Pitchers' stats are better because steroids are gone.

[rcpratt]

Yep, ISO is better than Slugging percentage because it removes singles. For example, if a power hitter starts hitting more singles instead of 2B/3B/HR then it wouldn't be reflected in Slugging percentage, hence ISO is a better indicator of true power because it removes this factor. Some guys even take out the triples because they think it's more of a function of speed, but there are so few of them that IMO they don't really influence the outcome... and then there is the fact that even slow hitters can hit legitimate triples due to strange caroms/hops of the ball.

We will need a couple more years worth of data to see if offensive numbers continue to decline but all four years since 2006 have been lower or the same as the year before it. With the introduction of HGH Minor League testing this year, MLB has shown it's getting more serious about testing. HGH is known as "the foundation" because it strengthens/repairs ligaments. Like HumbliePie said, baseball players will cycle anabolics and just maintain the strength. Many players will do this in the winter when they aren't tested and just keep the strength once the season starts... and the substance is already out of their system. This is especially prevalent in the minor leagues where guys are trying to make it big, so HGH is most likely used more in the minors. From a 2003 SI article:


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/flashbacks/2002/year_in_review/steroids/

I will do a homerun median graph later just for kicks, and maybe look at the 20 year numbers for ERA.

They don't ignore triples, they just weight them the same as doubles...=(2B+3B+3*HR)/AB

 

[SP33Demon]

They don't ignore triples, they just weight them the same as doubles...=(2B+3B+3*HR)/AB

Yep, PECOTA uses that formula. No argument here, I'm sure the variance between the two formulas is very low. The numbers I pulled from baseball-reference's database uses the standard weighting.