Bruce on Z's Game Last Night

[CuseCubFan69]

Someone please explain this to me b/c I can't figure it out:

 

How come, in days past, teams were using four-man rotations and had several "horse" pitchers who started over 30 games a year and made it through well over 200 innings? Why is this such a rare commodity over the last 15 years or so? How come our strong, young pitchers seem incapable of maintaining such a pace without significant injury (excepting Z, of course)?

 

Take Rick Reuschel, for example:

 

Reuschel's career stats

 

Not an HOFer, but a guy pitching in the 70's and 80's who started well over 30 games per season and went over 200 innings well into his early fourties.

 

By contrast, it would seem that Wood and Prior are at least as talented as Reuschel (at least), yet they cannot keep themseleves together. Pitchers seem to have greater advantages in several aspects as compared to their fellows who pitched in preceeding eras, including, but not limited to, technology associated with analyzing technique and stats, advanced medicine, better conditioning, etc. How do we explan this?

 

Rick had a belly that he could pull some reserve out of when he needed the extra power.

 

I think it's a combination of things. The small strike zone, can't throw inside, batters are more patient now, and the fact that if something hurts now players see that their future money may go away so the slightest ache they are more careful than before.

 

I'm curious on how many pitches Rick threw a game because if memory serves me he had pretty good control or the very least didn't have to throw as many pitches per game with that sinker of his.

[RynoRules]

Someone please explain this to me b/c I can't figure it out:

 

How come, in days past, teams were using four-man rotations and had several "horse" pitchers who started over 30 games a year and made it through well over 200 innings? Why is this such a rare commodity over the last 15 years or so? How come our strong, young pitchers seem incapable of maintaining such a pace without significant injury (excepting Z, of course)?

 

Take Rick Reuschel, for example:

 

Reuschel's career stats

 

Not an HOFer, but a guy pitching in the 70's and 80's who started well over 30 games per season and went over 200 innings well into his early fourties.

 

By contrast, it would seem that Wood and Prior are at least as talented as Reuschel (at least), yet they cannot keep themseleves together. Pitchers seem to have greater advantages in several aspects as compared to their fellows who pitched in preceeding eras, including, but not limited to, technology associated with analyzing technique and stats, advanced medicine, better conditioning, etc. How do we explan this?

 

Rick had a belly that he could pull some reserve out of when he needed the extra power.

 

I think it's a combination of things. The small strike zone, can't throw inside, batters are more patient now, and the fact that if something hurts now players see that their future money may go away so the slightest ache they are more careful than before.

 

I'm curious on how many pitches Rick threw a game because if memory serves me he had pretty good control or the very least didn't have to throw as many pitches per game with that sinker of his.

 

I thought about the pitch-per-game issue as well, so I added several other picthers as examples. These are just afew I thought of off-hand. There are dozens more out there to be examined.

[Jon]

Amazingly, Zambrano has still throw fewer pitches per start than Prior did in '03.

[USSoccer]

Someone please explain this to me b/c I can't figure it out:

 

How come, in days past, teams were using four-man rotations and had several "horse" pitchers who started over 30 games a year and made it through well over 200 innings? Why is this such a rare commodity over the last 15 years or so? How come our strong, young pitchers seem incapable of maintaining such a pace without significant injury (excepting Z, of course)?

 

Take Rick Reuschel, for example:

 

Reuschel's career stats

 

Not an HOFer, but a guy pitching in the 70's and 80's who started well over 30 games per season and went over 200 innings well into his early fourties.

 

By contrast, it would seem that Wood and Prior are at least as talented as Reuschel (at least), yet they cannot keep themseleves together. Pitchers seem to have greater advantages in several aspects as compared to their fellows who pitched in preceeding eras, including, but not limited to, technology associated with analyzing technique and stats, advanced medicine, better conditioning, etc. How do we explan this?

 

Rick had a belly that he could pull some reserve out of when he needed the extra power.

