I'd be interested in the difference in HRs. It might account for the higher scoring with only 13 more hits and might fit into a general increase in HRs across MLB thus far. What were there, like 20 homers hit in the game last night?
There was an
article in the Chicago Tribune last week on this. It's a collection of denials that the ball is "juiced", but at the end we find (this was only through last tuesday's games):
Average major-league home runs per game, by season
1997: 2.05
1998: 2.08
1999: 2.28
2000: 2.34
2001: 2.25
2002: 2.09
2003: 2.14
2004: 2.25
2005: 2.06
2006: 2.53
Average major-league home runs per game, for the month of April
1997: 1.89
1998: 1.96
1999: 2.22
2000: 2.56
2001: 2.34
2002: 1.91
2003: 2.09
2004: 2.17
2005: 1.89
2006: 2.53
I believe this was written in response to the White Sox announcer who already claimed definitively (after a few games, mind you) that the ball is juiced because of "how quickly it gets through the infield", or some such thing; i can't remember the exact quote. Personally, I think it's too soon to support or deny the trend.
Wow, all these quotes out of Chicago...I think I hear the Troll Patrol warming up their engines...