David N. Townsend
Baseball Journal

January 6, 1998
Whither (or wither) the power?

Welcome to the Hot Stove League, 1998. To keep you warm, we offer some more of What You Really Want to Know.

In this edition, we continue our entirely non-scientific investigation of the Power Phenomenon. As we first identified last April, the Home Run binge of 1994-96 significantly slowed in 1997. The 1996 record of 4,962 HRs, which averaged a record 2.19 per game, declined to 4,640 total HRs in 1997, or 2.06 per game. That’s still a lot, but behind both the 1987 (2.12) and 1994 (2.07) pace, and slightly ahead of 1995 (2.02). Runs per game fell even more dramatically, from 10.07 in 1996 to 9.61 in 1997, which doesn’t even crack the top 10 all time (1930 is highest, at 11.10).

But of course, the pattern wasn’t consistent across all players. McGwire and Griffey did hit the most homers of any two players since Maris and Mantle in ’61. And there were a few other breakthrough power years by the likes of Tino Martinez. Still, the declines far outnumbered the advances, as shown in the following table of hitters whose home run totals increased or decreased by at least 10 from ’96 to ’97, where injury or playing time was not the primary factor:

Home Run Changes, ‘96-‘97

Questions and Answers. The real questions now are (1) why the reverse of direction, and (2) what’s going to happen next season?

t is probably time to put away the Juiced Ball conspiracy theories at last, although wouldn’t that make for a great episode of the X-Files? The most broadly accepted explanations for the late ‘90s power surge involve two main factors:

• dilution of pitching due to expansion, and
• the introduction of several new, hitter-friendly ballparks

The latter point is indisputable, at least as far as Coors Field in Colorado is concerned, which sees more home runs by far than any other park. I don’t have the exact numbers, but a rough estimate of the impact of removing all Coors Field home runs from the overall totals reduces the average home runs per game in 1997 to about 1.99, possibly lower.

The pitching dilution argument is a bit of a Catch 22 that can’t really be proven. I mean, if hitters hit better, than pitching statistics will, by definition, be worse on average. But does that mean hitters are getting better or pitchers are getting worse? Yes, expansion has meant that more Triple-A and Double-A quality pitchers are on major league rosters, but the exact same thing is true for hitters. The logic of the argument suggests that quality levels drop off faster for pitchers as you dip into minor league rosters. But if that were true then average hitting statistics throughout the minors should be superior to average hitting in the majors, and it isn’t. If anything, minor league pitchers would seem to have the edge (except in the PCL), since almost nobody hits .340 or clubs 40 HRs or drives in 120 runs in the minors (granted, the season’s shorter).

Dilution or deviation? An equally plausible case can be made that the 1993 expansion came along at a time when the pools of up-and-coming talent happened to be leaning heavily in favor of young hitters, for no particular reason. Look at some of the names of the hitters versus pitchers who were rookies in the years 1992 through 1994:

Top Players who were Rookies in 1992-1994

The hitters are a pantheon of some of the best young stars in the game today, while the rookie pitcher classes of ’92 to ’94 have produced only two real stars so far (Martinez and Hentgen). There were also some notable disappointments among the brightest pitching prospects of that period, including Todd Van Poppel, Brien Taylor, Albie Lopez, Brian Anderson, and others.

Meanwhile, at the same time as this heavy imbalance of new hitting talent was entering the majors, a large number of established sluggers were all reaching their prime at the same time: Thomas, Griffey, Bonds, Belle, Vaughn, Gonzalez, Sosa, Sheffield, Walker, Ventura.

This analysis would seem to suggest that there may not so much have been a "dilution" of pitching talent due to expansion, but instead an overall shift of the talent base in favor of hitting, which might have occurred even without expansion, but which would clearly be exacerbated the further down you had to dip into the minor leagues.

Precedent? The question for the immediate future is whether this imbalance, and/or dilution, effect will be even more aggravated by the 1998 expansion. That is the conventional wisdom. Pundits point to both the post-’93 offensive explosion, and the 1961 experience (Maris, et al.), and conclude that expansion always brings more home runs. There were also large offensive increases following the 1969 expansion, but these coincided with the lowering of the mound and expansion of the strike zone. Similarly, the 1977 expansion saw a large spike in home runs, but this followed an exceptionally weak 1976, and then leveled off in 1978, which was no stronger than 1975 had been. (You want all the numbers? Look ‘em up!)

In any event, we’ve never had a 2-part expansion such as we’re about to experience, with phase 2 coming a mere 5 years after phase 1. So I’m not sure the historical precedents would apply, anyway. No one knows what the ballpark effects of the two new stadia will be, although there’s no way either one could be another Coors Field. Arizona might even be a dead-ball park.

Pitchers return? As for the pitching, allow me to postulate an alternative theory. If the pro-hitting imbalance of the previous 4 years began to shift back in the other direction in 1997, it’s possible that this trend would continue in 1998, irrespective of expansion. This idea assumes that there is not necessarily an inherently smaller pool of pitching talent, but that at any given time, there may be a greater concentration of one or the other type of skill, for any number of reasons.

In support of this thesis, and in contrast to the previous lists, note the comparison of young hitters and pitchers who have entered the majors since 1995, and who have at least begun to establish themselves as capable of star quality:

Top Players who were Rookies, 1995-1997

Not that there aren’t some impressive names on the hitters’ list, but that group doesn’t begin to match the depth and potential of the classes of ‘92-94, at least not yet. And the list of quality new pitchers is both longer and more accomplished, already, than the ‘92-’94 group. This isn’t to say, of course, that the quality major league pitching on the whole is now equivalent to hitting; far from it. But it suggests a reversal of the trend that had been going in the opposite direction, as shown in the 1997 numbers, and indicated by the better balance among recent rookies.

Isn’t it possible, then, that if the pendulum is swinging back toward pitching, expansion by two more teams in 1998 could actually accelerate this trend? Might we not see a further, and more dramatic dip in offensive production this coming season, as opposed to the unstoppable juggernaut of power that so many were predicting just a year ago?

Granted, this is mostly wishful thinking, but so is everything when it comes to baseball. One thing’s for sure: whatever happens, I’ll be here to report back with What You Really Want to Know.

Comments? Questions? Impassioned, hyperbolic overreaction?
Contact me:

DNT@DNTownsend.com

Back to Baseball Journal front page

Rotisserie/Fantasy Baseball

The Good IV League

David N. Townsend Home Page

(c) 1997 David N. Townsend