Haven't all these whining old-timers noticed that young pitchers of the last 20 years who throw hardest and most often tend to be done by age 30?
[ June 19, 2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]
Full Version: pitching is harder today than ever
Splendid column by Joe Sheehan about why pitch counts and "incomplete" games by starters are the norm on the mound today: Pitching to major league hitters is more stressful and physically demanding than it's ever been. (And yes, this is partly a salvo in my continuing debate with Jim Allen on this issue.)
Haven't all these whining old-timers noticed that young pitchers of the last 20 years who throw hardest and most often tend to be done by age 30?
[ June 19, 2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]
Haven't all these whining old-timers noticed that young pitchers of the last 20 years who throw hardest and most often tend to be done by age 30?
[ June 19, 2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]
Interesting article. It's also relevant to my debate with Fantomas about Clemens & Maddux vs. Koufax & Gibson.
It is an interesting article, but a lot of it is pure speculation. He claims, for example, that few batters hit for average or power in the 1960s, which is simply not true. In fact, the high in HRs, as well as highs in average (up to the 1980s), occurred in the 1960s, and pitchers like Gibson, Koufax, etc., actually DID throw quantitatively more pitches in a game, especially since they had little expectation of relief pitching. AND many starting pitchers (including Koufax, for example, or Spahn, etc.) were expected ALSO to pitch in relief at times, which occurs much more rarely today, though Randy Johnson gave a spectacular example of this several years ago in the World Series (another reason he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame).
Moreover, in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, etc., most rotations were four-man, so pitchers had to pitch MORE games (sometimes 36-40), pitch longer into games (because the extensive bullpen system really developed in the 1970s, and up to the introduction of the DH system, bat for themselves.
The main problem I see with pitching today is that there are fewer talented pitchers because of MLB expansion, and some who would have been out of baseball or at least out of rotations (like Glendon Rusch in Milwaukee, or most of Detroit's starters) are still pitching because of the scarcity of talent. On top of this, pitchers in the past threw between games and the best ones maintained some level of conditioning (while others like Drysdale partied and drank themselves out of stardom); Atlanta's Bobby Cox is famous for retaining this tradition, and for years Atlanta's top starters were among the few who did not develop arm problems.
Even in the 1960s, there were pitchers who had tremendous power (McDowell, Belinsky, etc.) who blew their arms out. This is nothing new.
All in all, I'm not saying Sheehan is wrong, but even he admits to speculation at many points in the piece, so I don't think his analysis is conclusive.
Moreover, in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, etc., most rotations were four-man, so pitchers had to pitch MORE games (sometimes 36-40), pitch longer into games (because the extensive bullpen system really developed in the 1970s, and up to the introduction of the DH system, bat for themselves.
The main problem I see with pitching today is that there are fewer talented pitchers because of MLB expansion, and some who would have been out of baseball or at least out of rotations (like Glendon Rusch in Milwaukee, or most of Detroit's starters) are still pitching because of the scarcity of talent. On top of this, pitchers in the past threw between games and the best ones maintained some level of conditioning (while others like Drysdale partied and drank themselves out of stardom); Atlanta's Bobby Cox is famous for retaining this tradition, and for years Atlanta's top starters were among the few who did not develop arm problems.
Even in the 1960s, there were pitchers who had tremendous power (McDowell, Belinsky, etc.) who blew their arms out. This is nothing new.
All in all, I'm not saying Sheehan is wrong, but even he admits to speculation at many points in the piece, so I don't think his analysis is conclusive.
QUOTE
fantomas:
He claims, for example, that few batters hit for average or power in the 1960s, which is simply not true.
Huh? Look at the next-to-last table in the article again, and the figures on slugging by middle infielders... 1968 was the Year of the Pitcher, when both leagues hit about .240 and Yaz won the AL batting title with .301. The 1960s were most definitely a pitcher's environment compared to 1920-60, and 1969-today.
He claims, for example, that few batters hit for average or power in the 1960s, which is simply not true.
QUOTE
Bill W:
Haven't all these whining old-timers noticed that young pitchers of the last 20 years who throw hardest and most often tend to be done by age 30?
I actually think baseball is improving on this point. There are far fewer incompetent managers like John McNamara routinely destroying young pitching arms around the league in 2003 than there were in 1970s and 1980s. Jeff Torborg (who destroyed most of the young Marlins staff) was an exception; 20-30 years ago, his type was the rule. (Although I tremble to think what's going to happen to all those great young pitching arms in Northside Chicago after a few years of Dusty Baker.)Haven't all these whining old-timers noticed that young pitchers of the last 20 years who throw hardest and most often tend to be done by age 30?
QUOTE
fantomas:
It is an interesting article, but a lot of it is pure speculation. He claims, for example, that few batters hit for average or power in the 1960s, which is simply not true.
1961 - the year of Roger Maris's 61 HR's - and the year of AL (but not NL) expansion was part of the ancient, post-Black Sox, Babe Ruth era. I would date this change to the April 1962 and the opening of Dodger Stadium, which has always been to pitching what Coors Field in Denver is to hitting, which also coincided with the first NL expansion. By the mid 1960s, once the concrete donut stadiums starting coming on line, the baseball world changed. Pitchers completely over-dominated for a few years until the second wave of expansion in 1969 and were still disproportionately dominant until 1995, the post-strike year.It is an interesting article, but a lot of it is pure speculation. He claims, for example, that few batters hit for average or power in the 1960s, which is simply not true.
