Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember up until around 15 years ago hitting for the cycle was a big deal. Then in with the juice era it became standard you could count on someone to hit for the cycle seemingly once a month.
Now as we move into a pitcher's era it seems more and more like no-hitters are becoming more standard.
Is this a fluke or is this a sign of things to come for the next decade or so?
No, the increased number of no-hitters is a cyclical thing. There was a high number of no-hitters in the first half of the 1990 season too.
I will say the fact that MLB has probably reduced the liveliness of the ball and the fact that many hitters don't worry about striking out in today's game could make no-hitters a little more common than they have been historically.
I will say the fact that MLB has probably reduced the liveliness of the ball and the fact that many hitters don't worry about striking out in today's game could make no-hitters a little more common than they have been historically.
Perhaps. But the virtual disappearance of the complete game--even among pitchers working on a no-hitter into the sixth inning or so--should pull the stats back in the other direction. Unless one thing has nothing to do with the other. And in that case, a no-hitter by committee will cheapen the importance of the no-hitter as an accomplishment.
No, the increased number of no-hitters is a cyclical thing. There was a high number of no-hitters in the first half of the 1990 season too.
I will say the fact that MLB has probably reduced the liveliness of the ball and the fact that many hitters don't worry about striking out in today's game could make no-hitters a little more common than they have been historically.
"Fact" and "probably" are opposing concepts.
If you have some evidence that the ball has been altered, you should present it.
Juicing the ball was a popular explanation for why offense was rising throughout the '90's and the first years of the '00's. It turned out it was the players who were juiced, not the ball.
Now stricter testing programs and penalties are in place for steroids and offensive levels have been dropping.
And you think it is because they deadened the ball? That reminds me of the joke about the scientist who cut off all four of a frog's legs, gave it the command to jump, and when it did not move, he concluded that the frog had gone deaf.
Did MLB offensive statistics drop immediately after performance enhancing drugs were banned? No. That being the case, something else has to also be going on. Teams haven't moved the fences out at their ballparks, and pitchers haven't all of a sudden gotten a lot better overnight. It is possible that umpires have expanded their strike zones, but I think the baseball media, not to mention fans who watch a lot of games on TV, would have noticed the difference and many people would be commenting on it.
The idea that something else is going on that is tilting baseball's offense-defense balance towards historical norms is also supported by the fact (and this is definitely not an opinion) that offense picked up significantly from the 1993 to 1994 season. The idea that performance enhancing drugs are the primary reason for the 1994-2007 offensive surge (or offensive surges in general) also doesn't explain seasons like 1987, when offensive levels were noticeably higher than they were in 1986 and 1988.
Did MLB offensive statistics drop immediately after performance enhancing drugs were banned? No. That being the case, something else has to also be going on. Teams haven't moved the fences out at their ballparks, and pitchers haven't all of a sudden gotten a lot better overnight. It is possible that umpires have expanded their strike zones, but I think the baseball media, not to mention fans who watch a lot of games on TV, would have noticed the difference and many people would be commenting on it.
The idea that something else is going on that is tilting baseball's offense-defense balance towards historical norms is also supported by the fact (and this is definitely not an opinion) that offense picked up significantly from the 1993 to 1994 season. The idea that performance enhancing drugs are the primary reason for the 1994-2007 offensive surge (or offensive surges in general) also doesn't explain seasons like 1987, when offensive levels were noticeably higher than they were in 1986 and 1988.
So in answer to my question, no, you have no evidence.
yeah it seems that no-hitters are more common these days, just like homeruns are less common these days, but it also seems that they are scoring more runs per game, at least to me.
So in answer to my question, no, you have no evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Juicing the ball was a popular explanation for why offense was rising throughout the '90's and the first years of the '00's. It turned out it was the players who were juiced, not the ball.
Where's YOUR proof?
You don't have any evidence either that players using performance enhancing drugs were the reason/primary reason for the offensive surge in baseball in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Besides, many pitchers were also suspected of using performance enhancing drugs, which should have counterbalanced at least somewhat hitters using the juice.
For whatever it is worth, I think it was a combination of performing enhancing drugs and a livelier ball, not necessarily in that order but possibly at roughly equal levels of cause, that contributed to the offensive surge in baseball that started in 1994 and gradually came to an end around 2007 or so.
You don't have any evidence either that players using performance enhancing drugs were the reason/primary reason for the offensive surge in baseball in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Besides, many pitchers were also suspected of using performance enhancing drugs, which should have counterbalanced at least somewhat hitters using the juice.
For whatever it is worth, I think it was a combination of performing enhancing drugs and a livelier ball, not necessarily in that order but possibly at roughly equal levels of cause, that contributed to the offensive surge in baseball that started in 1994 and gradually came to an end around 2007 or so.
Key phrase is in bold.
Your mistake is:
Something happened and the possible causes are A, B, C. D. E. F and G.
Therefore B was the cause.
Let us not belabor the obvious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
