Maybe I Am Too Old School But IMHO Crisp Should Be Given Chin Music His First AB Today

[Redskins Rick]

Your take I believe is wrong that control is better today, and I will tell you several reasons why:

Back then they didn't have elbow pads, foot protectors, batting gloves, and heck if you go back to the Jackie Robinson day's even batting helmets, so when you got hit by a pitch virtually anywhere, it friggin HURT. There was no escaping pain by the use of equipment.

Back then, pitchers had to hit unless knocked out of a game early on. So if they wanted to throw at somebody, they would get it in return. So they were very selective who they would throw at, and instead, the use of a "purpose" pitch was common, (coming close but not actually hitting the batter).

Thee were also fewer teams so the talent pool wasn't nearly as watered down as it is today. So I would argue control was actually better back then.

Talent pool wasn't as good as you remember, yeah there was some very good pitchers, but most teams were struggling to find guys to fill out there rotation, just like today. With proper weight lifting and forgoing the cigarettes, pitchers are stronger and healthy today, but so are the hitters.

Why do you think only 1 team has ever had 4 twenty game winner all these years?

[Old#5fan]

Talent pool wasn't as good as you remember, yeah there was some very good pitchers, but most teams were struggling to find guys to fill out there rotation, just like today. With proper weight lifting and forgoing the cigarettes, pitchers are stronger and healthy today, but so are the hitters.

Why do you think only 1 team has ever had 4 twenty game winner all these years?

Because today's pitcher's have been developed to pitch 6 innings. I call it the little league syndrome, because that is the lenght of a LL game. I would argue that todays players are bigger, but not necessarily stronger. Harvey Haddox, former Oriole reliever once pitched a 12 inning perfect game and lost it in the 13th. Today's pitcher's don't have the strength, stamina or anything close to doing something like that, yet I think (not 100% sure) that ole Harvey was a smoker!

[Redskins Rick]

Because today's pitcher's have been developed to pitch 6 innings. I call it the little league syndrome, because that is the lenght of a LL game. I would argue that todays players are bigger, but not necessarily stronger. Harvey Haddox, former Oriole reliever once pitched a 12 inning perfect game and lost it in the 13th. Today's pitcher's don't have the strength, stamina or anything close to doing something like that, yet I think (not 100% sure) that ole Harvey was a smoker!

Back in the day, all of them didnt have stamina either, they just accepted that instead of throwing 91 in the 8th, they were down to throwing 80.

[DrungoHazewood]

Your take I believe is wrong that control is better today, and I will tell you several reasons why:

Back then they didn't have elbow pads, foot protectors, batting gloves, and heck if you go back to the Jackie Robinson day's even batting helmets, so when you got hit by a pitch virtually anywhere, it friggin HURT. There was no escaping pain by the use of equipment.

Back then, pitchers had to hit unless knocked out of a game early on. So if they wanted to throw at somebody, they would get it in return. So they were very selective who they would throw at, and instead, the use of a "purpose" pitch was common, (coming close but not actually hitting the batter).

Thee were also fewer teams so the talent pool wasn't nearly as watered down as it is today. So I would argue control was actually better back then.

I have to go, but when I get a minute I'll rebut this point-by-point.

[Old#5fan]

Back in the day, all of them didnt have stamina either, they just accepted that instead of throwing 91 in the 8th, they were down to throwing 80.

Yet there were still no-hitters and more complete game shutouts. So explain that?

[Redskins Rick]

Yet there were still no-hitters and more complete game shutouts. So explain that?

Pitchers threw regardless of the pitch count.

Also, look at the lineups, sure, teams had good hitters, but after the 5-9 hole, the guys like Balanger, Brinkman, and a cast of other glove guys that barely bat above the mendoza line and the pitcher, back before there was a DH.

[byrdz]

He didn't flip the bat...

[WV O's]

<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h367/isestrex/murrayswing.gif" border="0" alt=" photo murrayswing.gif"/></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h367/isestrex/Emoticons/wasnt-me.gif" border="0" alt=" photo wasnt-me.gif"/></a>

not nearly as bad.

[WV O's]

<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h367/isestrex/murrayswing.gif" border="0" alt=" photo murrayswing.gif"/></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h367/isestrex/Emoticons/wasnt-me.gif" border="0" alt=" photo wasnt-me.gif"/></a>

ps. EEddddieee, EEddiiieee!

[DrungoHazewood]

Your take I believe is wrong that control is better today, and I will tell you several reasons why:

Back then they didn't have elbow pads, foot protectors, batting gloves, and heck if you go back to the Jackie Robinson day's even batting helmets, so when you got hit by a pitch virtually anywhere, it friggin HURT. There was no escaping pain by the use of equipment.

