9/26 NYY (Montgomery) @ BOS (ERod)

[jad]

I like the old ways, too.

 

It would be interesting to go back and see the numbers of starters the third time through "back in the day" and see if things have gotten worse, or they just didn't notice or care about it back then.

 

I assume they wouldn't be much different, since starters back then were pacing themselves to go longer and consequently didn't throw their arms out in the first inning. Do we criticize Olympic sprinters because they're not marathon runners?

[Old Red]

The guy is coming off TJS.

 

He probably could go 6 or 7, but I'm glad they haven't pushed him , too much.

 

I do think he might be ready to go a little longer in his next start or two.

 

BTW, he did go 6 on Sept 1st and 5 or more every start but one.

 

I’m very well aware what Sale is coming off, but if he is ready to pitch he’s ready to pitch, and I’m not going to nitpick on who he pitches against like the Sox have. I’m also not counting on Sale to lead them to, or through the playoffs. If it’s the Yankees then EO gets the ball.

[moonslav59]

I assume they wouldn't be much different, since starters back then were pacing themselves to go longer and consequently didn't throw their arms out in the first inning. Do we criticize Olympic sprinters because they're not marathon runners?

 

I think you mean, they would be different, since they paced themselves, right?

[moonslav59]

I’m very well aware what Sale is coming off, but if he is ready to pitch he’s ready to pitch, and I’m not going to nitpick on who he pitches against like the Sox have. I’m also not counting on Sale to lead them to, or through the playoffs. If it’s the Yankees then EO gets the ball.

 

Ready to pitch 70-80 pitches is different than ready to pitch 100-110.

 

I'm glad we didn't wait until he was able to go 110. We'd be 3-4 down by now.

[notin]

I think most of us have some reservations about the changes in the way the game is played, but what's the use of complaining.

 

This happens in every sport. Changes in strategy come into play and if they work, everyone adopts them.

 

Frankly, I don’t see how forcing starting pitchers to go longer makes the game more enjoyable. Sure there at times it could happen, but ultimately we want to see the Sox win, and if pulling the pitcher after 5 if necessary for that outcome, then so be it.

 

Changing the rules to try to keep pitchers in longer is probably the worst solution to the “problem.” So far the new rule changes have just been flood IMO. I’d have preferred to see Cora yank Hernandez after hitting Rizzo, but those new rules that were put in place to do the job that existing unenforcedvrulesbwerevsupposed to do took away that option…

[Old Red]

Ready to pitch 70-80 pitches is different than ready to pitch 100-110.

 

I'm glad we didn't wait until he was able to go 110. We'd be 3-4 down by now.

 

The Sox stored 66 runs in Sale’s 7 starts, and he has a ERA of around 7 in the two games against TB, so I don’t think they are where they are so much, because of Sale, and he gets to pitch anther game against the minor league O’S.

[moonslav59]

The Sox stored 66 runs in Sale’s 7 starts, and he has a ERA of around 7 in the two games against TB, so I don’t think they are where they are so much, because of Sale, and he gets to pitch anther game against the minor league O’S.

 

Sale vs TBR, this year:

 

9.2 IP 3 ERs

 

2.79 ERA

 

The 16 hits and 3BB are scary, but where did you get your ERA numbers?

[d-money]

That was a pathetic series to say the least. The fact that they still have a chance to make a wildcard is ridiculous. I feel frankly this team doesn’t deserve it. They literally s*** the bed at home against the Yankees.

[Old Red]

Sale vs TBR, this year:

 

9.2 IP 3 ERs

 

2.79 ERA

 

The 16 hits and 3BB are scary, but where did you get your ERA numbers?

 

My bad I glanced real quick, and saw one of the games against Tampa that Sale pitched he went 3.2, and gave up 10 hits, and 5 runs, but only 1 was earned, and not 5. Listen I like Sale, and he is better than Richards in the rotation, but I just think he’s been given to much credit for the games he’s pitched that the Sox have scored tons of runs for him, and Richards has it has turned out has been pretty valuable in the bullpen especially since the starters have a hard time getting through 5.

[jung]

If the numbers show a pitcher gets crushed the third time through a line-up are you guys saying keep the guy in out of some sort of macho act or tradition- keeping philosophy?

