No-Hitters, The Age of the Pitcher, and History - Gary Armida's Blog

Arena Blog Dynasty Scores Sign Up ☰

Gary Armida's Blog

No-Hitters, The Age of the Pitcher, and History Stuck

Posted on June 6, 2012 at 09:11 AM.

(3)

Baseball is the one sport that can provide a magical moment at any time. Those moments are what draws. Those moments build a bond between fan, player, and team. Few moments can eclipse a no-hitter. It is an event that draws fans without having the fireworks of offense. It is slow, intense, tension filled build up to the achievement. They are moments when fathers wake up sons to come to the TV to watch history. It�s a moment where even the most ardent hometown fans will acknowledge the accomplishment of the road pitcher. And, despite seeing them on a seemingly regular basis this season, they still captivate us as if we are seeing a no-hitter for the first time.

Johan Santana threw this season�s third no-hitter. He joined Phil Humber and Jered Weaver in what seems to be an ever-growing club. The three no-hitters already match the total from the 2011 season and could be a sign that we may just see the most no-hitters thrown in a season, which incidentally is seven, done twice in both 1990 and 1991. And, considering that the 2010 season saw six no-hitters, we may just be in the age of the pitcher.

We certainly love our labels. We like to quantify things and neatly categorize them. We had the dead ball era, the golden era, the steroids era, and now, supposedly, we are in the pitching era. It feels like pitching has been dominant in recent years as run totals are decreasing. During much of the early 2000�s and the late 1990�s, the National League averaged approximately 4.70 runs per game. The American League, because of the designated hitter, averaged closer to 5 runs per game. In 6 seasons during the 1990�s, an American League game averaged more than 5 runs per game. But, scoring has come down in recent years. This season, the NL is averaging 4.18 runs per game, after averaging 4.16 and 4.03 during the past two seasons. That�s after averaging over 4.49 runs per game in every season since 2002.

The American League has followed a similar pattern. After averaging over 4.68 runs per game in each season from 2000 through 2009, the AL has averaged 4.42, 4.43, and now 4.37 runs per game in the last three seasons. Scoring is, indeed, down a bit. The reasons are plenty. Pitchers are stronger and better. A team is using its bullpen more than ever, forcing hitters to face a new pitcher in their last two to three at bats each night. Of course, there is the new enforcement of drug testing, which could be the reason for decreased scoring. Or, it could be just the cyclical nature of the game. A look into Baseball history shows time periods of extremes.

But, none of that really explains why there have been 12 no hitters in the past three seasons. Are the fact that we have seen those 12 no-hitters a sign that we really are in the era of the pitcher? It�s possible, but like runs scored, they seem to be cyclical in their rate of occurrence.

From 2000 through 2009, there were 14 no-hitters thrown. In two of those seasons, 2000 and 2005, there were zero thrown. The �obvious� explanation is that the game was still in the Steroids Era. Aside from 2001 when there were three no-hitters pitched, each season up to 2007 saw either one or zero. Then, from 2007 through 2009, there were at least two thrown per season. The thinking is that as the game got cleaner, pitchers began to dominate. There are no longer five or six players swatting 50 homeruns in a season. Hitters are no longer playing at a distinct advantage. With 16 no-hitters thrown since the Mitchell Report was published, it would be somewhat logical that the post-steroids era game is dominated by pitchers.

Except, this isn�t really the case at all.

During the 1990�s, there were 31 no-hitters thrown. Although 14 were pitched during the first two seasons, there were still an average of two no-hitters thrown per season. The 90�s were the prime years for the performance enhancing drugs. 31 no-hitters is the second most for any decade in Major League Baseball history. But, even more curious is that the 1980�s saw only 13 no-hitters. In 1982, 85, and 89, zero no-hitters were thrown. That era was marked more by the cocaine scandal with little known about performance enhancing drugs. It was an era similar to the 1970�s in terms of runs scored yet the 1970�s had 30 no-hitters thrown, which came after the 1960�s 33 no-hitters. The 1960�s were interesting for a few reasons. One, there was at least one no-hitter thrown each season. In 1962 and 1968, there were five thrown. 1968 was the pivotal season as pitching became so dominant, that Major League Baseball lowered the mound to give the hitters more of an advantage. Scoring went up, but the rate of no-hitters stayed the same.

And, further proof that no-hitters have no connection to runs scored or offense is that the 1950�s had just 18 of them, while the 1940�s saw just 13. The 20�s and 30�s saw 9 and 8 no-hitters respectively. During a time when pitchers were more durable and the homerun was less prevalent, Baseball averaged less than one no-hitter per season. And, this was after the first two decades of the century when 45 no-hitters were thrown from 1900 through 1920.

No-hitters really do not have any connection with pitcher dominance or the scoring of an era. There just hasn�t been any correlation that can be definitively made. The height of the steroids era saw the second most no-hitters thrown. During some of the games� relatively pitching dominant periods, there were fewer no-hitters. Could we be seeing a rise in no-hitters in this decade? It�s possible, but other decades have gotten off to better or similar starts, only to flatten to the low 30�s.

The lesson? It�s really to appreciate these special pitching performances. No-hitters have always been difficult. The argument can be made that they are more difficult in today�s game given all of the advanced scouting and the advanced skills of the hitter. They are special and, as history shows, there is no real pattern as to why they happen. They simply happen on a special night when a pitcher has complete control of what he is doing on the mound. And, the unique part is that they aren�t always thrown by stars. As much as we want to quantify everything in baseball, the no-hitter is still part of the romanticism and magic of the game.

We are not in the Age of the Pitcher. We are simply watching good baseball. We are simply seeing quality performances, a normalization of power, and, every once in awhile, some incredible, historic performances. That is why Baseball is continues to captivate us every single day.

Gary Armida writes for OS as well as some other places. Talk here or on twitter @garyarmida

Comments

# 1 marginwalker12 @ Jun 6

Have you considered that "classic" home run hitters tend to have low averages. So home runs hit in any decade should not really play into the amount of no-hitters. The reason why you saw so few no-hitters in an era with little home runs was because players were more concerned about putting the ball in play. Hitting at its simplest form is a risk/reward proposition. A singles hitter will have a higer average, but his run creation will suffer because he's simply not hitting the ball far enough to create better scoring oppurtunities. A team can hit 3 singles in an inning and score 1 run with a team average off .500. The second inning they can hit two home runs with an average of .400. They were more efficient in the second inning despite their low batting average. So following this logic, no-hitters should be more plentiful in an era with more home runs. Barring the steroid era where the strenght of hitters was so plentiful they could enact the same force on a ball with less bat speed then when they were not on the juice. The slower the bat speed, the longer it stays in contract range. So hitter were exerting less bat speed, but hitting with the same force. Increasing both power and average.

# 2 Gary Armida @ Jun 6

No reason to forgive. Everything you said is certainly plausible. I don't have the answer to this one. Just looks a bit random to me, that's all. The 90's is what really gets me. That decade was tainted, yet no-hitters happened at the same rate as the 60's and 70's.

# 3 Gary Armida @ Jun 6

Oops. Didn't mean to delete your comment. Was trying to fix mine. Sorry! Meant to say nothing to forgive, not no reason.