 

I think it's a combination of things. The small strike zone, can't throw inside, batters are more patient now, and the fact that if something hurts now players see that their future money may go away so the slightest ache they are more careful than before.

 

I'm curious on how many pitches Rick threw a game because if memory serves me he had pretty good control or the very least didn't have to throw as many pitches per game with that sinker of his.

 

I would also submit that pitchers have to work much harder to get guys out now than they did in the 70's and points previous. Your average MLB hitter is stronger and quicker at the plate than your average 1975 era hitter.

[BigbadB]

How much more is a baseball juiced up than in the days of the pitchers you mentioned?

 

How many of those pitchers used a devastating slider or curve ball as their out pitch?

 

How many innings are extended these days because of the smaller parks? The older parks had huge foul territories, much deeper fences and a lot less offense in general.

 

Guys like Gibson and Jenkins worked the corners of the plate with their fastballs, not 12 to 6 breaking balls. Those pitchers didn't have to be afraid to run their fastball right down the middle, as many of those that got plunked were nothing more than warning track fly balls instead of 320 foot home runs like they are nowadays.

 

I loved watching the pitchers of the late 60's and 70's. But, I never saw a single one of those guys who were going 350 plus innings a season throw a breaking ball like the one Rich Hill or Barry Zito can throw.

 

The stress created by each breaking ball is very hard on the pitching arm. The more you throw it, the worse off you are.

 

Steve Stone had a long career going as a mediocre pitcher. Then, he won himself a Cy Young award throwing nothing but breaking balls. His career was basically over after that.

 

I watched Rueschel pitch a lot. I watched Jenkins pitch a lot. What Prior, Wood and Zambrano bring to the table in pitch selection blows away what big Rick and Fergie brought. Those old school guys worked the plate with a steady diet of fastballs, with an off speed pitch or breaking ball as the pitch that would keep the hitters honest.

 

That's the way I see it anyway.

[RynoRules]

How much more is a baseball juiced up than in the days of the pitchers you mentioned?

 

How many of those pitchers used a devastating slider or curve ball as their out pitch?

 

How many innings are extended these days because of the smaller parks? The older parks had huge foul territories, much deeper fences and a lot less offense in general.

 

Guys like Gibson and Jenkins worked the corners of the plate with their fastballs, not 12 to 6 breaking balls. Those pitchers didn't have to be afraid to run their fastball right down the middle, as many of those that got plunked were nothing more than warning track fly balls instead of 320 foot home runs like they are nowadays.

 

I loved watching the pitchers of the late 60's and 70's. But, I never saw a single one of those guys who were going 350 plus innings a season throw a breaking ball like the one Rich Hill or Barry Zito can throw.

 

The stress created by each breaking ball is very hard on the pitching arm. The more you throw it, the worse off you are.

 

Steve Stone had a long career going as a mediocre pitcher. Then, he won himself a Cy Young award throwing nothing but breaking balls. His career was basically over after that.

 

I watched Rueschel pitch a lot. I watched Jenkins pitch a lot. What Prior, Wood and Zambrano bring to the table in pitch selection blows away what big Rick and Fergie brought. Those old school guys worked the plate with a steady diet of fastballs, with an off speed pitch or breaking ball as the pitch that would keep the hitters honest.

 

That's the way I see it anyway.

 

I would suggest that those guys were able to throw fastballs consistently because they weren't afraid to back guys off the plate. For whatever reason, modern-day pitchers with certain exceptions (Clemens and Martinez, to name two) fear asserting themselves. I don't see how that makes them better pitchers than Jenkins, Gibson, and Drysdale, who owned the plate because they weren't afraid to pitch inside.

 

I also disagree that those guys didn't have the stuff that modern pitchers do. Spahn's stuff was nasty, as was Feller's, Koufax's, etc.

 

Your other points have validity, but I still think the differences are glaring and unexplained.

