Running MLB Thread, Part the Fourth, 2007

I thought it was a smart play. A guy in my office just yelled that it was "bush league" and possibly "worse than (the) Bronson Arroyo" slap.

 

He must have just watched Little Big League.

 

It doesn't exist. There is no one stat, for hitters, pitchers, fielders, managers, or anybody, that is "most important," because they all tell you different things.

I could say ERA, and you could tell me that Nolan Ryan was pretty effective in 1987 and that it wasn't his fault that his team couldn't score any runs for him when he gave up fewer than 3 per game. But he still went 8-16, no matter how effective he was.

I could say WHIP, and you might agree that pretty much every one of the "most effective" pitchers in the league has a pretty good WHIP. But then there's Earl Whitehill, who won 218 games but had a career WHIP of 1.50.

Livan Hernandez eats up innings better than anyone currently in the league, which makes him pretty effective to a manager with a weak rotation and a thin bullpen. But he's not any more than a slightly above-average pitcher by any other measure, so how useful would he be to the Mets in October instead of Arizona in May? It's hard to say.

Different pitchers fill different roles on different teams, and you can't judge their "effectiveness" without understanding their roles.

The Braves, for instance, are probably as much satisfied with the effectiveness of Chuck James in 2007 as they are with the effectiveness of John Smoltz, even though Smoltz is by far the better pitcher. But James is being asked to do something different, and so the team's expectations for "effectiveness" are different.

It's hard to judge their stats the same when their roles are so different. That's why there's no one-size-fits-all number that can determine who is "most effective." Every stat has to have context, or else you're in danger of coming to some pretty wacky conclusions.

For instance, Kerry Wood is the second-most dominant strikeout pitcher in baseball history, according to his career K/9 ... but we all know better, don't we? ;D

 

Well let me follow up with this -- why is it Cy Young could win 500 games and pitchers once upon a time -- before technology and weight training and conditioning was so advanced -- would go complete games and throw incredible amounts of innings without getting hurt -- but pitchers today break down more, have lower pitch counts and seemingly less endurance and the 300-win pitcher seems to be extinct?

I just can't figure it out.

 

Well, and excuse the sarcasm, but no shit. I was just curious to see if there's a correlation. I didn't expect to see some team at like 15-10 when trailing after 7. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find that stat for previous seasons (not something baseball-reference keeps track of).

 

Fuck Larry Rothschild.

 

I once heard someone - can't remember who - say that pitchers today are being trained to be relievers or work in a five-man rotation. Back "in the day" arm strength was built up by pitching all the time.

Plus, it helped being able to scuff a baseball. Or use a baseball that was partly lopsided and darkened, since they didn't put a new pitch in every batter. Also, I think pitchers let up a lot when they had big leads to conserve their arm.

What else? I'd say most pitchers threw a fastball, changeup and curve. Not too many speciality pitches back in the day (yes, I know Mathewson threw a screwball (fadeaway), Cicotte and others had a knuckleball, etc.).

 

The reason I asked is because I had this argument with a Little League coach who told me his 11-year old was the ace of his staff and that he was already throwing mean curve balls. I told him he was probably ruining the kid's arm and he was putting undo strain on it and by letting him throw curves he isn't developing arm strength.

He didn't want to hear it but I've talked to old timers who told me a big problem is kids today are throwing too many junk pitches before their arm is developed enough to really handle that kind of strain.

 

Well, the 300-win pitcher isn't extinct by any means. There's only 22 of them anyway. ... Glavine will likely reach it next month, and we've seen Clemens and Maddux reach it earlier this decade. Randy Johnson isn't done yet, either.

Cy Young won 500 games because throwing innings in 1901 wasn't nearly as taxing as throwing innings in 2001. The talent pool was far shallower, lineups were far weaker, and great pitchers like Mathewson and Alexander and Johnson could afford to let up a lot more than Maddux and Martinez and Johnson can today. Now, every pitch has to be thrown at 90-100% intensity (not velocity; intensity) or else you're going to get shelled.

You have to bear down a helluva lot more against a lineup of Damon-Jeter-Sheffield-Rodriguez-Giambi-Matsui-Posada-Williams-Cano than you do against a lineup of Sheckard-Evers-Chance-Schulte-Tinker-Steinfeldt-Slagle-Kling-Brown.

Also, too, those guys had grown up throwing fastballs all day long, building up their arm strength. That culture suited the mind-set -- which was "go nine innings or don't go at all."

The current generation of pitchers? They don't stand a chance -- hell, when I was a kid I couldn't round up 8-10 friends for a pickup game if I tried (and I did) -- because they all grow up knowing they're only going to throw 90 pitches, so they pace themselves accordingly.

 

FWIW, I didn't throw my first curveball until I was 12, and then I was only allowed to throw it on an 0-2 count. At 13, I was allowed to throw it on any two-strike count or occasionally on an 0-0 count.

And no twisting of the elbow, either. You snap the wrist to make it break -- that reduces the risk of injury. I cringe every time I see a kid twisting his elbow. Recipe for disaster.

 

What I meant by the 300-winner becoming almost extinct is -- let's look at the guys with more than 200 wins -- I think Glavine and then Randy Johnson will get there (though Johnson isn't a lock) but I don't think Pedro, Shilling, Wells, Smoltz, Moyer, Kenny Rogers or Mussina have a realistic shot at it.

And beyond that, do you see any other younger guys who are well on their way, especially in this day and age when 20-game winners seem to be tougher to come by?