Back then, pitchers had to hit unless knocked out of a game early on. So if they wanted to throw at somebody, they would get it in return. So they were very selective who they would throw at, and instead, the use of a "purpose" pitch was common, (coming close but not actually hitting the batter).

None of these things have anything to do with pitcher's control.

Thee were also fewer teams so the talent pool wasn't nearly as watered down as it is today. So I would argue control was actually better back then.

I could write a long paper on why quality of play, to include pitcher's skills like control, is dramatically better than 40, 50, 70, 100 years ago. But I'll restrain myself and just throw out a few bullets:

- The talent pool is dramatically larger today. In 1950 fully half of today's players were essentially ineligible to play, either because of place of birth or race or whatever. Even when the league was mostly integrated by the 60s the US population was 180M, or more than 120M fewer than today. And places like the DR or Japan or Korea produced essentially zero MLB talent, while today you could probably field three full MLB teams just from those countries. Even with other sports siphoning off some talent I'd guess the pool is at least twice as large as it was in 1960.

- Medical advances have probably expanded the pool by another 25%, 33%? Just look at the O's roster... Brian Roberts would be a glasses-wearing 150 lb weakling. Miguel Gonzalez' career would have ended with his elbow injury before the O's ever signed him. Jason Hammel's routine knee surgery last year probably puts him out for many months, if not ending his career. Troy Patton's labrum tear would have ended his career in 2008. Feldman had TJ surgery in '03, would have ended his career. Freddy Garcia has had several surgeries, and the labrum would have ended his career in '07. O'Day once had hip surgery... probably impossible until fairly recently.

- With the advent of the draft in the 60s and far better scouting and analysis and video tape and cross checkers... the process for identifying the best talent has exponentially improved.

- The process for developing talent has gotten far better - better facilities, better equipment, better understanding of biomechanics, much better understanding of physical fitness and nutrition, etc.

- The specialization of pitching roles has adapted pitchers to roles they can best thrive in instead of making everyone go through lineups multiple times and pace themselves. Guys like Tommy Hunter might have been abandoned in the past when they couldn't effectively start, and today he seamlessly transitions to cheap, effective, gas-throwing reliever.

It's pretty straightforward to postulate a reasonable case that you'd have to have twice as many MLB teams to get back to the talent and skill levels of the 1950s and 60s.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yet there were still no-hitters and more complete game shutouts. So explain that?

Other factors made the run environment lower, especially in the 60s. Including huge strike zones, high mounds, and often distant fences. And lower overall talent levels. When you had several guys in every lineup who couldn't hit, many more who couldn't hit for power, and no DH the pitchers could save their good stuff for key moments. Pacing has pretty much completely disappeared in my lifetime. Everyone throws at max effort almost all the time.

[DrungoHazewood]

Because today's pitcher's have been developed to pitch 6 innings. I call it the little league syndrome, because that is the lenght of a LL game. I would argue that todays players are bigger, but not necessarily stronger. Harvey Haddox, former Oriole reliever once pitched a 12 inning perfect game and lost it in the 13th. Today's pitcher's don't have the strength, stamina or anything close to doing something like that, yet I think (not 100% sure) that ole Harvey was a smoker!

If you put ol' Harvey in a time machine to 2013 he'd probably wash out in AA, if he even made it to the pros. Seriously... a guy who's listed at 5' 9" (so he was probably 5' 6") and 170 (looks in the pictures like there's no way he's 170) wouldn't even get drafted in the 34th round as a pitcher today. I'd be stunned if he ever threw a ball 88 mph in his life - not at that size throwing 200+ innings a year. A guy my size who smoked and never worked out... he just wouldn't have a chance. The game really has gotten that much better.

[CA-ORIOLE]

As much as I hate to agree with Old#5 Fan, I think he's right that pitcher's control isn't as good as it was say 40 years ago. That said, for very different reasons than what he has stated. I do agree that the talent pool today is better, not worse. I just think there are more power arms now, and inherent to that is more volatility and less control/command.

[atomic]

Why not just have the bat boy stab in him in the on-deck circle? I don't know how you can condone throwing at somebody's head for a celebration.

[DrungoHazewood]

As much as I hate to agree with Old#5 Fan, I think he's right that pitcher's control isn't as good as it was say 40 years ago. That said, for very different reasons than what he has stated. I do agree that the talent pool today is better, not worse. I just think there are more power arms now, and inherent to that is more volatility and less control/command.

Then how do you square that with the fact that the strike zone is probably 60% as large as it was in the 50s and 60s but the walk rate is similar to or lower than it was back then? And that there were many more players who were conditioned to fear the strikeout and swung at anything close to the much larger zone? I know you said 40 years ago, but in the 50s walks were much higher and Ks far lower - the World Champion '56 Yanks walked 4.2 per nine. Today that rate gets demoted unless your name is Strop. And by the 60s and 70s other factors had dramatically shifted advantages to the pitchers.