Edited August 15, 2006 by RynoRules

[badgercub]

Someone please explain this to me b/c I can't figure it out:

 

How come, in days past, teams were using four-man rotations and had several "horse" pitchers who started over 30 games a year and made it through well over 200 innings? Why is this such a rare commodity over the last 15 years or so? How come our strong, young pitchers seem incapable of maintaining such a pace without significant injury (excepting Z, of course)?

 

Take Rick Reuschel, for example:

 

Reuschel's career stats

 

Not an HOFer, but a guy pitching in the 70's and 80's who started well over 30 games per season and went over 200 innings well into his early fourties.

 

By contrast, it would seem that Wood and Prior are at least as talented as Reuschel (at least), yet they cannot keep themseleves together. Pitchers seem to have greater advantages in several aspects as compared to their fellows who pitched in preceeding eras, including, but not limited to, technology associated with analyzing technique and stats, advanced medicine, better conditioning, etc. How do we explan this?

 

Rick had a belly that he could pull some reserve out of when he needed the extra power.

 

I think it's a combination of things. The small strike zone, can't throw inside, batters are more patient now, and the fact that if something hurts now players see that their future money may go away so the slightest ache they are more careful than before.

 

I'm curious on how many pitches Rick threw a game because if memory serves me he had pretty good control or the very least didn't have to throw as many pitches per game with that sinker of his.

 

I would also submit that pitchers have to work much harder to get guys out now than they did in the 70's and points previous. Your average MLB hitter is stronger and quicker at the plate than your average 1975 era hitter.

 

Agreed, as OBP has become more important in the mind of some organizations, the amount of pitches per plate appearance has probably risen over the years. Also with the advent of the 5 man rotation and the amount of money invested in these guys they don't throw as much as they used to. In the past, and with fewer teams in the league, most pitchers threw a lot more innings in the minors where they either persevered or flamed out, so their probably were a lot more guys with injuries, they were just out of baseball before they ever made it to the bigs. With expansion and the dilution of pitchers you are seeing guys in majors that probably would have never made it in years past.

[RynoRules]

Someone please explain this to me b/c I can't figure it out:

 

How come, in days past, teams were using four-man rotations and had several "horse" pitchers who started over 30 games a year and made it through well over 200 innings? Why is this such a rare commodity over the last 15 years or so? How come our strong, young pitchers seem incapable of maintaining such a pace without significant injury (excepting Z, of course)?

 

Take Rick Reuschel, for example:

 

Reuschel's career stats

 

Not an HOFer, but a guy pitching in the 70's and 80's who started well over 30 games per season and went over 200 innings well into his early fourties.

 

By contrast, it would seem that Wood and Prior are at least as talented as Reuschel (at least), yet they cannot keep themseleves together. Pitchers seem to have greater advantages in several aspects as compared to their fellows who pitched in preceeding eras, including, but not limited to, technology associated with analyzing technique and stats, advanced medicine, better conditioning, etc. How do we explan this?

 

Rick had a belly that he could pull some reserve out of when he needed the extra power.

 

I think it's a combination of things. The small strike zone, can't throw inside, batters are more patient now, and the fact that if something hurts now players see that their future money may go away so the slightest ache they are more careful than before.

 

I'm curious on how many pitches Rick threw a game because if memory serves me he had pretty good control or the very least didn't have to throw as many pitches per game with that sinker of his.

 

I would also submit that pitchers have to work much harder to get guys out now than they did in the 70's and points previous. Your average MLB hitter is stronger and quicker at the plate than your average 1975 era hitter.

 

Agreed, as OBP has become more important in the mind of some organizations, the amount of pitches per plate appearance has probably risen over the years. Also with the advent of the 5 man rotation and the amount of money invested in these guys they don't throw as much as they used to. In the past, and with fewer teams in the league, most pitchers threw a lot more innings in the minors where they either persevered or flamed out, so their probably were a lot more guys with injuries, they were just out of baseball before they ever made it to the bigs. With expansion and the dilution of pitchers you are seeing guys in majors that probably would have never made it in years past.

