Pitching v. Hitting - The Big Q

[Xanadu Dragon]

Is a season, or an era, an "Offensive" time period because the hitters are better or because the pitchers are weaker?

Or, is this just the chicken and the egg thing?

Did the pitchers suck in 2000? Or, was it that hitters were just better in 2000?

Were the pitchers great in 1968? Or, was it that the hitters just sucked then?

Oh, is it a combination of both and therefore impossible to tell? Thoughts?

[Skip]

Its not just a question of hitter quality vs. pitcher quality. Clearly other factors come into play here. The 1968-69 period may be the best example recently. The pitchers didnt become worse in 1969; external factors (e.g. the pitchers mound) played a huge role, as well as (perhaps, and I dont want to argue on this one) expansion. This question seems way too nebulous to have any sort of simple answer.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Is a season, or an era, an "Offensive" time period because the hitters are better or because the pitchers are weaker?

Or, is this just the chicken and the egg thing?

Did the pitchers suck in 2000? Or, was it that hitters were just better in 2000?

Were the pitchers great in 1968? Or, was it that the hitters just sucked then?

Oh, is it a combination of both and therefore impossible to tell? Thoughts?

Combination. Hitters are much faster and stronger, parks are cozy, and in 2000 the umps didn't call a lot of strikes. Ergo, offense.

In 1968, the benefit of the doubt went to the pitcher, the mound was higher, parks weren't as friendly.

The calling of the strike zone has a lot to do with the recent offensive changes, I believe. You give the hitter more latitude, they hit for a higher average and more power.

[BuzzBuzzard]

At the risk of sounding repetitive, the current trend is due the fact that pitching talent is so bad at the bottom ranks due to OVER-EXPANSION.:o

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
At the risk of sounding repetitive, the current trend is due the fact that pitching talent is so bad at the bottom ranks due to OVER-EXPANSION.:o

Let's not get into that again....

We can always blame LaRussa.

I distinctly feel it's the greater strength of players coupled with the way the strike zone is being (not) called, plus parks like Enron, Coors, Camden Yards, etc.

If it were expansion, then the greatest effect would have been 1998. It wasn't. In fact, runs per game is shrinking. The game is adjusting. I think strikes were called more realistically.

[sweaver]

Two major factors, neither of which really deals with the quality of the players.

1. The ballparks, and whether they are kinder toward pitchers or hitters. The newer parks have almost all been hitter's parks.

2. The strike zone. How big it is, and where it is called, is a decisive factor in the battle of batter vs. pitcher.

If expansion is the reason, why was scoring so different in 1910 and 1930? No expansion then.

[ChrisCary]

Certainly the hitters are stronger than they were in other times but you can't convince me that Major League Basebal hasn't made concerted efforts to increase scoring via the long ball

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by ChrisCary
Certainly the hitters are stronger than they were in other times but you can't convince me that Major League Basebal hasn't made concerted efforts to increase scoring via the long ball

"Tests" have shown the ball is no different....but I wonder if it hasn't been changed a bit.

Also, players are now following the laws of physics and using lighter bats to get around on the ball faster, thus using the A^2 part of the equation.

[KCBOOMER]

It doesn't help that a pitch 1" inside is reason to charge the mound. I have never understood why on a brushback pitch a batter can charge the mound a pitcher can defend himself from this attack and both the Pitcher and the Batter get the same suspension.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


"Tests" have shown the ball is no different....but I wonder if it hasn't been changed a bit.

Also, players are now following the laws of physics and using lighter bats to get around on the ball faster, thus using the A^2 part of the equation.

You mean F = m a, Newton's 2nd Law, Smed? You're in my ballpark, now.

I think the changes are more due to equipment and strategy, than to relative quality of the players.

[SmedIndy]

Yeh, that's about all I remember from Physics. I took some Chemistry and did Bio for Poets, but I know enough to know quickness is better than mass.

Don't forget about nutrition, training, and the fact that players in the majors (and some bonus babys) no longer have to take jobs selling insurance, running liquor stores, or installing drywall in the offseason to make ends meet.

[Skip]

Originally posted by sweaver
You mean F = m a, Newton's 2nd Law, Smed? You're in my ballpark, now.

:topic: Another teacher and Red's fan both! I knew it took smart folk to be fans of the Reds.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread ...

