AL vs NL: 1930s
Posted by Chris J. on January 10, 2008
The AL was the better hitter's league in the 1930s. Let's use PI to see how big the difference was. I'm going to order hitters by Runs Created, because it DOESN'T adjust for league context. I'm trying to show the difference in leagues, after all. Here's the best NL hitters, in terms of Runs Created for the decade. And here's their AL counterparts. Let's see:
1000 RC: - 4 in AL, 3 in NL
900 RC: 7 in AL, 5 in NL
800 RC: 11 in AL, 7 in NL
700 RC: 15 in AL, 12 in NL
600 RC: 24 in AL, 17 in NL
500 RC: 28 in AL, 20 in NL
It's a little screwy because there's more AL hitters in general, but in the 600s they pull away even if you adjust for that. Heck, by the 800s they're pulling away.
This works for ERA, too. Here's the NL leaders, and the AL leaders.
ERA under 3.00 - 1 in AL; 2 in NL
ERA under 3.50 - 2 in AL; 10 in NL
ERA under 4.00 - 7 in AL; 20 in NL
ERA under 4.50 - 20 in AL; 25 in NL
Now that really dramatizes the different, don't it. And that tells you just how good Lefty Grove was - only one guy was within half a run of him.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Were there different AL balls and NL balls, or were the ML baseballs made in exactly the same way in exactly the same place?
January 10th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I didn't enough know that RC was a stat carried by the PI. I guess I know what I'm posting about tomorrow.
By the way, Chris, I didn't realize just what an accomplished baseball writer you are over at THT until recently. It's very cool to have you as an author on this blog.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:34 am
I think they did change the NL ball. The 1930 NL had notoriously high offense, and I think a year or two later they made changes, while the AL remained higher scoring.