 

This could be true.

 

I don't buy the OBP argument. OBP only came into vogue in the last few years, but this injury problem has been going on for far longer than that. Moreover, as we have discussed ad nauseam on this bd., the majority of teams still do not value patience at the plate as much as they do aggressive hitting.

[CuseCubFan69]

Someone please explain this to me b/c I can't figure it out:

 

How come, in days past, teams were using four-man rotations and had several "horse" pitchers who started over 30 games a year and made it through well over 200 innings? Why is this such a rare commodity over the last 15 years or so? How come our strong, young pitchers seem incapable of maintaining such a pace without significant injury (excepting Z, of course)?

 

Take Rick Reuschel, for example:

 

Reuschel's career stats

 

Not an HOFer, but a guy pitching in the 70's and 80's who started well over 30 games per season and went over 200 innings well into his early fourties.

 

By contrast, it would seem that Wood and Prior are at least as talented as Reuschel (at least), yet they cannot keep themseleves together. Pitchers seem to have greater advantages in several aspects as compared to their fellows who pitched in preceeding eras, including, but not limited to, technology associated with analyzing technique and stats, advanced medicine, better conditioning, etc. How do we explan this?

 

Rick had a belly that he could pull some reserve out of when he needed the extra power.

 

I think it's a combination of things. The small strike zone, can't throw inside, batters are more patient now, and the fact that if something hurts now players see that their future money may go away so the slightest ache they are more careful than before.

 

I'm curious on how many pitches Rick threw a game because if memory serves me he had pretty good control or the very least didn't have to throw as many pitches per game with that sinker of his.

 

I would also submit that pitchers have to work much harder to get guys out now than they did in the 70's and points previous. Your average MLB hitter is stronger and quicker at the plate than your average 1975 era hitter.

 

Agreed, as OBP has become more important in the mind of some organizations, the amount of pitches per plate appearance has probably risen over the years. Also with the advent of the 5 man rotation and the amount of money invested in these guys they don't throw as much as they used to. In the past, and with fewer teams in the league, most pitchers threw a lot more innings in the minors where they either persevered or flamed out, so their probably were a lot more guys with injuries, they were just out of baseball before they ever made it to the bigs. With expansion and the dilution of pitchers you are seeing guys in majors that probably would have never made it in years past.

 

But add to the expansion the fact that there are so many more players to pick from (population wise) and now it's more world wide I don't think expansion has hurt as much as it seems.

[USSoccer]

This could be true.

 

I don't buy the OBP argument. OBP only came into vogue in the last few years, but this injury problem has been going on for far longer than that. Moreover, as we have discussed ad nauseam on this bd., the majority of teams still do not value patience at the plate as much as they do aggressive hitting.

 

But your average hitter is still stronger and quicker, and the average park plays much shorter, so your end result is guys working harder and being more fine around the plate with their pitches than they used to be, which leads to more wear and tear on an arm.

[goonys evil twin]

Someone please explain this to me b/c I can't figure it out:

 

How come, in days past, teams were using four-man rotations and had several "horse" pitchers who started over 30 games a year and made it through well over 200 innings? Why is this such a rare commodity over the last 15 years or so? How come our strong, young pitchers seem incapable of maintaining such a pace without significant injury (excepting Z, of course)?

 

Take Rick Reuschel, for example:

 

Reuschel's career stats

 

Not an HOFer, but a guy pitching in the 70's and 80's who started well over 30 games per season and went over 200 innings well into his early fourties.

 

By contrast, it would seem that Wood and Prior are at least as talented as Reuschel (at least), yet they cannot keep themseleves together. Pitchers seem to have greater advantages in several aspects as compared to their fellows who pitched in preceeding eras, including, but not limited to, technology associated with analyzing technique and stats, advanced medicine, better conditioning, etc. How do we explan this?

 

Rick had a belly that he could pull some reserve out of when he needed the extra power.

