001 32 33 198 13 10 171 26 96 220 4.50 2002 33 34 220 16 6 189 26 101 193 3.39 2003 34 33 218 16 13 175 24 98 177 3.09 2004 35 18 84 4 11 105 19 42 54 8.25 2005 36 19 101 5 8 127 16 51 59 7.24
Ape
Maybe it’s just me, but this guy rarely seemed to register on my radar screen as prominently as he should have. A consistently productive pitcher for quite a long time.
Year Age G IP W L H HR BB SO ERA 1989 21 6 22 1 4 35 4 12 11 9.65 1990 22 32 186 12 8 185 17 55 134 2.92 1991 23 34 208 13 10 212 17 62 167 3.61 1992 24 30 208 15 8 173 13 69 158 2.60 1993 25 34 239 18 8 181 9 80 191 2.63 1994 26 23 155 7 6 133 10 58 135 3.56 1995 27 31 201 15 10 158 13 74 172 3.61 1996 28 32 211 14 11 186 15 69 192 3.36 1997 29 34 236 9 13 209 22 68 182 3.16 1998 30 3 15 1 2 20 3 5 8 7.24 1999 31 34 209 16 14 223 24 77 122 4.80 2000 32 31 195 15 11 194 21 94 120 4.20 2001 33 33 207 11 10 181 22 64 172 3.57 2002 34 32 188 14 12 191 23 64 132 3.92 2003 35 23 112 8 9 120 21 43 55 5.40 2004 36 2 4 0 1 7 0 3 2 13.50
The Blake Street Bombers
But of course, the extreme mile-high park effect greatly padded the stats of this crew. But this exercise reminds us that those particular figures were as mind-boggling as they were not only because of the thin air, but also because these particular guys were all enjoying their peak productive years in pre-humidor Denver and in the highest-scoring era since the 1930s. It was, indeed, the perfect storm for crooked numbers.
An easy target for “overrated” derision, but the truth is that in his prime years Castilla was a pretty good hitter. Combine that with his excellent glove and terrific durability, and you’ve got yourself a fine player. It isn’t his fault that teams kept insisting on lavishing him with regular playing time for years afterward.
Year Age AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS 1991 23 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 .200 .200 .200 .400 1992 24 16 1 4 1 0 0 1 1 4 .250 .278 .313 .591 1993 25 336 36 85 9 7 10 30 13 46 .254 .281 .411 .692 1994 26 129 15 42 10 1 3 17 6 21 .324 .356 .485 .841 1995 27 522 76 158 32 2 29 83 28 81 .303 .338 .539 .877 1996 28 623 90 185 32 0 36 104 32 82 .297 .332 .523 .855 1997 29 607 87 181 24 2 36 104 40 100 .298 .342 .523 .864 1998 30 639 100 200 26 4 42 133 37 83 .313 .350 .563 .914 1999 31 610 77 164 23 1 30 94 49 70 .269 .323 .457 .780 2000 32 329 20 71 8 1 5 39 13 38 .215 .245 .297 .542 2001 33 538 69 140 34 1 25 91 35 108 .260 .305 .467 .772 2002 34 543 56 126 23 2 12 61 22 69 .232 .262 .348 .610 2003 35 542 65 150 28 3 22 76 26 86 .277 .310 .461 .771 2004 36 583 93 158 43 3 35 131 51 113 .271 .330 .535 .865 2005 37 494 53 125 36 1 12 66 43 82 .253 .313 .403 .716 2006 38 275 26 63 10 0 5 27 9 49 .229 .254 .320 .574
Not exactly the demigod the Coors Field public address announcer would have us believe, but not a bad player either. Under different circumstances, he’d have likely been perceived as the useful corner outfielder he was: a decent bat, pretty mobile, the kind of guy who can make a contribution as a role player on a good team.