Is it a coincidence that offenses suddenly became very dominant immediately following the two worst black eyes in baseball history: the Black Sox scandal and Bud Selig's World Series cancellation?
QUOTE
fantomas:
The main problem I see with pitching today is that there are fewer talented pitchers because of MLB expansion, and some who would have been out of baseball or at least out of rotations (like Glendon Rusch in Milwaukee, or most of Detroit's starters) are still pitching because of the scarcity of talent.
It's not expansion per se. Through a combination of population growth, the end of baseball segregation and the expansion into Latin America, the talent pool baseball draws from as a 30-team sport is far larger than it was when it was a 16-team sport. Yeah, Detroit sucks, but that's not expansion. The 1950s Pirates or the (pick a year) St. Louis Browns were absolutely uncompetitively awful in their day too.The main problem I see with pitching today is that there are fewer talented pitchers because of MLB expansion, and some who would have been out of baseball or at least out of rotations (like Glendon Rusch in Milwaukee, or most of Detroit's starters) are still pitching because of the scarcity of talent.
It's the decline of baseball as the national pastime. Baseball used to get first pick on all athletes because it was the national pastime. It's not and now it doesn't. The potentially best pitcher in baseball history could be out there now, but he only played baseball for a few months for a few years, concentrated on football and is now QB for some college in the SEC or Big 12. That wouldn't have happened in the 1950s or even the 1960s.
My question about pitching arm burnout: Given current baseball economics, with teams like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay or San Diego knowing that they will rarely be able to afford to retain their best players after about four or five years, what incentive do they have to nurture young pitching arms? Why shouldn't they let Runleavys Hernandez or Adam Eaton work an innings load that would've crippled Jack Morris? They wouldn't be able to afford the kid once that particular chicken came home to roost. What incentive do they have not to operate a pitching staff like that?
[ June 20, 2003, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]
Well, it's a little more complicated than that. 1968 was not really typical of the '60s. Home runs actually did peak in the early 60's, although runs/game were running well below what they had in the 20's and 30's, mostly because batting average was lower (only 3 players hit .350 during the decade) and walks were down.
But Fantomas, you seem to have missed the central thrust of the argument which is that more complete games doesn't necessarily mean more pitches thrown per game. And batting for themselves made a pitcher's job EASIER not harder, because most pitchers were easy outs who required little effort.
But Fantomas, you seem to have missed the central thrust of the argument which is that more complete games doesn't necessarily mean more pitches thrown per game. And batting for themselves made a pitcher's job EASIER not harder, because most pitchers were easy outs who required little effort.
QUOTE
Bill W:
1968 was the pitchers' year. But what about 1961-1967, or even 1969?
QUOTE
fantomas:
He claims, for example, that few batters hit for average or power in the 1960s, which is simply not true.
Huh? Look at the next-to-last table in the article again, and the figures on slugging by middle infielders... 1968 was the Year of the Pitcher, when both leagues hit about .240 and Yaz won the AL batting title with .301. The 1960s were most definitely a pitcher's environment compared to 1920-60, and 1969-today. He claims, for example, that few batters hit for average or power in the 1960s, which is simply not true.
QUOTE
JC:
Well, it's a little more complicated than that. 1968 was not really typical of the '60s. Home runs actually did peak in the early 60's, although runs/game were running well below what they had in the 20's and 30's, mostly because batting average was lower (only 3 players hit .350 during the decade) and walks were down.
But Fantomas, you seem to have missed the central thrust of the argument which is that more complete games doesn't necessarily mean more pitches thrown per game. And batting for themselves made a pitcher's job EASIER not harder, because most pitchers were easy outs who required little effort.
JC, I got the thrust, but you're missing my point. It's not just that the pitchers threw more complete games, but they also pitched more games in general. This continued into the 1970s. Sheehan gives no totals beyond speculation, but check out the following sites for other takes on the topic:Well, it's a little more complicated than that. 1968 was not really typical of the '60s. Home runs actually did peak in the early 60's, although runs/game were running well below what they had in the 20's and 30's, mostly because batting average was lower (only 3 players hit .350 during the decade) and walks were down.
But Fantomas, you seem to have missed the central thrust of the argument which is that more complete games doesn't necessarily mean more pitches thrown per game. And batting for themselves made a pitcher's job EASIER not harder, because most pitchers were easy outs who required little effort.
Baseball Primer: Pitch Counts
Big Bad Baseball Analysis
I'm not totally dismissing Sheehan's argument, but I also think it's got flaws. As for CITT's comments about the talent pool, yes, there are more available players, but that has not translated into an increase in better pitching, though *some* of the new talent--Ishii, for example--has been superb compared with the run of very bad pitching over the last 6-7 years.
Originally posted by fantomas:
I meant to crunch some reference numbers for you, but when do I have time? Try the indispensable Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract for neat analyses of the game's nature in different eras.
I'd still like to know what your objective yardstick for "very bad pitching" across MLB today is. I don't believe it's true.
QUOTE
But what about 1961-1967, or even 1969?
No, the batters didn't all suddenly weaken in '68. Trust me, it was the climax of a trend of 5-7 years previous... leading to the lowering of the mound the next year, and the institution of the DH (to boost offense) in '72.I meant to crunch some reference numbers for you, but when do I have time?
Try the indispensable Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract for neat analyses of the game's nature in different eras.I'd still like to know what your objective yardstick for "very bad pitching" across MLB today is. I don't believe it's true.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.