[Baudib]

I generally agree with most of the theories posted here, although weight training and nutrition seem to be negligible factors. Barry Bonds is stronger, and Roger Clemens is stronger.

One factor not mentioned is the simple fact that more innings are being pitched by the lesser pitchers on a staff, and fewer by the best pitchers.

The Phillies in 1977 had the Cy Young winner, Steve Carlton, who threw 283 innings, a ton by today's standards. They had an outstanding bullpen: Gene Garber, Ron Reed and Tug McGraw are all roughly among the 30 best relievers of all time. Reed pitched 124 innings, Garber 103, McGraw 79. Warren Brusstar was also good, and he pitched 71. The team really only had one other reliever, Tom Underwood, who pitched 33 innings.

Today you'll have six relievers, and the best guy will pitch 65 innings, and the sixth guy, as often as not, is pitching in a tie game in the eighth.

In 1971, the Baltimore Orioles got 1081 innings from their top four pitchers. The 1997 Braves, with a staff of similar quality, got only 962 innings from their top four starters.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Anyone think that the social acceptance of strikeouts has anything to do with HRs being up?

Yogi Berra, hit 30 HRs twice in his career, both seasons he had more HRs than Ks. I recently saw an interview with him where he said this was one of the things he was most proud of in his career - - that he often had more HRs than Ks in a season.

Today, no one cares if a batter Ks 125 to 150 to 170 times a year. Thus, they're able to swing from the heels on any count and, if they whiff, so what? Seems in the days gone by, with two strikes, hitters were more inclined to avoid the whiff and lose some power in just trying to make contact.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Anyone think that the social acceptance of strikeouts has anything to do with HRs being up?

Yogi Berra, hit 30 HRs twice in his career, both seasons he had more HRs than Ks. I recently saw an interview with him where he said this was one of the things he was most proud of in his career - - that he often had more HRs than Ks in a season.

Today, no one cares if a batter Ks 125 to 150 to 170 times a year. Thus, they're able to swing from the heels on any count and, if they whiff, so what? Seems in the days gone by, with two strikes, hitters were more inclined to avoid the whiff and lose some power in just trying to make contact.

No one is willing to choke up and go with the pitch. You don't see anyone with Felix Millan grips anymore.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
No one is willing to choke up and go with the pitch. You don't see anyone with Felix Millan grips anymore.

Bonds does choke up about three inches - somewhat like Rusty Staub used to do.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon


Bonds does choke up about three inches - somewhat like Rusty Staub used to do.

Do they even make those little rubber things you put on the bat handle to aid in choke-ups.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The "every man a slugger" era has evolved because of:

1. Coors Field (affects every team that plays in it).

2. New parks in general (Enron Field).

3. Increase in strength training, which, I believe, helps hitters, disproportionately.

4. Better conditioning in general (stemming from ability to train all year round, which someone else mentioned).

5. Whip-handled bats are more widely used.

6. Greater awareness in the value of a walk, reducing the value of Aparicio/Wills types who hacked at everything.

7. Greater awareness in the fact that it is better to strike out than to ground into a double play, leading to more players adopting power-hitting styles.

8. Loss of the brushback as a weapon, resulting in more players standing right on top of the plate.

If baseball were truly in a mega-inflated offensive era, we would be seeing more serious challenges to Hack Wilson's 190 RBI standard. This hasn't happened. We probably have more one-run HRs and opposite field taters than ever before. We now expect star middle infielders to hit 20 HRs, and coach them accordingly.

I also wish to re-emphasize my belief that strength training, though misused by some, benefits hitters much more than pitchers. Hitting is strength and reflexes; throwing is physics and mechanics. How many times have you seen a big, strong player in LF or at 1B because he "had no arm"?

I also believe that the number of pitching changes is fueled, in part, by selfish relievers, and their agents, who resent being brought into a game any time other than the 9th inning, in a save situation. This is a recent development of baseball, and not always the best use of your best reliever in a game. The concept of "closer" has replaced the concept of "fireman", where a star reliever would come in to halt a rally. This necessitates the use of more pitchers per game, foolishly, I think.

I do think that players now are the best ever, as a whole, because of better conditioning, and because, with the advent of players from the Far East, the talent pool has increased faster than the leagues have expanded. :D

[Xanadu Dragon]

I agree Bear - - and would probably add the use of video equipment to the list - - - hitters are better prepared for pitchers and can use the clips to get out of a slump faster.