Strikeouts and Leagues and a Historical First
You know who sucks at hitting? Pitchers. Boy, they just really suck. Pretty much always have, probably always will. Sure, every so often, a random pitcher will run into one and blast a dinger out of nowhere. But the same could be said of Munenori Kawasaki (now), and while pitchers aren’t automatic outs, they’re as close as you’re going to get to automatic outs in a regular major-league baseball game. Maybe this calls for a reminder that pitchers only suck relative to big-league position players. They’re better at hitting than us. But their numbers are always deplorable, and we don’t always have to be all fair-like. When a pitcher bats in a rally, you assume that the rally is over.
The designated hitter became a thing in 1973, following various proposals. From that point on, pitchers stopped hitting in the American League, while they continued hitting in the National League. In the previous sentence I have explained the most basic of rules. Thus, NL pitchers faced a lot of pitchers, while AL pitchers didn’t, even after the advent of interleague play. Unsurprisingly, then, since the DH came into existence, NL pitchers have posted a higher strikeout rate than AL pitchers. They’ve posted a higher strikeout rate every single season.
Except for this one, so far. The season isn’t over, and the first half of the season isn’t over, so we can’t draw sweeping conclusions yet. But here I’ll present to you a telling graph:
For 40 years in a row, NL pitchers struck out a higher rate of batters than AL pitchers. There would’ve been a variety of reasons, but mostly, it was about getting to face other pitchers. This year, we find the AL rate to be 20.0%. Meanwhile, in the NL, it’s 19.7%, for a difference of +0.3%. The closest they’ve been before is -0.1%, in 2007. On average, the difference has been about -1.0%. We can’t yet say the AL posted a higher strikeout rate for the first time in the DH era, but the leagues are on that course.
So why might this be? For every curious observation, we ought to look for explanations. This time, there are a few good ones. You’ve probably already thought about them.
Houston Astros factor
When you see a long-term trend change like this, you might first wonder whether there have been changes to the underlying structure or rules. Indeed, the Astros just moved from the NL to the AL, which is a pretty significant adjustment. The Astros have been bad, and they remain bad, and they remain a team that strikes out a whole hell of a lot. In a sense, a single team can mean only so much when you’re talking about a league of 15. But, about the Astros.
This year’s Astros are on course to have the highest team strikeout rate in baseball history. Strikeout rates, of course, have been rising, and it might be better to compare them to the league average, but the Astros are ahead of the 2010 Diamondbacks, and everyone else. Just this year, they’re comfortably ahead of the Braves and the Mets. Maybe things are changing — over the last 30 days, the Astros have been only second-worst — but what’s happened so far is what’s happened so far. The Astros strike out a lot and they just changed their league.
AL pitchers have faced Astros batters more than 2,300 times, while NL pitchers have faced them 500 times. If you just remove the Astros from the equation, the NL strikeout rate stays at 19.7%, but the AL strikeout rate drops to 19.6%. The NL has its own bad teams, but it doesn’t have a bad team this exceptionally strikeout-prone.
Detroit Tigers factor
Speaking of crazy strikeout rates. The Astros are on pace to have the highest team strikeout rate ever, at the plate. The Tigers are on pace to have the highest team strikeout rate ever, on the mound. We find the Tigers at 25.1%, and the historical runner-up is the 2012 Rays, at 23.1%. This year, the Red Sox are in second place at 22.3%. No matter what the Tigers do from here, so far their strikeout numbers have been nothing short of absurd, giving the AL a second exceptional advantage.
As noted before, the AL has a league strikeout rate of 20.0% on the mound. If you were to just drop the Tigers from the equation entirely, then the rate sinks to 19.6%, putting the AL just below the NL. One team can’t make an enormous difference in a league of 15, but one team can make enough of a difference, for these purposes.
Fun fact: the Tigers have played the Astros seven times, going 6-1. In 68 innings, they’ve registered 76 strikeouts, for a rate of 29.6%. Their strikeout rate against non-Astros is 24.7%. Against Tigers pitchers, Astros hitters have batted .189/.238/.290. We’re going off course.
Interleague factor
With the Astros change came a corresponding change in the schedules. Used to be that 20 teams played 18 interleague games, and ten played 15. Now every team plays 20. Last year, AL pitchers faced NL hitters 11.1% of the time, and NL pitchers faced AL hitters 9.8% of the time. So far this year, those rates are 13.6% and 13.8%. AL pitchers post higher strikeout rates in interleague play than NL pitchers, probably owing to slight AL superiority. The AL’s interleague strikeout rate this year is 20.6%. For the NL, it’s 18.7%.
It’s worth noting that AL pitchers are facing a very slightly higher rate of opposing pitchers, while NL pitchers are experiencing the opposite, as a consequence of the interleague scheduling adjustments. As was talked about earlier, pitchers suck at facing pitchers. But this is a very minor factor, relatively speaking. The American League as a whole, as pitchers, has 178 total plate appearances against other pitchers. Last year, the total was 277. Of those plate appearances, nearly two out of five have ended with strikeouts.
Overall
Historically speaking, this has been a weird year, because the AL pitchers aren’t supposed to strike out more batters than the NL pitchers. That’s never happened before during the DH era. But it seems like it’s pretty easily explained, so, at least there’s that. We can’t really say the average AL-pitched game is featuring more strikeouts than the average NL-pitched game, because while that’s true, it’s a little misleading, because it seems to be due mostly to two unusual teams. They exist, and their numbers are their numbers, but it’s not like rates have changed across the board. What does this mean to you? Probably not anything at all, unless you’re a fan of league statistics. But you might be a fan of league statistics.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
Yu Darvish.
Max Scherzer.
I would also be interested to see how the leagues compare over the same timespan without pitcher’s hitting stats counted.
I found the column interesting, but holy hell that last paragraph is in desperate need of an editor.
Talent will continue slowly flowing to the American League until the National League finally gives up on watching pitchers flail at the plate and stumble across the basepaths. I get the “purist” argument and all, but watching pitchers hit is just awful. Most top power hitters would rather go to the American league so they can DH when they get old. And I’d be surprised if pitchers didn’t prefer going somewhere where they won’t have to bat every three innings and risk extra injury and have to have outings shortened so they can be pinch hit for while providing negative value to their teams. You wouldn’t go to a football game to see a quarterback kick every 9th field goal. I’d rather watch professional pitchers pitch and professional batters bat.
What about professional fielders fielding? Why shouldn’t the terribly hitting SS have the ability to have another player hit for them.
You know what I like to see, professional baseball players play baseball.
You’ve obviously never watched Barry Zito bat.
I don’t see any justification for anything you wrote.
Loved this article, largely because of form:
I. X is happening.
(I.V. Graph)
II. Why we should care (or might care).
III. Analysis
A. Reason 1
B. Reason 2
C. Reason 3
IV. Conclusion
That’s what I want. The content was good too – I loves me some “Astros derpin’ it up” analysis – But the structure was particularly nice.
If you go pre-’73, the NL post WW II led the AL as well, even pre-DH. The only consecutive years AL led NL was 1964-68, the years the Indians’ pitching staff was setting AL strikeout records (1st to k > 1100/ season; 1st to average over 7 / 9 innings;Of 7 AL pre-2011 staffs averaging 7 k / 9 innings for 5 consecutive years, only they led rest of league by > 1 k /9 innings. 1189 Ks of ’67 would stand as record until steroid era. Reason NL K’d more than NL? Umpire chest protectors? Lower strike zone? Ni, Smaller foul area in NL.
Sorry for the typos above. Wife calling me to dinner!
“Reason NL K’d more than AL? Umpire chest protectors? Lower strike zone? No, Smaller foul area in NL pre-DH!”
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2012/4/9/2937508/foul-area-and-strikeout-differences-al-vs-nl
You missed the JP Arencibia factor
I like watching pitchers hit. Call me weird. I like watching Jose Canseco types have balls hit off their head and bounce approximately 20 feet further over the fence for a home run.
Most pitchers are very good athletes. Most DH’s are big meatheads that can barely move. Not big and quick enough to be O-linemen in football.
Call me a purest but fat guys should at least have to play first base….or pitch (thank you David Wells)
I also like watching pitchers hit. But then, I like to watch the old Keystone Kops moves, so I can laugh at their ineptness too.
Most DHs are big meatheads that can barely move? Among the top DHs in PAs this year:
Albert Pujols – foot injury this year, but certainly athletic
Edwin Encarnacion
Joe Mauer
Three whole cases! I guess you proved your point.
You would think that, as the DH seems to be central to Jeff’s analysis, that he might extend the comparison to before 1973 to get a control variable. But as that would completely destroy the premise, I understand why he didn’t.
As for whether watching pitchers hit is boring or not, that’s not the right question. Pitchers do get hits and they get on base. They do so at slightly more than half the rate of non-pitchers. Saying that this is an automatic out is being off by a factor of (/carry the one ..) infinity. When pitchers get hits, just as Zito did against Verlander in the world series — it is a more rare occurrence but also a more enjoyable occurrence. Just as the double play is more rare but also more enjoyable than getting a single out. That it kills rallies is not really the point, as baseball is not about rallies, just as it is not about getting more hits. It’s about a balance between all of these outcomes, and having the greatest variety of outcomes that contributes to the most interesting on-field narrative.