 

I think it's a combination of things. The small strike zone, can't throw inside, batters are more patient now, and the fact that if something hurts now players see that their future money may go away so the slightest ache they are more careful than before.

 

I'm curious on how many pitches Rick threw a game because if memory serves me he had pretty good control or the very least didn't have to throw as many pitches per game with that sinker of his.

 

I would also submit that pitchers have to work much harder to get guys out now than they did in the 70's and points previous. Your average MLB hitter is stronger and quicker at the plate than your average 1975 era hitter.

 

Agreed, as OBP has become more important in the mind of some organizations, the amount of pitches per plate appearance has probably risen over the years. Also with the advent of the 5 man rotation and the amount of money invested in these guys they don't throw as much as they used to. In the past, and with fewer teams in the league, most pitchers threw a lot more innings in the minors where they either persevered or flamed out, so their probably were a lot more guys with injuries, they were just out of baseball before they ever made it to the bigs. With expansion and the dilution of pitchers you are seeing guys in majors that probably would have never made it in years past.

 

This could be true.

 

I don't buy the OBP argument. OBP only came into vogue in the last few years, but this injury problem has been going on for far longer than that. Moreover, as we have discussed ad nauseam on this bd., the majority of teams still do not value patience at the plate as much as they do aggressive hitting.

 

OBP has been in vogue for several years, it's just taken more time for some to accept its value, while others refuse to accept it. The Yankees started their run of greatness as a very patient team. For as many arms as he's ruined, Baker has probably saved several others by forcing his players to swing early and often so guys can get in a nice like 79 pitch complete game.

 

A lot of this is perception. You list some random names because those are the ones you can remember. Guys like Mark Buerhle have gone a long time throwing 200+ innings per year, Mussina went a decade. Schilling has several years like that. The thing people don't remember are all the guys who flamed out with arm injuries from the past. By only acknowledging all the guys who pitched a lot, they ignore all the guys who got hurt and disappeared. The fact is Kerry Wood would have been a footnote in 1965. He wouldn't have had the hype coming in, because there just wasn't the media saturation, and because every prospect was a suspect. After his first injury he would have disappeared from the game, so you never would have heard of his 2nd or 3rd stint on the DL. And there were lots of guys that had that very thing happen to them.

 

It was simply easier to pitch back then. You didn't run the risk of giving up a homerun to anybody who came to the plate, millions of dollars didn't ride on every pitch. Patience was not a virtue for hitters. Strikeouts were the absolute worst thing to happen, so guys swung early and just tried for contact a lot of the time. That makes the pitcher's job easier.

[C.C.]

Someone please explain this to me b/c I can't figure it out:

 

How come, in days past, teams were using four-man rotations and had several "horse" pitchers who started over 30 games a year and made it through well over 200 innings? Why is this such a rare commodity over the last 15 years or so? How come our strong, young pitchers seem incapable of maintaining such a pace without significant injury (excepting Z, of course)?

 

Take Rick Reuschel, for example:

 

Reuschel's career stats

 

Not an HOFer, but a guy pitching in the 70's and 80's who started well over 30 games per season and went over 200 innings well into his early fourties.

 

By contrast, it would seem that Wood and Prior are at least as talented as Reuschel (at least), yet they cannot keep themseleves together. Pitchers seem to have greater advantages in several aspects as compared to their fellows who pitched in preceeding eras, including, but not limited to, technology associated with analyzing technique and stats, advanced medicine, better conditioning, etc. How do we explan this?

 

Rick had a belly that he could pull some reserve out of when he needed the extra power.

 

I think it's a combination of things. The small strike zone, can't throw inside, batters are more patient now, and the fact that if something hurts now players see that their future money may go away so the slightest ache they are more careful than before.

 

I'm curious on how many pitches Rick threw a game because if memory serves me he had pretty good control or the very least didn't have to throw as many pitches per game with that sinker of his.