 

I can just imagine the game threads after Cora leaves a starter in to get drilled.

 

Cart before the horse. Pitchers used to be able to get through the batting order a 3rd time enough for people to notice. Now its as rare as hens teeth and the number of relief pitchers that just go right off a cliff edge after 15-20 pitches is just remarkable. They can't do it even with a day of rest.

 

So No, I would not recommend Managers demand of their pitchers what they can no longer do. The point is pitchers can no longer do what was once commonplace. Everyday players cannot do what was once commonplace for everyday players for that matter. Like field the baseball, throw to the right base, run the bases, bunt etc, etc, etc.

[jung]

I assume they wouldn't be much different, since starters back then were pacing themselves to go longer and consequently didn't throw their arms out in the first inning. Do we criticize Olympic sprinters because they're not marathon runners?

 

Who dictated that Staters should become the equivalent of Sprinters and why??????

[jung]

I think most of us have some reservations about the changes in the way the game is played, but what's the use of complaining.

 

It is worth complaining about or at least trying to get somebody to address because people no longer even know how to watch a baseball game....what kinds of made and missed plays matter, how the game should be played.

 

We have guys coming up to the Majors now that only care about hitting. You can tell from their complete ineptitude at doing anything else and that is one sad state of affairs.

[moonslav59]

Cart before the horse. Pitchers used to be able to get through the batting order a 3rd time enough for people to notice. Now its as rare as hens teeth and the number of relief pitchers that just go right off a cliff edge after 15-20 pitches is just remarkable. They can't do it even with a day of rest.

 

So No, I would not recommend Managers demand of their pitchers what they can no longer do. The point is pitchers can no longer do what was once commonplace. Everyday players cannot do what was once commonplace for everyday players for that matter. Like field the baseball, throw to the right base, run the bases, bunt etc, etc, etc.

 

I got the point the first time.

 

I was just wondering what the numbers were like back in the day.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I think most of us have some reservations about the changes in the way the game is played, but what's the use of complaining.

 

WHA-??? Why else did all of us sign up for this board? Did anyone really think their skills as a keyboard GM would get them hired by an actual MLB franchise?

 

Oh, wait... that's actually how Chaim Bloom got a job...

[jung]

I got the point the first time.

 

I was just wondering what the numbers were like back in the day.

 

Gaylord Perry had 29 complete games in back-to-back seasons in 1972 and ’73 and followed that with 28 in ’74. From 1970-79, 58 pitchers had 20 or more complete games. In 1971, ’72, and ’76, eight pitchers each year completed 20 or more games.

 

 

From 1950-80, 36 pitchers completed 25 or more games.

 

 

If you really want to see examples of complete games for Starters from 1950 to present day, Baseball Almanac has the league leaders for each year. And its not so much a "back in the day" sort of thing if you don't consider the 1960's and 1970's back in the day. Back in the day for me is the 1950's. the 1960's and 1970's does not seem that long ago for me.

 

Also if they were pitching that many complete games, you can well imagine how many times starters got past the 5th and 6th innings. One rotation of starters probably pitched close to as many innings as an entire division worth of staters today.

Edited September 28, 2021 by jung

[moonslav59]

Gaylord Perry had 29 complete games in back-to-back seasons in 1972 and ’73 and followed that with 28 in ’74. From 1970-79, 58 pitchers had 20 or more complete games. In 1971, ’72, and ’76, eight pitchers each year completed 20 or more games.

 

 

From 1950-80, 36 pitchers completed 25 or more games.

 

 

If you really want to see examples of complete games for Starters from 1950 to present day, Baseball Almanac has the league leaders for each year. And its not so much a "back in the day" sort of thing if you don't consider the 1960's and 1970's back in the day. Back in the day for me is the 1950's. the 1960's and 1970's does not seem that long ago for me.

 

Also if they were pitching that many complete games, you can well imagine how many times starters got past the 5th and 6th innings. One rotation of starters probably pitched close to as many innings as an entire division worth of staters today.

 

I know all about the history of mega inning pitchers.

 

My question was about how these guys looked the first 2 times through a lineup vs the 3rd and 4th times.

 

I’m pretty sure they did better, but maybe by not as much as we think and nobody came up with idea to yank them early.

[jung]

I know all about the history of mega inning pitchers.

