I used to get all high and mighty about PED's - "they ruined the game, the users cheated, it was against the law if not baseball rules..." - and used to rail to my friends when they said Barry Bonds was one of the best baseball players of all time. (**DISCLAIMER** I wholeheartedly endorse that stance, but I use the arbitrary endpoint of 1998) I, on the other hand, have come to the conclusion that PED's kept people on the field longer and made them healthier (relatively speaking) without improving their performance so much that it would account for the spikes in stats that occured during the early 2000's.
The funny part, or the part I don't understand, is why no one (at the time) ever talked about the pitching? We had an expansion in 1993 that added 10 new starting pitchers, and then again in 1998 with 10 new starting pitchers (it's actually a lot more, because no team uses exactly five starters in a season anymore). Without looking at statistical evidence, it would seem logically that the talent pool got extremely thin on the bump and the talent on the batting side stayed relatively normal.
---Yes, I know the teams that formed were stocked up by drafting from other MLB and MiLB talent. But it is usually easier to replace batters in lineups rather than pitchers, even if the defense might not follow right away. The other teams had to fill in their rosters from their own MiLB teams and the draft as well, but a hitter can reach the majors quickly, and pitching will lag behind.---
So, using strictly logic we've surmised that the pitching talent has lagged significantly behind the hitting talent, and offense thrived during this time period. Last year, we noticied a reversal of this trend..."The Year of the Pitcher." We saw no hitters, perfectos (including one near perfecto pitched by a guy that got DFAed last night) and (generally speaking) less offense than we were used to seeing. Batting averages are down, slugging percentages are down, and ERA's are down. We seemingly have a no-hit bid reach the 6th inning every night.
The speculation is that PED's are generally out of the game...that some people are getting around testing but most players have stayed as clean as they can. Others speculate that increased testing for amphetamines. I have very little doubt that these two statements are true - less old guys, more young guys and an emphasis on the draft and the minors. But maybe pitching simply came back around? Baseball has always been cyclical, with hitting and pitching vying for top spot and doing so in, well, cycles. Maybe it's nothing, but maybe it's something - maybe the pitchers in baseball have simply caught up to the hitters?
It pains me to think that it is only drug testing that has brought both sides of the ball back into balance - it could also be incredibly naive of me to think PED's didn't have the effect others say they did. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, and I'm ok with that. But while number two starters are throwing gems and 2-1 seems just as likely a score as 11-9 (the Indians not withstanding), I would challenge people to look at the sport as a whole and look for the more generalized viewpoint. Pitching is coming back up to hitting, and I think it may stay that way for a while.
No comments:
Post a Comment