Amazing baseballs

Reader Jonathan S. submitted this entry.

USA Today chartjunk:

Recycled junkart (his chart):

Jonathan noticed that the scales were off (more likely, they began with an axis that did not start at zero!  This is precisely why most graphs should start at zero).

As an aside, pitchers used to point to their (frequently untoned) physique as proof that steroids could not help; now we know better.

 

Comments

[Rosie Redfield]

"Jonathan noticed that the scales were off (more likely, they began with an axis that did not start at zero! This is precisely why most graphs should start at zero)."

Starting the axis at a value higher than zero is usually a trick to make a minor difference look more dramatic. But the error in this graph makes the difference less dramatic; it could only arise by starting the axis at a negative number (approximately -15 in this case).

[Chris]

Could the distortion in the graph be due to the baseballs being added on to the end of the columns, rather than being part of them?

[Tony]

A for effort, F for effectiveness! As a general rule, background images are a complete waste and take away from what the data is trying to tell you.

Seems steroids are more about recovery time and sustained strength than power hitting, according to the report.

[Lee]

I didn't see the article, but it seems that there should be more pitchers and outfielders reported simply due to the position make-up of a MLB roster.

If you look at a regular season 25-man roster, a team will carry 4 starting pitchers and a bull-pen of 7 - that is 48% pitchers. If anything, this suggests 34% is too few pitchers showing up in the report.

There are usually 5 outfielders, perhaps 6 if one could double at first or third base, so the report aligns with the population.

I'd be interested to see the percentage of positions across the population of MLB players over an extended period of time.

[Lee]

oops...should have said 44% pitchers....