 

My question was about how these guys looked the first 2 times through a lineup vs the 3rd and 4th times.

 

I’m pretty sure they did better, but maybe by not as much as we think and nobody came up with idea to yank them early.

 

Aha....sorry....did not get where you were going.

 

They actually got stronger as the game went on at least through 7 innings.

 

There was not this prevailing tendency to show the hitters everything early. Pitchers would establish the FB and they would show you that they owned one side of the plate or the other. Hitters only got one half of the plate. If they reached out over the plate and the pitchers wanted the outer half, they were either drilled or driven back off the plate or made to dance in the batter's box. In certain circumstances the pitcher would throw right at the hitter's hands. Good luck doing much with that. If you were more of a neutral hitter not trying to have access to the entire plate, you would be driven back to the point where you could barely see the outer black much less hit something out there. Thus those hitters were vulnerable to called strikes on the outer black. Honestly there was much more challenge pitching and many more swinging strikes as a result.

 

After establishing that you as a hitter were not going to just be able to do what you wanted to do, then pitchers would work in their secondary pitches and then the hitter was really f***ed. The hitter is just trying to remember if the the pitcher is going to drill him or throw at his hands and now here comes Uncle Charlie or a Slider. Breaking stuff is how pitchers got their called strikes in those days. By the end of games pitched by really good pitchers hitters no longer even had half the plate. They were just hoping not to be carried back to the dugout on a stretcher.

 

Willy Mays told the story of facing Bob Gibson one day and forgetting that it was Gibson out there on the mound. Mays loved to really dig in at the plate and as a general rule spent all kinds of time excavating the batter's box to his particular liking. Willy finally looked up preparing for the pitch and suddenly remembered that he had left Bob Gibson out there stewing while he excavating the batter's box. Gibson hated hitters digging in and would drill you just because if you did that. Mays quickly asked for time, filled in the holes he had just made and retook a stance in the box.

 

Pitchers were flat mean. They were virtually all mean. Either they scared the daylights out of you at the plate or they had such control that they cut you to ribbons and made you look like a fool in the batter's box. Hitters had to work pitchers into a favorable count for the hitter and then be ready when they were challenged. Also much much more pitching inside. You seldom saw these 8-10 pitch AB's either. The pitchers had hitters so off balance that they just could not hack away fouling off pitch after pitch.

 

The mental conflict between hitter and pitcher was entirely different. Hitters knew that pitchers did not care about drilling a hitter and putting him on first base. Hitters knew that the pitcher's perspective was "OK I got your buddy over there limping to first base. You want some of the same? I will hit you if you like and you can limp on down to first." A guy like Stanton would not be allowed to survive. Stanton would be a sniveling wreck after one at bat and would likely not recover for the remainder of his at bats that day.

 

I firmly believe that pitchers of that era would literally upchuck if they saw somebody like Garrit Cole with two outs and nobody on and a 3-2 count purposefully throw a Slider off the plate outside trying to induce the hitter to swing at what was a ball even though a take would mean a walk. They would sooner die than do that.

 

All by way of saying that pitchers had the talent to throw inside effectively and on their terms. Hardly any of the pitchers we have today have the talent to do that. Their "talent" is getting the hitter to swing at something that is actually not a strike. Its about the only trap they can set for hitters. They are all too often either throwing a pitch that is not actually going to land in the strike zone or they are throwing an utter pile of crap pitch that is going to be hit to the moon.

[Bellhorn04]

Inevitably, when people talk about how great and how mean the old-time pitchers they were, they talk about Gibson.

 

Yes, Gibson was awesome.

 

Now, give me a list of all the other pitchers of that era who were like Gibson.

 

The Red Sox sure as heck didn't have them.

 

The names I remember from listening on the radio starting in 1969 were more like Sonny Siebert and Ray Culp.

[jad]

Inevitably, when people talk about how great and how mean the old-time pitchers they were, they talk about Gibson.

 

Yes, Gibson was awesome.

 

Now, give me a list of all the other pitchers of that era who were like Gibson.

 

The Red Sox sure as heck didn't have them.

 

The names I remember from listening on the radio starting in 1969 were more like Sonny Siebert and Ray Culp.

