Fantistics: PED Testing Shifting Game Back Toward Pitching

[JTWood]

Anthony Perri spent this week making the case that testing for PEDs has pushed things back in favor of pitchers over the last decade, which would seem to indicate that pitchers were either using PEDs less or benefit less from their usage. But that's me reading between the lines. Here's his argument on why pitching is getting back in the game. See what you think of it:

Article #1: Hitting Decline

Article #2: Pitching Rise

For those that don't want to read, he summarizes the articles with this:

My three observations:

* On average, Pitchers are performing at a higher level than at any point in the last 10 years. The relative value of pitchers has increased over the decade.
* Pitcher Production predictability has increased significantly over the decade.
* Similar to hitters, the degree of separation between the upper tier pitchers and the 2nd tier is less pronounced than it was in the past.

[GotowarMissAgnes]

I don't see any adjustment for changes in park effects in this research at all. If I look at the bottom 11 parks in run park factor, 7 of them were built in 2000 or later. This is something basic that the research doesn't even seem to consider. If they aren't controlling for the obvious things, I'm not sure I'd trsu it much.

[wrveres]

MLB didn't start testing till what, 2003, 2004, maybe it was 2005?
And I haven't seen an updated list in the last six months or so, but if memory serves it was getting close to 2/1 pitchers/batters that have been busted under the current minor league program. just sayin.

also, baseball most offensive ballpark got tamed by the humidor. So much so that fantasy owners actually started bidding on Colorado pitchers. A first.
And as pointed out above, many new ballparks opened during this time frame too.

[asalerno]

I think he addressed this question: "How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?"

"The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors."

[thedude]

MLB didn't start testing till what, 2003, 2004, maybe it was 2005?
And I haven't seen an updated list in the last six months or so, but if memory serves it was getting close to 2/1 pitchers/batters that have been busted under the current minor league program. just sayin.

It is possible that while more pitchers also use PEDs, that it is in actuality more effective for batters.

[StlSluggers]

I think he addressed this question: "How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?"

"The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors."

HRs allowed is a terrible way to determine which way a park plays.

[dmendro]

I think he addressed this question: "How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?"

"The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors."

HRs allowed is a terrible way to determine which way a park plays.

HR's/FB ratio seems to be the popular way to figure out a Park's affect on pitchers. Personally I think the best way is linedrive ratio, but that's tough to capture as to whether or not it's a park thing or a team thing.

[Art Vandelay]

My three observations:

* On average, Pitchers are performing at a higher level than at any point in the last 10 years. The relative value of pitchers has increased over the decade.
* Pitcher Production predictability has increased significantly over the decade.
* Similar to hitters, the degree of separation between the upper tier pitchers and the 2nd tier is less pronounced than it was in the past.

Now, I'm no fancy big-city lawyer, but don't these two points contradict one another? If the separation between the top pitchers and the 2nd tier pitchers is shrinking (and pitchers are performing at a higher level in general), then wouldn't the relative value of pitchers be decreasing? Or am I reading that wrong.

[JTWood]

My three observations:

* On average, Pitchers are performing at a higher level than at any point in the last 10 years. The relative value of pitchers has increased over the decade.
* Pitcher Production predictability has increased significantly over the decade.
* Similar to hitters, the degree of separation between the upper tier pitchers and the 2nd tier is less pronounced than it was in the past.

Now, I'm no fancy big-city lawyer, but don't these two points contradict one another? If the separation between the top pitchers and the 2nd tier pitchers is shrinking (and pitchers are performing at a higher level in general), then wouldn't the relative value of pitchers be decreasing? Or am I reading that wrong.

I think the first point was saying that pitchers are more valuable relative to hitters, while the third point was saying that the distribution of value among pitchers isn't as top-heavy as it used to be.

[Art Vandelay]

My three observations:

* On average, Pitchers are performing at a higher level than at any point in the last 10 years. The relative value of pitchers has increased over the decade.
* Pitcher Production predictability has increased significantly over the decade.
* Similar to hitters, the degree of separation between the upper tier pitchers and the 2nd tier is less pronounced than it was in the past.

Now, I'm no fancy big-city lawyer, but don't these two points contradict one another? If the separation between the top pitchers and the 2nd tier pitchers is shrinking (and pitchers are performing at a higher level in general), then wouldn't the relative value of pitchers be decreasing? Or am I reading that wrong.

I think the first point was saying that pitchers are more valuable relative to hitters, while the third point was saying that the distribution of value among pitchers isn't as top-heavy as it used to be.

Ah...yes, that makes sense. I was thinking in terms of relative among each other, not relative to hitters.