Here's my little attempt to "increase" sports-related posting. wink
Anyway, the question I would like to ask fellow baseball fans is: why is it so hard to find, develop and maintain starters in baseball, especially at the major league level?
It seems that finding power at the plate is easier than ever before (let's not worry about why that is here) and defensive players are at least maintaining respectability if not improving in quantity and quality. But obtaining pitching, specifically starting pitching, can become a quest akin to finding the Holy Grail!
(I'll leave the subject of relief pitching and closers for another time...)
I would love to hear your thoughts as to why this is so, just to make me a more informed fan of the game, and to give me patience to hang in there as my boys (the Orioles) founder yet again before the All-Star Break since our GMs left pitching out of the equation again...
I do know the simple act of pitching can be a nasty trauma to the arm and all that, but I wouldn't dare to guess what other factors are at work in this equation. What do you think is the situation, and how do you feel it could be addressed by the Powers That Be in MLB and elsewhere? Please to share your thoughts?
All I ask is that any Sabermetrically-inclined people share their thoughts in non-mathematical language as I am very mathematically challenged...
Thanks for your time!
By the way, many thanks to those who welcomed me to the board, my apologies for not acknowledging that earlier.

Two reasons IMO: 1) Expansion to 30 teams. 2) The 5-man rotation. Started in early 90's. Dilutes the strength of pitching on each team, plus your 5th man for most clubs, really should be in AAA. You now see all the teams calling up, sending down a "starter" from the minors every 2 or 3 weeks. Sometimes even from AA. But the number of true major league hitters hasn't changed because all baseball players have become much more athletic overall. Hence our discussions of "he who shall not be named." wink

Owllover711, you should check out my post in the "Baseball rules that should be changed" thread as well. Might be a solution to the problem.

I agree with BPT. Expansion has diluted pitching talent, but more than anything there are too many minor league pitchers in the majors. I remember the norm being a 4 man rotation and starters going 7 plus innings.

I also think strength, conditioning, bigger players and hitter friendly parks have all helped the hitters gain an edge more than it has pitchers. The power numbers and runs per game are up for the most part.

I think it's more than just bigger, netter hitters.

I keep coming back to the idea of the ball (in addition to the players) being "juiced" this season.

I remember when baseball scores were 2-0, 2-1, 4-2 or something like that. This season we get ridiculous scores like 14-13, 10-8 all the time!

It can't just be the "AAA pitchers pitching in MLB" since established pitching stars have also been blown out.

MLB knows that runs and especially homeruns excite the fans and get ratings. (Look at the hype over Maguire's run to the record.) and MLB has set the conditions to have a lot of hits and runs.... to the detriment of the pitchers.

phillyrunner, I completely forgot about the "hitter friendly" new stadiums that keep popping up. There are very few Pitcher's parks left, (Shea, Dodger, and Safeco come to mind -- and I think Yankee Stadium should be considered one now). That does make a difference on increasing the offense, but not as much as you would think.

Baseballs used by the Japanese league teams are made with a different combination of materials that make them fly less. That's part of the reason why their stadiums are smaller than average MLB parks and home runs are somewhat less common. I remember seeing a news link about that at one time but I can't find it. Maybe something can be changed with the MLB baseballs as well.

OK...if you're going to ask why ERA's shot up, you need to look at when it occurred. It certainly isn't this year. Thus far, the league ERA in the AL is 4.59, a bit higher than in the last couple of years but still lower than any year between 1994 and 2000 except 1997. In the NL, the league ERA is 4.27, about the same as last year, and well below where it was from 1998-2001. Both values, however, are much higher than ERA's were back in 1988-1992 (AL 3.96, NL 3.58). ERA's shot up drastically in 1993-94, and in the NL again in 1998.

So what's going on? Well, the timing matches expansion, but could going from 28 to 30 teams really make that big a difference? That just adds 10 starting pitchers. There's no way those 10 pitchers are bad enough to raise the league ERA by 15%. We didn't see that big a statistical impact from going from 24 to 28 or even from 16 to 24. Part of the story may be the hitters parks--it's clear that the AL and NL values are closer than they were in the past. Inter-league play (the DH) may account in part for the second jump in NL ERA's.