Year Age AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS 1988 24 46 1 12 2 0 0 9 0 7 .261 .261 .315 .576 1989 25 139 14 30 8 0 4 16 6 25 .216 .249 .354 .603 1990 26 352 43 92 16 1 19 58 16 83 .262 .294 .478 .772 1991 27 449 58 110 20 3 19 64 22 113 .245 .280 .430 .711 1992 28 391 40 115 30 2 6 45 16 78 .294 .322 .429 .751 1993 29 537 92 166 44 5 23 88 27 102 .309 .342 .538 .880 1994 30 480 68 143 31 2 24 88 17 65 .297 .322 .524 .846 1995 31 573 94 191 36 2 36 118 20 89 .334 .356 .593 .950 1996 32 627 105 192 37 3 28 130 41 97 .306 .349 .510 .859 1997 33 556 75 168 29 2 24 109 28 84 .302 .335 .489 .824 1998 34 656 90 213 45 2 20 113 26 71 .324 .350 .491 .841 1999 35 588 96 172 36 2 31 123 50 78 .292 .347 .518 .865 2000 36 570 74 164 30 2 21 83 45 84 .288 .340 .458 .798 2001 37 391 45 112 30 1 12 49 20 76 .286 .321 .460 .782
A very fine player indeed. If not for his significant injury issues, Burks would have been a superstar.
Year Age AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS 1987 22 558 94 152 30 2 20 59 41 98 .272 .322 .441 .763 1988 23 546 101 165 41 5 23 100 63 94 .302 .374 .521 .895 1989 24 403 79 125 21 6 15 66 36 55 .311 .368 .507 .874 1990 25 594 97 180 36 8 27 97 49 87 .303 .356 .527 .883 1991 26 478 61 123 36 3 18 61 39 86 .258 .314 .458 .773 1992 27 237 38 62 9 3 10 33 25 51 .262 .333 .454 .787 1993 28 498 74 136 25 4 19 73 59 100 .273 .350 .451 .800 1994 29 148 30 47 8 3 12 22 15 36 .316 .378 .649 1.027 1995 30 276 38 72 9 6 13 45 36 67 .260 .345 .478 .824 1996 31 607 131 205 42 8 36 118 56 106 .338 .394 .614 1.008 1997 32 420 84 119 18 2 29 76 43 70 .284 .351 .544 .894 1998 33 500 70 143 26 6 19 70 53 103 .286 .354 .478 .832 1999 34 387 67 107 18 0 28 89 63 80 .276 .378 .540 .918 2000 35 389 68 131 20 5 22 89 51 45 .337 .414 .583 .997 2001 36 439 83 123 29 1 28 74 62 85 .280 .369 .542 .911 2002 37 518 92 156 28 0 32 91 44 108 .301 .356 .541 .896 2003 38 198 27 52 11 1 6 28 27 46 .263 .351 .419 .770 2004 39 33 6 6 0 0 1 1 3 8 .182 .250 .273 .523
Among the weirder careers, for sure. Not only did it include two amazing comebacks, but it also presented just about as unlikely a combination of ghastly walk-strikeout rates and genuine offensive value as we’ve ever seen.
This exercise demonstrates that his early-’90s struggles weren’t quite as bad as they might appear. But they were bad.
Year Age AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS 1985 24 75 9 14 1 0 2 4 3 18 .187 .218 .280 .498 1986 25 321 39 87 13 0 10 42 30 79 .271 .333 .405 .738 1987 26 551 72 168 40 3 13 90 41 127 .305 .353 .459 .812 1988 27 616 108 191 46 8 37 100 39 162 .310 .351 .592 .943 1989 28 577 83 152 33 1 29 92 49 167 .264 .321 .477 .798 1990 29 584 71 153 32 0 26 95 40 179 .262 .310 .448 .758 1991 30 378 37 85 14 2 12 36 23 91 .225 .270 .365 .634 1992 31 328 41 82 15 2 13 42 11 73 .250 .274 .426 .700 1993 32 469 70 173 36 4 24 97 24 75 .368 .398 .616 1.015 1994 33 413 71 129 20 0 28 78 17 86 .313 .340 .564 .905 1995 34 549 82 150 27 3 28 98 29 136 .274 .311 .489 .799 1996 35 620 110 184 37 3 43 138 37 146 .297 .337 .573 .909 1997 36 594 111 185 29 3 37 129 50 131 .312 .365 .559 .924 1998 37 550 95 164 25 1 40 112 58 136 .298 .365 .566 .931 1999 38 2000 39 490 62 145 24 1 25 92 33 117 .295 .340 .503 .843 2001 40 399 50 102 28 1 17 69 31 117 .256 .309 .459 .768 2002 41 292 30 76 12 0 9 40 30 81 .260 .329 .394 .723 2003 42 272 36 82 15 0 12 42 19 61 .301 .347 .489 .836 2004 43 10 1 3 0 0 1 2 0 3 .300 .364 .600 .964
Not as brittle as Burks, but another guy whose chronic inability to stay fully healthy is really the only knock against him. As it is, he’ll deserve some amount of Hall of Fame consideration, and had he been able to play 150+ games on a consistent basis, they might be casting the plaque already.
