No Year of the Pitcher

There was an article in the morning paper today entitled "2010:  The Year of the Pitcher."  The article claims that, with Matt Garza notching the fifth no-hitter of the season this week, 2010 can be claimed as a new "Year of the Pitcher."  Their argument was that with those five no-hitters, not to mention several near-no-hitters (and one near-perfecto) there was a new dominance of pitchers after over 15 years of hitter supremacy.

Hogwash.


The term "Year of the Pitcher" is most famously associated with 1968, and 2010 is has as much in common with the real Year of the Pitcher as I do with Jennifer Love-Hewitt.

The basis of the argument, that five no-hitters indicates pitching supremacy, is understandable if erroneous.  Consider, though, that there were five no-hitters in 1990 and 1991.  Do either of those years qualify as the year of the pitcher?  To test that theory, let's look at some indicators of pitching prowess in the years mentioned:  1968, 1990, 1991, 2010, and I'll add 1996 as a frame of reference for the steroid era.  Here's how they compare:

Year	1968	1990	1991	1996	2010
Runs/G	3.42	4.26	4.31	5.04	4.45
HR/9IP	0.6	0.8	0.8	1.1	1.0
K/9IP	5.9	5.7	5.8	6.5	7.0
ERA	2.98	3.86	3.91	4.61	4.15
No-Hitters	5	5	5	3	5

As the chart makes clear, 1968 is the real outlier. 2010 represents a small decline in offense that's been going on for the a few years now. The so-called steroid era is over -- statistically, if not medically -- and things are returning to the relative calm of the early 1990's.

But 2010 still represents a full run of scoring above 1968 levels.  In terms of runs scored per game, 2010 is still a lot closer to 1996 than 1968.  The mental malaise cast over the mainstream sports media is making them confuse a few memorable individual moments with a broader trend (such is the life of the media).  

But, you might ask, what about all those strikeouts?  Well, the rise in strikeouts is a historical trend.  That means that strikeouts have been rising over the past century, and the overall run environment only affects it somewhat.  Look at the difference between 1968 and 1990.  With the rise in run scoring, you'd expect a decline in strikeouts.  But there's only a minor difference.

Okay, so we've discounted the overeager sports media's use of the phrase "Year of the Pitcher."  So what?  Is there a larger issue here?

Yes.  Every time this discussion comes up (including in my morning paper), the introduction of steroid/PED testing is given as a reason for the decline in offense.  We've seen that there is a decline, even if it has been ridiculously overstated.  Can this be attributed to better testing?

Maybe, but anyone making this argument betrays a fundamental ignorance of the central issues.  The assumption here is that steroids = offense.  However, the majority of players who have tested positive under the system (as well as those implicated in the Mitchell Report) were pitchers.  If the testing is any indication, pitchers use PEDs more than hitters.  Which makes the argument for testing as an aid to pitching thoroughly ridiculous.  Despite the efforts of many to educate the public (and the press), people still think of steroids as muscle-builders and power-juicers.  And that may be the case, especially with anabolic steroids.  But the public needs to realize that anabolic steroids are a relatively minor issue in baseball, if only because they're pretty easy to test for.  What we've seen, most notably from Andy Pettitte, is players using not out of some cartoonish desire to be the next Jose Canseco, but as A) just another step in the rehab process, B) a way to combat the fatigue of the 162-game season and C) another edge to be pursued.  How does that apply only to hitters?  Wouldn't it be, as the tests suggest, even more important to the pitchers?

Sure.  The snag is that we've abandoned all common sense when discussing doping in sports.  If I make a big deal out of this "Year of the Pitcher" thing, I suppose it's because I'm disappointed to see how well ignorance persists..