 

I would also submit that pitchers have to work much harder to get guys out now than they did in the 70's and points previous. Your average MLB hitter is stronger and quicker at the plate than your average 1975 era hitter.

 

Agreed, as OBP has become more important in the mind of some organizations, the amount of pitches per plate appearance has probably risen over the years. Also with the advent of the 5 man rotation and the amount of money invested in these guys they don't throw as much as they used to. In the past, and with fewer teams in the league, most pitchers threw a lot more innings in the minors where they either persevered or flamed out, so their probably were a lot more guys with injuries, they were just out of baseball before they ever made it to the bigs. With expansion and the dilution of pitchers you are seeing guys in majors that probably would have never made it in years past.

 

This could be true.

 

I don't buy the OBP argument. OBP only came into vogue in the last few years, but this injury problem has been going on for far longer than that. Moreover, as we have discussed ad nauseam on this bd., the majority of teams still do not value patience at the plate as much as they do aggressive hitting.

 

OBP has been in vogue for several years, it's just taken more time for some to accept its value, while others refuse to accept it. The Yankees started their run of greatness as a very patient team. For as many arms as he's ruined, Baker has probably saved several others by forcing his players to swing early and often so guys can get in a nice like 79 pitch complete game.

 

A lot of this is perception. You list some random names because those are the ones you can remember. Guys like Mark Buerhle have gone a long time throwing 200+ innings per year, Mussina went a decade. Schilling has several years like that. The thing people don't remember are all the guys who flamed out with arm injuries from the past. By only acknowledging all the guys who pitched a lot, they ignore all the guys who got hurt and disappeared. The fact is Kerry Wood would have been a footnote in 1965. He wouldn't have had the hype coming in, because there just wasn't the media saturation, and because every prospect was a suspect. After his first injury he would have disappeared from the game, so you never would have heard of his 2nd or 3rd stint on the DL. And there were lots of guys that had that very thing happen to them.

 

It was simply easier to pitch back then. You didn't run the risk of giving up a homerun to anybody who came to the plate, millions of dollars didn't ride on every pitch. Patience was not a virtue for hitters. Strikeouts were the absolute worst thing to happen, so guys swung early and just tried for contact a lot of the time. That makes the pitcher's job easier.

 

Very well put and so true. Just listen to any of the old timers and K'ing was a sin! It was embarrassing....Now it's just excepted..

[Outshined_One]

You also have to factor in medical technology, which has expanded by leaps and bounds in the past few decades. All of the guys who have undergone Tommy John Surgery would have had their careers ended if this were back in the old days.

 

Now, while these advances are a boon for baseball, you also get a lot more guys in the mix who are more injury-prone, as it were. Guys whose bodies can't handle the strain as well as others now can extend their career by a number of years. Yet, they also will become injured again and again during that time because their body simply can't handle the stress on its own.

 

Secondly, the average number of runs scored in a game has risen significantly since the last dead ball era. Whether it's because of steroids, the fact that the ball might be juiced, better hitters, or whatever, pitchers now have to throw a lot more pitches per inning than they did all those years ago. I wouldn't necessarily look at P/PA, but instead something more along the lines of P/IP. That should give a better idea of matters.

 

Finally, two critical things have happened that should not be overlooked. The first one is the fact that the strike zone has contracted. It can be traced to both the way umps call the game and QuesTec, which has been MLB's way of evaluating those strike zone (uselessly, I'll add). Secondly, the mound has been lowered. This had a large effect on pitchers' mechanics, the downward plane of the pitch, and other important things.

 

Also, cubbie, if K'ing were a sin in the old days, then this list shouldn't have as many HOFers from the 50s, 60s, and 70s than it does.

[RynoRules]

 

OBP has been in vogue for several years, it's just taken more time for some to accept its value, while others refuse to accept it. The Yankees started their run of greatness as a very patient team. For as many arms as he's ruined, Baker has probably saved several others by forcing his players to swing early and often so guys can get in a nice like 79 pitch complete game.