My recollection is that almost every team had a five-man rotation by the late 80's except Cincinatti, so I don't think that's it. The early 90's were probably when weight-training (and steroids) started to hit baseball in a big way, and I agree that greater size and strength has probably had more impact on hitting than pitching. Also, hitting style has changed, with hitters taking more pitches. There are more strikeouts and more walks. While you might think that would balance out, it means pitchers throw more pitches--100 pitches was often enough for a complete game in the sixties, but might not make it through 7 innings today.

Of course, '93-94 was also a time when baseball talk was dominated by strikes and threats of strikes...did they juice the ball to try and keep fans interested?

One last comment--the current spate of run production is not as historically anomalous as some think. ERA's in the AL were higher in 1930, and from 1936-39--the league record of 5.04 (with no DH!) was set in '36 and certainly won't be broken this year. Neither will the NL record of 4.97 (1930). We did mark an all-time high in HR production in the late 90's, but even that was only 20% above the level of the early 60's AL. It's worth noting that Maris still holds the AL record for HRs, and it doesn't look like anyone will threaten it this year. The NL has shot up far more, probably because of the new parks, particularly Coors. Parks that were once viewed as extreme hitters parks (Atlanta, Wrigley) are now fairly average.

[ July 15, 2004, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: JC ]

I don't think that expansion is the reason for the lower quality of starting pitching. There are now more baseball players, including pitchers, today due to population increase, as well as more international players coming to play in the MLB. If expansion did dilute the quality of pitchers, why didn't it also happen to the quality of the batters? I think a couple of the reasons are smaller ballparks, smaller mound, and perhaps a juiced ball. Even if I'm wrong, and expansion is the cause, forget about contraction, since the Players Association won't let it happen. So the only solution to reducing ERAs is to raise the mound again, and unjuice(?) the ball.

[ July 15, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

Mostly agree with you, Pat, but didn't they change the mound in 1969? I think when people are talking about the elusiveness of starting pitching, they're comparing it to the '70's and '80's rather than the neo-deadball era of the mid-60's.

So long as "chicks dig the long ball," I don't think baseball is going to raise the mound, "unjuice" the ball, move the fences back, or institute stringent steroid testing (and penalties).

So long as there are a few star pitchers (Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Schilling, Gagne, Rivera), MLB is happy to let offence dominate the game and don't care that #3, 4 and 5 pitchers are mediocre to crap.

Comparisons:

1973: 8 players with 30+ HR, 9 players with 100+ RBI
1983: 12 players with 30+ HR, 14 players with 100+ RBI
1993: 21 players with 30+ HR, 25 players with 100+ RBI
2003: 29 players with 30+ HR, 37 players with 100+ RBI

In a more general sense, what is it about baseball, that when scoring decreases (as in the '60's), it's because of bad hitting, and when scoring increases, it's because of bad pitching? It's the only sport in which every generation has been convinced the quality of the game is decreasing.

When I think of how much smaller the talent pool was in the thirties (American-born whites only, smaller U.S. population), and how small and poorly conditioned the players were compared to modern players, I find it really, really hard to believe they played better baseball.

In the old days starting pitchers went 9 innings as much as possible. Pitchers who had "sore arms" just kept pitching. The medical technology wasn't there to diagnose some of the injuries (rotator cuff) that we hear so much about today. Also, players are more reluctant to "play with pain" because of the huge contracts involved--either they don't want to jeopardize getting one, or they have one and don't care.

But shouldn't that make modern pitchers better, rather than worse? One thing it certainly does do is extend careers...there are a lot more 40-year old pitchers still at their top level than there were in the old days.

And like I said before, it's not clear that pitchers actually threw more pitches per game than they do now.

The pitchers who don't get seriously hurt, they were stronger and able to handle pitching longer. Nowadays starting pitchers are on pitch counts, they get taken out of games earlier and the bullpens take over.

