Posts: 14,113
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I get that, but the above numbers are strictly for full-time DH's. Wouldn't you expect that only the elite bats would end up in those roles? The past few season averages look to be barely league average numbers to me. And you are definitely seeing less use of full-time DH's. I discarded the spreadsheet, but the number of pure DH's declined from close to 20 in 2005 down to 7 or 8 in 2013. Front offices value roster flexibility more in the post-steroid era.
Posts: 5,185
Threads: 174
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Solving for the sample size issue, it turns out that the current model largely balances out in the World Series. Since they went to deciding the DH rule based on the site of each game in 1986, meaning where there have been games in each World Series played with and without a DH, there have been 70 games played with a DH and 72 games played without a DH.
In the 70 games played with a DH, the AL teams are hitting .259 (597-2,301), while the NL teams are hitting .239 (575-2,401).
In the 72 games played without a DH, the AL teams are hitting .242 (607-2,401), while the NL teams are hitting .252 (603-2,392).
Thus, the NL is hitting 13 points lower with the DH than without. The AL is hitting 17 points lower without the DH than with.
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.
![[Image: ITgoyeg.png]](http://i.imgur.com/ITgoyeg.png)
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
I'm surprised that the penalty for AL pitchers taking ABs v. NL pitchers not taking ABs isn't more stark. Yeah, I'm surprised that the NL is worse with the DH than without but I'm more surprised that the AL isn't *much* worse than that without the DH.
Posts: 560
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2009
Reputation:
0
It would be intersting to see how many more errors at 1B there are for the AL without the DH in the WS.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
Ah. Yes. That would be interesting.
Posts: 5,185
Threads: 174
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Since they went to the current model of having the DH rule depending on where the game was played in 1986, the AL commits an average of 0.77 errors/game (54 errors in 70 games) in games played with the DH and 0.81 errors per game (58 errors in 72 games) in games played without the DH, or about 4% more errors.
However, there's an outlier in there. In the 2004 World Series, in the 2 games played in Boston, the Red Sox committed 8 errors, but they did not commit any errors in the 2 games in St. Louis. If you take 2004 out of the equation, the AL has committed an average of 0.67 errors/game (46 errors in 68 games) in games played with the DH and 0.83 errors per game (58 errors in 70 games) in games played without the DH, or over 22% more errors.
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.
Posts: 113
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation:
0
Great job finding those numbers. Though it shows a trend, it's a bit light on the number of games to draw a conclusion off of.
"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy
"Ow" - Dylan Bundy
Posts: 5,185
Threads: 174
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Yes and no. You're talking nearly a full season's worth of games.
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.
Posts: 113
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation:
0
You mean nearly a half seasons worth. 68 games = 42% of a season. 70 games = 43%.
"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy
"Ow" - Dylan Bundy
Posts: 113
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation:
0
You can't add the two together because they are two totally different samples.
"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy
"Ow" - Dylan Bundy