 

A lot of this is perception. You list some random names because those are the ones you can remember. Guys like Mark Buerhle have gone a long time throwing 200+ innings per year, Mussina went a decade. Schilling has several years like that. The thing people don't remember are all the guys who flamed out with arm injuries from the past. By only acknowledging all the guys who pitched a lot, they ignore all the guys who got hurt and disappeared. The fact is Kerry Wood would have been a footnote in 1965. He wouldn't have had the hype coming in, because there just wasn't the media saturation, and because every prospect was a suspect. After his first injury he would have disappeared from the game, so you never would have heard of his 2nd or 3rd stint on the DL. And there were lots of guys that had that very thing happen to them.

 

It was simply easier to pitch back then. You didn't run the risk of giving up a homerun to anybody who came to the plate, millions of dollars didn't ride on every pitch. Patience was not a virtue for hitters. Strikeouts were the absolute worst thing to happen, so guys swung early and just tried for contact a lot of the time. That makes the pitcher's job easier.

 

I buy the argument re injured pitchers and their inability to recover enough to be injured a second or third time, but disagree with:

 

1) The notion that guys feared strike outs more in that era and therefore swung earlier in the count (see Outshined's post above);

 

2) That OBP has been "in vogue" for as long as you contend. As near as I can recall, the mid-90s Yankees were one of the first teams to take the issue seriously, but for whatever reason, the majority of ML teams have failed to follow suit.

 

3) I admited that I listed random names because those are the ones I can recall off-hand; that's why I chose two HOFers (Spahn and Sutton) and two relatively succesful but middling pitchers (Hooton and Welch), along with Reuschel, as a sample. I don't see how that changes my point though, since there are dozens of other examples out there. By comparison (and I admit to not having done extensive research), I would bet there are fewer examples over the last 15 years of guys who have consistently (7-10 years) made 30 or more starts and pitched 200-plus innings.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think bullpen usage is a big key to the less innings pitched now. I remember the Closer...then the 8th inning setup guy and now the 7th inning setup setup guy. Is the 6th inning setup guy that far away?

[badger1679666666]

Amazingly, Zambrano has still throw fewer pitches per start than Prior did in '03.

 

:arrow:

 

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[RynoRules]

I think bullpen usage is a big key to the less innings pitched now. I remember the Closer...then the 8th inning setup guy and now the 7th inning setup setup guy. Is the 6th inning setup guy that far away?

 

That's a good point. Specialization of relievers. Its why I am training my son to throw left-handed. Even if he's mediocre, he could get, say, a two year deal worth 5 mill.

 

:wink:

[cheapseats]

I think bullpen usage is a big key to the less innings pitched now. I remember the Closer...then the 8th inning setup guy and now the 7th inning setup setup guy. Is the 6th inning setup guy that far away?

 

The five man rotation is a huge factor in starters pitching fewer innings.

 

Blame LA for that, IIRC. They went to a five-man rotation not because they were trying to eliminate injuries, but because they had 5 good starters and wanted all 5 in the rotation.

 

There's been significant research that shows that starters in a 4-man rotation are not any more likely to be injured than those in a 5-man.

 

I think Boone in Cincinnati was the last manager to try a 4-man rotation, but he left starters in to pitch 130-plus pitches.

 

Earl Weaver used to only carry 10 pitchers on the roster, and he frequently went with just 9.

[RynoRules]

I think bullpen usage is a big key to the less innings pitched now. I remember the Closer...then the 8th inning setup guy and now the 7th inning setup setup guy. Is the 6th inning setup guy that far away?

 

The five man rotation is a huge factor in starters pitching fewer innings.

 

Blame LA for that, IIRC. They went to a five-man rotation not because they were trying to eliminate injuries, but because they had 5 good starters and wanted all 5 in the rotation.

 

There's been significant research that shows that starters in a 4-man rotation are not any more likely to be injured than those in a 5-man.

