This season is being called the "Year of the Pitcher," and maybe rightfully so. We've had two perfect games (er, 3. I will hereby refer to any terrible decision or outcome as being "Galarraga-ed" or "Armando-ed."), several no-hitters, and a plethora of 1 and 2 hitters. The pitchers are getting revenge for the steroid era, commentators have crooned. But is that really true? And if so, how has it affected baseball?
The great thing about baseball is you can break everything down by the numbers. In this so-called year of the pitcher, the league leader in ERA is Clay Buchholz with a 2.21 (whoa, on my fantasy team). In fact, the top 10 pitchers in the category have ERA's that are all well under 3: Buchholz (BOS, 2.21), Hudson (ATL, 2.24), Latos (SDG, 2.25), Halladay (PHI, fantasy, 2.27), Johnson (FLA, 2.28), Wainwright (STL, 2.30), Garcia (STL, 2.33), Hernandez (SEA, 2.38), Dickey (NYM, 2.57), Jimenez (COL, 2.69).
In 2009, however, it was much of the same: the leader was Zach Grienke (KC, 2.16, what the hell happened) and the number 10 spot was Matt Cain (SFG, 2.89) - not a big disparity. In the height of the steroid era, 2001, only Randy Johnson (ARI, 2.49) and Curt Schilling (ARI, 2.98) were under 3, but the 10th best was a 3.29 from Russell Ortiz (SFG). Side note: Arizona had the top two, Atlanta had the next two, and St. Louis had the 6th and 9th in the top 10 - Randy and Curt were co-MVP's for the World Series Champ Diamondbacks, i.e. pitching and defense wins championships... but I digress.
Okay, ERA is one stat, but how about strikeouts? In 2010, with roughly 30 games to go in the season, Felix Hernandez and Jered Weaver lead the majors with 200 strikeouts each. Last year, the league leader, Justin Verlander, had 269. In 2001? Randy Johnson had 372. Curt Schilling had 293. What about complete games and shutouts? 2010: Halladay, 8 and 3 respectively; 2009: Halladay 9 and 4; 2001: Steve Sparks (DET) 8 and Mark Mulder (OAK) 4. Mulder had 6 complete games. Of course, they don't make 'em like The Unit anymore, but does that mean we should lower our standards?
On the flip side, if pitchers are really dominating this year, we should see the dominance reflected in the offensive numbers as well. And, yes, we're going to have to take some of the 2001 numbers with a grain of salt... an asterisk sized grain.
Let's take a peek at batting averages, OPS numbers, and other categories and see if we can figure out what's going on. First of all, I find it interesting that in the "Year of the Pitcher," we are witnessing a legitimate Triple Crown race between Albert Pujols and Joey Votto. Pitchers aren't having a very good year against these guys. This season, Josh Hamilton is leading the league in batting average, hitting .361 through today. He has been mashing the ball all over the field, and it has been spectacular. Beyond Hamilton, the leader board has the likes of Miguel Cabrera (DET, .338), Carlos Gonzalez (COL, .329), Joe Mauer (MIN, .327), and Joey Votto (CIN, .325), to name a few.
In 2009, Mauer led the league with a .365, followed by Ichiro, Hanley Ramirez, Derek Jeter, and Pablo Sandoval with .352, .342, .334, and .330 respectively. In 2001, the league leaders were Larry Walker (COL, .350), Ichiro (SEA, .350), Jason Giambi (OAK, .342), Roberto Alomar (CLE, .336), and Todd Helton (COL, .336).
In 2010, an OPS (on base percentage plus slugging percentage) of 1.072 is good for league best for Miguel Cabrera, followed by 1.050 and 1.027 from Josh Hamilton and Joey Votto. In 2009, Albert Pujols went for 1.101, Joe Mauer for 1.031, and Prince Fielder for 1.014. In 2001, OPS was dominated by (shocker) Barry Bonds with a ridiculous 1.379 followed by Sammy Sosa at 1.174, Giambi at 1.137, and Luis Gonzalez, from Arizona, with a 1.117.
We're comparing the best versus the best, which may not be fair, so let's look at the league as a whole. In 2010, the earned run average of the entire league through today is 4.12. In 2009, 4.32. In 2001, 4.42. The league's batting average in 2010 is .259, and its OPS is .733. In 2009: .262 and .751. In 2001: .264 and .759.
The point is this: the numbers are really close, and the major difference comes in OPS, which makes sense considering sluggers were hitting Mars on the wings of HGH during the 2001 season. But back then, baseball was wildly popular. We watched every Bonds game, craved the home run race, lived for the Sosa/McGwire summer, watched the home runs and numbers piled up, and we ate every bit of it right up.
This year? The MLB All-Star game had awful ratings and people routinely snide that "baseball is boring," and it doesn't help that reports are coming out that teams are actually making money from losing. I'm looking at you, Pittsburgh. I love a good pitching duel. I went to a Jon Lester gem earlier this year at Fenway Park, and I was at Clay Buchholz's no-hitter. Both incredible games. The people behind me at the no-no left in the 8th inning. WHAT!? They must have been bored by the fact that Clay had been knocking down Orioles like bowling pins, that his curveball was a work of art that night, that Nick Markakis is still wondering what happened on that last pitch. But for some reason, the general population can't get behind a great pitching performance. It's apparently not exciting.Baseball's boring "Year of the Pitcher" (or kind-of sort-of YotP media created reality that we're clinging to in order to give people a reason to keep watching) has to be indicative of a cultural shift that has happened over the last 10 years. We are now a world of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube: instant gratification, need-to-know-now, big moments, decisive actions - home runs if you will. One swing and the game is changed. We don't want to work for 6-9 innings for a big victory - we want it now. Baseball games are getting longer, and fans are dropping like flies. Case in point: if Bud Selig started to let baseball highlights go to YouTube, we could have that instant gratification, but what would get more views: Barry Bonds' 73rd home run or Dallas Braden's perfect game?
