Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
There are a number of possible explanations one could come up with for why offensive numbers were down league-wide last season, but Nick Scott over at Royals Authority might have stumbled upon the best. For some reason, no one else cared to mention the following rule change, put into effect before the year:
“Reduced maximum bat diameter to 2.61 inches. (Rule 1.10(a))”
…
In the 2009 rules, the bat was allowed to be a maximum of 2.75” in diameter.
Smaller bats. It seems so obvious. Does the rule change explain everything? No, probably not. But it definitely seems like the kind of thing someone would’ve wanted to bring up at some point over the past calendar year.
6 comments
Comments
Wow,
Nice Job, good catch. It definately has something to do with it.
"Dan Johnson did it"
by Oaklanda12 on Feb 3, 2011 4:52 PM EST reply actions
Damn
by Fett42 on Feb 3, 2011 5:18 PM EST reply actions
Were whiffs up across the board?
Surely stats like that could allude to whether this was a significant factor or not, right? Anyhow, good find Nick Scott!
by Guy Allen Davis on Feb 3, 2011 6:03 PM EST reply actions
I believe swinging strikes were up something like 2-3%
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 3, 2011 6:04 PM EST up reply actions
I probably should have read the actual article before posting.
by Guy Allen Davis on Feb 3, 2011 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
This begs the question . . .
How many bats were at maximum diameter in 2009? Everyone’s? 5% 50%, 95%?
by goquakers on Feb 4, 2011 12:00 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed