So steroids and approach changes?

Steroids fall into the "hitters were better" category.

I'd argue that approach changes, at least from the perspective of pitcher usage, falls into the "pitchers/pitching are/is better."

But who would you take in the Easter Bunny vs. Tooth Fairy Death Match?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/21/2017 12:02:00 AM (view original):
So steroids and approach changes?

Steroids fall into the "hitters were better" category.

I'd argue that approach changes, at least from the perspective of pitcher usage, falls into the "pitchers/pitching are/is better."

Jim drives his car on the highway at 60 MPH.

Tom drives his car on the highway at 70 MPH.

BL concludes that statistics prove that Tom's car is better that Jim's because it drives faster.

BL is pretty dumb.

According to tec's analogy, teams choose to score less.

Does accepting things at face value without applying any critical thought permeate all aspects of your life, or just your understanding of baseball?

Show me where I'm wrong.

So far you listed two things that impacted run scoring

approach changes
steroids

Yes, both impacted run scoring. Players used PEDs to perform better. Teams changed how they used their pitching to become better at preventing run scoring.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 8:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/20/2017 5:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 4:24:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand your problem with me saying offenses in 2000 were better (scored runs as a higher rate) than offenses in 2016.

It's a fact. If you want to talk about why they were better, that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that they were better.

I guess using that kind of simplistic approach towards baseball allows one to ignore reality.

For instance, Harry (on my son's summer baseball team) must be a better offensive player than either Brad or Mike, because Harry has a higher OPS than either of them.

Because that's what the stats tell me.

STATS, ************!!!!!

If team A scores significantly more runs than team B over an entire season, is it a reasonable assumption to say that team A had better hitters?

Colorado had the second most runs in baseball last year. Are you saying they have the second best hitters in the majors? Or might their ballpark be a factor?

You don't seem to recognize the flaws in your simplistic approach.

Sure, park effects matter. If you (or tec) want to make the argument that the 10 (I think) parks that opened between 2001 and now are the main reason for offensive decline, I'd be willing to listen.

I'm sure there are many factors. The argument I'm making (and tec as well) is that your analyses are always overly simplistic and seemingly reject anything that could hurt the point you're trying to make. Judging from some of your comments, it seems that you don't even personally agree with what you're arguing most of the time - which would suggest you love to argue.

If you were a manager faced with a do or die game in ANY era, I guarantee you're taking 2016 Scherzer over 2000 Radke to start that game.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/21/2017 11:45:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure there are many factors. The argument I'm making (and tec as well) is that your analyses are always overly simplistic and seemingly reject anything that could hurt the point you're trying to make. Judging from some of your comments, it seems that you don't even personally agree with what you're arguing most of the time - which would suggest you love to argue.

If you were a manager faced with a do or die game in ANY era, I guarantee you're taking 2016 Scherzer over 2000 Radke to start that game.

I think we don't need to go beyond the simple explanation. Offenses were more potent in 2000. That's true, even when you account for ballpark changes.

Yeah, I'd rather have Scherzer in a one off. Or an entire season. Certainly over an entire career. I think he's better. That opinion isn't changed by the fact that I also think he would have allowed more runs in 2000 than he did in 2016.

Just a little side note: I'm in a progressive league that is entering 1999.

Should I trade for Brad Radke since we all know his 2000 season will be epic?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/21/2017 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/21/2017 11:45:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure there are many factors. The argument I'm making (and tec as well) is that your analyses are always overly simplistic and seemingly reject anything that could hurt the point you're trying to make. Judging from some of your comments, it seems that you don't even personally agree with what you're arguing most of the time - which would suggest you love to argue.

If you were a manager faced with a do or die game in ANY era, I guarantee you're taking 2016 Scherzer over 2000 Radke to start that game.

I think we don't need to go beyond the simple explanation. Offenses were more potent in 2000. That's true, even when you account for ballpark changes.

Yeah, I'd rather have Scherzer in a one off. Or an entire season. Certainly over an entire career. I think he's better. That opinion isn't changed by the fact that I also think he would have allowed more runs in 2000 than he did in 2016.

Of course he'd have allowed more runs. No one has argued against that. The argument at hand is the relative value of the two seasons.

Would Scherzer have put up the same numbers as Radke pitching in the Metrodome in 2000? Would Radke have won a Cy Young award pitching in Nationals Park in 2016? The answer to both is no.

I think it's reasonable to think that Scherzer would have allowed another run or run-and-a-half per nine pitching in Min in front of that horrible defense in 2000. Which would put him right around Radke's total.

And again, you're ignoring strikeouts. Scherzer would've relied on his defense less than Radke had to. No way he gives up as many runs as Radke did.

Maybe. Or he strikes out less hitters.