 

I think Boone in Cincinnati was the last manager to try a 4-man rotation, but he left starters in to pitch 130-plus pitches.

 

Earl Weaver used to only carry 10 pitchers on the roster, and he frequently went with just 9.

 

Do you have a source on that?

[soccer10k]

I don't have the source that cheapseats is talking about but it has been mentioned on the board before and I believe is a BP study.

[cheapseats]

 

There's been significant research that shows that starters in a 4-man rotation are not any more likely to be injured than those in a 5-man.

 

 

Do you have a source on that?

 

For BP subscribers only:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1596

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1605

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1622

 

It's a three-part article by Rany Jazayerli. He's holding a chat at 5:00 tonight, so feel free to ask him about the pros and cons of the 4-man rotation, Dusty's usage of Z, etc:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=220

 

I believe non-BP subscribers can participate in the chat.

[jjgman21]

I just did some quick flipping through the NL index back into the 40's (NL to eliminate the issue of the DH) at baseballreference and, without specifically charting it, obp has ebbed and flowed over the years, and appears to be mostly a function of average. league IsoD is predominately in the 61-67 range going back through that era, with anamolous looking bumps one way or the other along the way (60's tended to be in the 56-63 range)

 

I also looked at these pages and definitely think it might be due to our perception

 

NL league leader in ERA

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ERA_leagues.shtml

 

NL league leader in ERA+

http://

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ERAplus_leagues.shtml

 

how many of those guys do you say "who?" when you see his name. this perception is especially magnified as Cubs fans, because we had (have?) two (three / four if you throw Guz in there) guys that were supposed to be with some of those names you do recognize when all was said and done, but unfortunately they may end up in the "who?" basket.

 

more and more I am coming around to the thought that you need to trade young pitching for established hitting every single time. not jumping on that Tejeda trade was terrible, even though I defended it at the time. trading Z right now may be an idea if it brings back a 385/900 hitter. pitching flames out. don't ever expect to get more than 3-4 good years out of a pitcher. the influx of pitchers in the 60's was an anomoly. there are maybe 2-3 300 game winners in any generation and even the greatest pitcher of our generation, Pedro, is persistantly on the DL. if a hitter has a great three year run at the beginning of his career, chances are much greater he will continue to do that through the middle and end of his career than a pitcher who has a great three year run at the beginning of his career, specifically because of the injury factor.

 

but back to the subject, I think many are correct and few are wrong. almost all of the things discussed are contributing factors. it's not really a 'no, its this.' all of these things are contributing factors. I don't think there really is dilution of the pitching though. I know there are more teams and other activities to engage in, but the talent pool on both offense and pitching is so much deeper due to population of the country, expansion internationally, and modern sports economics.

 

it's just easier to hit right now for all the reasons discussed, there is something different about how arms are treated, we are just in an offensive ebb, medical technology has advanced but at the same time so has conditioning and conditioning does wonders for hitters, no so much for pitchers (I believe long term health of a pitchers is due more to flukishness than anything else), while at the same time the extent of the problem is more a perception of our circumstances.

[C.C.]

Interesting, but if you trade young pitching for hitting you still need to get pitching from somewhere, and if it comes from FA it'll cost a heck of a lot more money then the young pitcher you just traded at no guarantee that pitcher will be healthy. Am I making any sense?

[RynoRules]

Statistically speaking, is a "good" (better than avg.) hitter more likely to continue to produce as he advances than a "good" pitcher? I would think so.

 

If so, jjgman has a point.

[badgercub]

I don't think there really is dilution of the pitching though. I know there are more teams and other activities to engage in, but the talent pool on both offense and pitching is so much deeper due to population of the country, expansion internationally, and modern sports economics.

 

 

You make some good points, but with the explosion of sports like soccer, basketball, and even football, and the specialization of all of these sports that may diminish somewhat, the expansion of the population. It would be interesting to see if there has been any studies that have taken all of these things into consideration.