One-Fifty Plus

(Trying out some graphs today on the blog)

For as long as there's been baseball there've been baseball fans and players questioning the effort and dedication to the game of the present day player as compared to the generations past. Let's see if the general assumption of whether or not past generations were tougher holds true. Did players play more consistently in the 1960's than in the 1980's or 2000's? Were they more durable and less prone to injury and less likely to beg out of the lineup?

I decided to calculate how many players played in 150 or more games in each individual season from 1962 to 2004. I felt this would be a good measurement to help determine the consistency, durablility and dedication of a player. To play in a 150 games during any major league campaign is an accomplishment that positively speaks of a player's dedication and ability to avoid injury.

By 1962 both leagues had the new 162 game schedule in place. In that year each league had ten teams. In '62 fifty-nine players payed in 150+ games. Therefore, an average of 2.95 players per team played in 150+ games. Flash ahead to 2004 and the number had dropped to 2.20 players per team. Therefore, almost one full player per team less played 150+ games a season than in 1962. But how about the intervening years?

The following graph exhibits all the years from 1962 through 2004 and the average 150+ game players per team.

There certainly are some peaks and valleys over the past forty years when using this measurement. But no overall downward trend. In fact, the 2.20 figure in 2004 is only the 12th lowest out of the thirty-nine seasons tracked in this analysis (1972, 1981, 1994 & 1995 were not counted due to the shortened seasons created by strikes and lockouts). The 1960's had two seasons lower than 2004. The 1970's had the most with four such seasons. The 1980's and 1990's each had three lower seasons while the aughts have had none so far. Based on past history it would appear that the average should begin to move back upwards over the next five or six years.

Sometimes a rolling average can help place better perspective on long-term trends. It takes the analyst away from the year-to-year herky jerky movement exhibited in the first graph and smooths things out for them visually. The graph below uses a five year rolling average that starts in 1966.

Interestingly, it's the early to mid-1970's era that really sticks out when using the rolling five year average as being the least durable time period for players when using the 150+ game measurement. Since then the players of the 80's, 90's and aughts have proven to be more durable and have not fallen down to those mid-70's levels of durability.

The measurement used in this analysis is merely one of hundreds that could be used to determine player durability. It's fun to see, though, that the first measurement I used exhibited no discernible difference between players of forty years ago and today's players. At least in this analysis it wasn't necessarily better back in the old days!