[ July 16, 2004, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

on this I disagree. baseball truly was the american sport back then in ways it no longer is.
Football and certainly basketball constitute "america's game" much more than baseball. consequently, a much smaller percentage of the american population even considers paying baseball.

Most are dreaming of NBA or NFL careers and don't even consider MLB as a goal. Therefore in actual numbers, I dare say that LESS people play organized baseball now then they did in baseball's glory days.

so yes.... there has been a talent drain away from baseball.

That may be true, but the proportion of the population that dreams of big time success in any sport is probably much larger. Prior to the '70's, most parents probably didn't encourage their children to pursue an impractical career in pro sports, whereas today, many parents aggressively push their kids in that direction in the hopes of striking it rich. If baseball has lost so much talent to basketball and football, why are players so much taller than they were in the past--probably a good 3-4" taller on average? Yes, I realize that the general population has increased in height, but not by as much as baseball players have.

when looking at the great leap in average height, you have to take into account that maybe 50% of MLB is american. the rest are latin or asian. so the issue of height is not relevant to the issue of talent pool drain vis-a-vis the american populace.

True--which is a good part of the reason the talent pool hasn't shrunk. I really doubt the number of people worldwide playing baseball is less than it was. It's only in the U.S. that its popularity has fallen off. And even in the U.S., among Asians and Latinos, I expect baseball is still number one. In any event, asians and latinos aren't noted for great height.

But here's what I was trying to say: very few basketball and football players are under six feet tall. So if they're draining so much talent away that would otherwise go to baseball, wouldn't you expect there to be a lack of quality tall players? Shouldn't baseball be left mostly with players who are either too short to play the other major sports or poor athletes, in which case you'd expect the sport to be dominated by smaller players?

In any event, I don't think talent pool reduction can account for the very sharp increase in run production from 1992 to 1994. The talent pool just isn't going to dry up that suddenly.

The Braves beat Montreal 16-5! What the hell kind of inflated score is that? These kind of scores are happening all the time now

Baseball always has had those kind of scores--remember the St. Louis Browns and the Washington Senators?

I see the combination of expansion, the increase in weight-training and doping among players, the juiced ball (remember how home runs shot up in 1987--does anyone else recall that year?), and the changes in preparation for younger pitchers, pitching has fallen off. It's been tougher for the AL than the NL, mainly because of the DH, but I think some clubs have realized that they actually help their bottom line by working with younger pitchers and developing them rather than assuming you can buy your way (à la Steinbrenner) to a championship.

Oakland's young staff is an excellent example of this. Mulder, Zito, Hudson, and company all are talented, but they had a pitching coach who was determined to take care of their arms. Atlanta did this during the 1980s and 1990s, and this is one reason their pitching staff was one of the best and most consistent in the league (as opposed to being just laden with talent, like the 1986 Mets). What pitchers in the past (1970s and before) used to do was throw between starts, but that fell off during the 1980s, as did throwing complete games, which tires younger arms, but over time also builds up pitchers' stamina and arm strength, especially if they have sound dynamics. Also, a number of pitchers have increasingly followed Nolan Ryan's example of heavy-duty strength and stamina training, and are now able to pitch well as they as advance in years.

Still, we're a long way from the days of pitchers like Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, etc., or even more recent pitchers like Don Drysdale, Bob Gibson, Jim Palmer, Ferguson Jenkins, Seaver, Carlton, Forsch, etc., who threw in 4-man rotations, sometimes pitched cleanup or as closers, threw at least 10-15 complete games each year for over a decade (or two), and did little or no weight-training (and didn't have steroids either). Drysdale was often hung-over when he pitched for the Dodgers (but then so was Mickey Mantle)!

And to this day, one of the most astonishing pitchers to my mind is Warren Spahn. He lost 4 years because of military service, yet still won 363 games, pitching regularly against the best hitters (Musial, Mays, Banks, Kiner, McCovey, Snider, Clemente, etc.) of his era, and posted a 23-7 record, with an ERA of 2.60, 22 complete games, 7 shutouts, when he was 42--and he hit .178 that year, with 2 home runs! Spahn and Sain and pray for rain!

[ July 19, 2004, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]