Year Age AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS 1989 22 47 4 8 0 0 0 4 5 14 .175 .255 .175 .430 1990 23 423 64 105 20 3 24 55 50 118 .247 .326 .481 .808 1991 24 492 64 146 33 2 20 70 42 108 .297 .353 .497 .849 1992 25 534 92 165 34 4 29 101 41 102 .309 .358 .553 .911 1993 26 489 84 129 25 5 24 85 79 78 .264 .366 .482 .848 1994 27 391 70 123 41 2 17 79 43 69 .315 .383 .564 .947 1995 28 490 89 147 29 5 33 93 45 67 .299 .358 .581 .939 1996 29 270 54 73 17 4 16 54 18 54 .270 .316 .545 .862 1997 30 562 132 202 43 4 44 120 72 84 .359 .432 .689 1.120 1998 31 449 104 160 43 3 21 62 59 57 .357 .431 .606 1.038 1999 32 433 100 161 25 4 34 106 52 48 .372 .440 .680 1.120 2000 33 311 59 94 20 7 8 47 42 37 .303 .386 .492 .878 2001 34 497 107 174 35 3 38 123 82 103 .350 .442 .662 1.104 2002 35 477 95 161 40 4 26 104 65 73 .338 .417 .602 1.019 2003 36 454 86 129 25 7 16 79 98 87 .284 .411 .476 .887 2004 37 258 51 77 16 4 17 47 49 57 .298 .424 .589 1.013 2005 38 315 66 91 20 1 15 52 41 64 .289 .384 .502 .886
Next Time
We’ll examine many of the best careers of the ’80s and ’90s.
References & Resources
Similar to the approach we used in several past such exercises, we took the overall aggregate rate of the primary offensive events for the entire 1982-2006 period: runs, hits, doubles, triples, home runs, walks, and strikeouts. We then adjusted the rates for each season from 1988-1992 to bring the aggregate total for that period to equal that of 1982-2006, also for 1993, and also for 1994-2000. The specific multipliers employed are:
1988-92:
Runs: 1.087
Hits: 1.035
Doubles: 1.095
Triples: 1.012
Home Runs: 1.281
Walks: 1.011
Strikeouts: 1.056
1993:
Runs: 0.992
Hits: 0.992
Doubles: 1.023
Triples: 1.002
Home Runs: 1.097
Walks: 0.982
Strikeouts: 1.028
1994-2000:
Runs: 0.923
Hits: 0.971
Doubles: 0.943
Triples: 1.053
Home Runs: 0.906
Walks: 0.919
Strikeouts: 0.928
An impact of a change in the rate of hits is a change in at-bats, of course. I use a simple method to change at-bats: every batter’s at-bats are increased or decreased by his number of increased or decreased hits. Outs are constant, of course, and I assume as well a constant rate of double plays and baserunning outs—probably not exactly proper assumptions, but close enough for our purposes.
Big props to my ever-patient THT editor Greg Tamer, who accomplished the feat of teaching me to create and post graphs, and to insert alternate-color fonts. When they make the movie of this epic adventure, it will likely be called The Miracle Worker II.