And as the national league continues to outdraw the american league both in fan attendance per team and as a percentage of stadium capacity, even as national league teams spend a smaller percentage of their revenues on payroll (due to not needing to field an extra position), it would be well for those who believe “more hits = more fun” to revisit this belief and drop the tired refrain that pitchers cannot hit or that it is boring to watch a game in which they do.
The majority of fans, at least by league attendance, think that the increased homogeneity of the lineup is more boring, resulting in a decreased space of outcomes. Zito would never have gotten that hit if the game was played in an American league park — it would have been a more boring game — and this is why the AL has a harder time selling a blander version of baseball, even as AL team profits are compressed because of the extra payroll burden.
I watch sports to see athletic people do athletic things. Watching pitchers hit is awful because they’re not good at it. The greatest variety of outcomes argument is a total straw man.
I think you had better look up the definition of “straw man.”
“I watch sports to see athletic people do athletic things.”
That is a very poor understanding of the appeal of the game. If you want displays of raw athleticism, then you are better off watching Basketball. In baseball, unlike other sports, most of the outfielders stand around eating for most of the game. The most athletic person out there is the pitcher. Almost no one is a five tool player, and they end up doing things that they are very bad at — Cabrera fielding, for example.
So if your view of the appeal of baseball is pure athleticism, then you will always be confused as to why the AL teams have lower fan attendance and lower profits. The rest of us view baseball as primarily a narrative sport, and have a somewhat more nuanced understanding of what it takes for a game to be entertaining.
Then again, some people are sure that adding a lot of explosions to movies makes them more exciting, so to each his own.
Difference between leagues, 1950-1972: -0.3% K%
Difference between leagues, 1973-2012: -1.0% K%
Things changed with the DH. Only a little, but they did.
That’s about the same figure I came up with in my book. It made the Indians superior numbers all the more remarkable by comparison, despite playing in stadium with largest foul area!
OK, but now let’s see why you think the change in DH is significant and how much of the change in K% can be attributed to it as opposed to, say, changes park dimensions, or strikezones, or the transition to the power era, etc.
The point being that while pitchers strike out more, they do not strike out much more because they often bundt. Add to that they have far fewer plate appearances in the 9 hole and being substituted out, and you are going to get a very small effect, one that may be dwarfed by changes to the strikezone, park dimensions, or hitting philosophies, etc.
How does pitchers hitting cause a greater variety of outcomes?
Why do you take the statement “pitchers are automatic outs” so literally? Isn’t it an obvious hyperbole?
OK, from the point of view of winning the game, the outcome is binary in all cases. But viewing the game as story, it matters how you get there, and this determines whether you want to listen to the story. Because in the end you don’t care about who won if you don’t find the story compelling.
As a simple example, suppose you had a choice of attending two games. In the first game, the batting lineup was exactly the same, so it made no difference where you were in the lineup. The only “state” of the game was the number of outs and runners on base.
In the other game, the last batter in each lineup had a 50% lower chance of getting on base as the other batters. Now the state of the game has three variables — the number of outs, the configuration of runners, and how far away you are from the last batter.
I guarantee you that all things being equal, more people would prefer to attend the latter game than the former game — not knowing you personally, you may prefer the game with the smaller state space — but most people prefer the richer state space, because it adds more tension and creates a more interesting story.
The fan already in the game would always like to see the best hitter up all the time, because he wants to win. But the fan would be wrong to assume that more hits by all teams makes the game as a whole more interesting to follow. Baseball was not less popular in the deadball era, neither is it less popular now that the steroid era is over and on base percentages are declining. Neither has the AL succeeded in drawing more fans or increasing revenue as a result of adopting the DH.
I looked at pitchers’ strikeouts in’ 65, and decided they were striking out about 1x / game more than DHers years later. What with sacrifice bunts and pinch hitters, pitchers’ PAs were not as great as one might have anticipated.
I’m not sure you can make an argumement that attendance is higher in the NL due to pitchers batting. Those three PA per game are such a small difference that the effects of this would likely be small if they show up at all. Also, it’s not like you can choose NL or AL style if you want to attend a game (unless you live in NY). Most of the time people attend games in their hometown, so if they watch live baseball they watch that league whether they prefer it or not. I personally hate watching pitchers hit, largely because I hate bunting, but I live in St. Louis so I almost exclusively attend NL games.
So this whole difference comes down to Tigers vs. Astros.
I also like watching pitchers hit. But then, I like to watch the old Keystone Kops moves, so I can laugh at their ineptness too.