Comments on: Average number of players used per team

By: DavidRF

DavidRF — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:53:54 +0000

@8
Good question. The Federal League years were 1914-1915. I can imagine several reasons why there would be a blip before the FL and a trough during and after, but I can't find any evidence online of a any roster-rule changes.

By: Gerry

Gerry — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:36:58 +0000

What about the blip in 1912-13? What explains why teams were using so many batters and pitchers in those two years, compared to any of the other years from that period?

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:11 +0000

Two of the factors which may drive the steady increase - transportation and money. During the era of passenger trains, getting from Texas to St. Louis (or from Los Angeles to Chicago) to make the leap from Triple A to the majors took days rather than hours. Now we hear tales of young players playing in a minor league game one day and a major league game the next (sometimes being sent back out the following day), and do not think that unusual.

And the new era of big money means that MLB teams are more likely to DL a player for a minor injury and call up a replacement without thinking twice about the cost - too much is at stake. Suspect the number of player/days on the DL has a direct correlation to this chart.

Wonder if the wealthier teams in the 30s and 40s keep a few players close at hand as a "taxi squad"..... and need to take a closer look at the AL in '55!

By: Johnny Twisto

Johnny Twisto — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:12:49 +0000

I'm sure that's probably true. But there are bad teams every year. Those teams weren't historically bad so that they should account for a noticeable spike in the graph. I don't know, it would probably require a closer look at the # of players used by each team in the surrounding seasons to make sense of. Well...I can never let things rest. In '53, '54, '56, and '57, it looks like 8 AL teams total used at least 40 players in a season. In '55 alone, all 8 teams used at least 40, and BAL and KCA were both over 50. So everyone was using at least a few more players, and those two were really off the charts, relatively. Still not sure why. Maybe there is no answer, it's just a freak occurrence. Could it have something to do with the Bonus Baby rules? Still don't know why '55 would be any different in that regard than any other year though.

By: Mariner Mike

Mariner Mike — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:29:39 +0000

RE: 1955 A's & Orioles. Those two clubs were pretty bad.

I wonder if there is a correlation between team performance and the quantity of players used. It often seems that bad teams tend to make a lot of roster moves in search of players who can actually perform.

By: Johnny Twisto

Johnny Twisto — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:10:55 +0000

The '55 increase appears to be far more in the AL than the NL.

It's the year the A's moved, and one year after the Orioles moved. Any connection? Don't know what it would be. But those two teams used a lot more players and pitchers than the rest of the league.

By: Johnny Twisto

Johnny Twisto — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:06:00 +0000

Never mind, I was counting dots in the wrong decade, it is 1955.

By: Johnny Twisto

Johnny Twisto — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:04:06 +0000

The Korean War ended in '53, and there weren't so many players drafted that they and their replacements would be crowding up the rosters when they returned. That blip actually appears to be 1956, anyway. It is rather striking, so there must be an explanation, but I am not sure what it is.

By: Detroit Michael

Detroit Michael — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:08:07 +0000

It might be more illuminating to graph the number of batters when one excludes those batters who were pitchers in 75% or more of their games for the season. A similar adjustment for the pitchers would eliminate the occasional position player who pitches once or twice in a season. Otherwise, it seems there is a lot of noise in the data.