FYI

Here's a link to the NCAA list of the averages since 1970 (note the start of the aluminum bats in 1974):

Division I Baseball Statistics Trends (1970-2012)

No real surprises there, huh???

1998 is an interesting year: record highs in batting average, runs, and HRs per game. Predictable corresponding record high in ERA, but also the second highest year for strikeouts per game.

I never realized how much that college season predicted the MLB season that summer.

Jimmy03

Those are some interesting data points. What really caught my eye:

1) the difference in batting avg between 1975 and 1976. If aluminum bats started in 1974 why the hug difference between 75 and 76?

2) The field percentage continues to get better or defenses continue to get better over time. I think this has more to do with positiong defenses than does outfight talent. Of course, this will have an effect on overall batting avg.

3) Stolen bases are down, which I can't explain. In the last year of the juiced bats (2010) they were stealing more bases than they were in 2012? Have coaches taught their pitchers to hold runners better? I dunno, that one doesn't make sense to me. I would think stolen bases would be up in 2011 and 2012.

4) Homeruns per game are back to what they were in the early 70s with wood bats.

quote:

Originally posted by fenwaysouth:

3) Stolen bases are down, which I can't explain. In the last year of the juiced bats (2010) they were stealing more bases than they were in 2012? Have coaches taught their pitchers to hold runners better? I dunno, that one doesn't make sense to me. I would think stolen bases would be up in 2011 and 2012.

Could it be that defensive positioning, with players moving in quite substantially, has contributed to a decrease in SB's?

I remember MIF positioning for Texas and Navy on artificial surfaces being so far back as to be in the outfield during the hot bat era. Texas' whole mantra was to get on base and steal your way to third. There was no way MIF's could play as deep as needed and still cover effectively on a good jump.

fenway- Maybe there just are that fewer opportunities to steal since there are less runners on base. Not sure, just speculation.

BBCOR..... just go ahead with wood bats please

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
fenway- Maybe there just are that fewer opportunities to steal since there are less runners on base. Not sure, just speculation.

I think that is true. Typically, your best base-stealers are also the guys who like to take pitches and get on base via the walk. With the new bats, the pitchers seem to be more apt to throw a ball over the plate.

quote:

Originally posted by 2Lefties:
BBCOR..... just go ahead with wood bats please

Why? What’s your issue with non-wood? From the looks of it, BBCOR has been a huge step in returning the numbers from bloated and misshapen, to pretty much what they were with wood. Isn’t that what the main purpose of going to wood is?

The lower stolen bases is certainly counter-intuitive. I would have thought that overall line-ups would be faster (replacing slower HR hitters with faster guys who hit for average). Also, there should be more incentive to steal 2nd if the power guys are less likely to launch one or get walked.

I can’t find any stats on BBs, OBP, TBs or slugging. JH’s call is right-on with the lower averages. To add to gtnby’s comment, maybe the faster guys just aren’t getting on base as much (even when they hit the ball). I wouldn’t be surprised if BBs and OBP are both way down, but I’d love to see the numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by 2Lefties:
BBCOR..... just go ahead with wood bats please

Why? What’s your issue with non-wood? From the looks of it, BBCOR has been a huge step in returning the numbers from bloated and misshapen, to pretty much what they were with wood. Isn’t that what the main purpose of going to wood is?

You used the word "pretty much what they were with wood" We don't know that yet although there is a strong case that says your correct. Something tells me that technology will develop even with BBCOR.

quote:

Originally posted by fenwaysouth:
Jimmy03

Those are some interesting data points. What really caught my eye:

1) the difference in batting avg between 1975 and 1976. If aluminum bats started in 1974 why the hug difference between 75 and 76?

It's been a long time, and my memory could be off, but I believe I remember that not all schools made the 100% switch in the first year.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by fenwaysouth:
Jimmy03

Those are some interesting data points. What really caught my eye:

1) the difference in batting avg between 1975 and 1976. If aluminum bats started in 1974 why the hug difference between 75 and 76?

It's been a long time, and my memory could be off, but I believe I remember that not all schools made the 100% switch in the first year.

I thought it might be that there was no weight differential on the early aluminum bats. I believe the weight corresponded with the bats length. I remember my Junior year in HS, the Adirondack bats came out (brown with the single stripe). Me and most of my teammates were swinging 34/32's or 33/31's. It seemed everyone's averages went up with those bats.

I may be mistaken (and showing my age)....but I am pretty sure that when the first aluminum bats came out bats that were -5 were legal in HS play. I'll look into it, but I think that even in the late 80's you could use -5 aluminum bats in HS. I worked in, then owned a sporting goods store in the late 80's and I think -5 was still legal then. My brother in law still has an aluminum Easton bat he broke in HS in '89. I'll check with him and see if it has a length/weight on it.

You might be right birdman. Talk about showing your age, my junior year in high school ,1977, aluminium bats were like a fence post that was turned into a bat!Power and avg went up. They actually felt heavier!