Getting Plunked

The third part of my series of articles on hit batsmen is up on BP. Part one looked at the big picture trends from 1901-2005, part two explored a few alternate theories I hadn't considered and that were related to the big picture. Part three today takes a look at the differences between leagues related to the introduction of the designated hitter, expansion, and the double-warning rule.

In the latest article I considered the effect of players who were plunked much more than average. In doing so I referenced Don Baylor, Chet Lemon, Craig Biggio and others. For those curious here are the top 20 players in terms of HBP per 1,000 plate appearances since 1901.

Name                    PA     HBP    Rate    Period
Craig Wilson          1836      81    44.1 2001-2005
F.P. Santangelo       2014      83    41.2 1995-2001
Ron Hunt              6033     243    40.3 1963-1974
Jason LaRue           2290      85    37.1 1999-2005
Fernando Vina         4685     157    33.5 1993-2004
Jason Kendall         5908     197    33.3 1996-2005
Charlie Babb          1350      45    33.3 1903-1905
Bert Daniels          2178      72    33.1 1910-1914
Reed Johnson          1465      48    32.8 2003-2005
Red Killefer          1719      54    31.4 1907-1916
Dan McGann            4000     125    31.3 1901-1908
Olmedo Saenz          1539      47    30.5 1994-2005
Kid Elberfeld         4939     147    29.8 1901-1914
Steve Evans           3829     111    29.0 1908-1915
Don Baylor            9270     267    28.8 1970-1988
David Eckstein        3151      89    28.2 2001-2005
Doc Gessler           3394      92    27.1 1903-1911
Jack O'Neill          1024      27    26.4 1902-1906
Dick Padden           1663      43    25.9 1901-1905
Joe Yeager            1806      46    25.5 1901-1908

You'll note that there are lots of current and modern players in the list. This is due to the fact that historically we're at almost an all time high for HBP rates and a rising tide lifts all boats. Interestingly, I heard Bert Blyleven interviewed on the local ESPN radio affiliate yesterday and he, like many former pitchers, was bemoaning the lack of aggressive pitching on the part of modern pitchers. As is typical he implied that hitters aren't hit as much which of course is patently false.

In thinking about this common perception it occurs to me there are two explanations. First, there is a human tendancy to view our past as a "golden age" when things were as they should be and things were better. In this case pitchers were better since they stood up to hitters etc. On the other hand, Blyleven could very well be correct. Pitchers today hit more batters, true, but they do so out of accident rather than intent. This is consistent with the fluctuating strike zone, aluminum bat, and even the body armor theories I discussed in the articles.