 

Totally agree. When fans wax nostalgic about the quality of pitching 'back in the day' they think of Koufax and Gibson. They do not think of the ones you and I remember: for me, Ike Delock, Jerry Casale, Fornieles (who was actually something of an iron man) not to mention scores of names I barely remember or recognize. No one in those days could throw a splitter like Koji, nor were middle relievers throwing 95-100mph, even from the raised mound.

[moonslav59]

Aha....sorry....did not get where you were going.

 

They actually got stronger as the game went on at least through 7 innings.

 

There was not this prevailing tendency to show the hitters everything early. Pitchers would establish the FB and they would show you that they owned one side of the plate or the other. Hitters only got one half of the plate. If they reached out over the plate and the pitchers wanted the outer half, they were either drilled or driven back off the plate or made to dance in the batter's box. In certain circumstances the pitcher would throw right at the hitter's hands. Good luck doing much with that. If you were more of a neutral hitter not trying to have access to the entire plate, you would be driven back to the point where you could barely see the outer black much less hit something out there. Thus those hitters were vulnerable to called strikes on the outer black. Honestly there was much more challenge pitching and many more swinging strikes as a result.

 

After establishing that you as a hitter were not going to just be able to do what you wanted to do, then pitchers would work in their secondary pitches and then the hitter was really f***ed. The hitter is just trying to remember if the the pitcher is going to drill him or throw at his hands and now here comes Uncle Charlie or a Slider. Breaking stuff is how pitchers got their called strikes in those days. By the end of games pitched by really good pitchers hitters no longer even had half the plate. They were just hoping not to be carried back to the dugout on a stretcher.

 

Willy Mays told the story of facing Bob Gibson one day and forgetting that it was Gibson out there on the mound. Mays loved to really dig in at the plate and as a general rule spent all kinds of time excavating the batter's box to his particular liking. Willy finally looked up preparing for the pitch and suddenly remembered that he had left Bob Gibson out there stewing while he excavating the batter's box. Gibson hated hitters digging in and would drill you just because if you did that. Mays quickly asked for time, filled in the holes he had just made and retook a stance in the box.

 

Pitchers were flat mean. They were virtually all mean. Either they scared the daylights out of you at the plate or they had such control that they cut you to ribbons and made you look like a fool in the batter's box. Hitters had to work pitchers into a favorable count for the hitter and then be ready when they were challenged. Also much much more pitching inside. You seldom saw these 8-10 pitch AB's either. The pitchers had hitters so off balance that they just could not hack away fouling off pitch after pitch.

 

The mental conflict between hitter and pitcher was entirely different. Hitters knew that pitchers did not care about drilling a hitter and putting him on first base. Hitters knew that the pitcher's perspective was "OK I got your buddy over there limping to first base. You want some of the same? I will hit you if you like and you can limp on down to first." A guy like Stanton would not be allowed to survive. Stanton would be a sniveling wreck after one at bat and would likely not recover for the remainder of his at bats that day.

 

I firmly believe that pitchers of that era would literally upchuck if they saw somebody like Garrit Cole with two outs and nobody on and a 3-2 count purposefully throw a Slider off the plate outside trying to induce the hitter to swing at what was a ball even though a take would mean a walk. They would sooner die than do that.

 

All by way of saying that pitchers had the talent to throw inside effectively and on their terms. Hardly any of the pitchers we have today have the talent to do that. Their "talent" is getting the hitter to swing at something that is actually not a strike. Its about the only trap they can set for hitters. They are all too often either throwing a pitch that is not actually going to land in the strike zone or they are throwing an utter pile of crap pitch that is going to be hit to the moon.

 

Very thoughtful reply. Sorry for not being more clear.

 

I'd still like to see the league wide numbers for SP'er the first, second, third and fourth time through line-ups in the 60's, 70's 80's and 90's- basically before teams started noticing drop offs and made radical changes to how pens were used and starters were babied.

 

Also, did teams encourage starters to not "pace themselves" but to just "get us to the 7th, then later the 6th, and now just to or into the 5th?

[moonslav59]

Inevitably, when people talk about how great and how mean the old-time pitchers they were, they talk about Gibson.

 

Yes, Gibson was awesome.

 

Now, give me a list of all the other pitchers of that era who were like Gibson.

 

The Red Sox sure as heck didn't have them.

 

The names I remember from listening on the radio starting in 1969 were more like Sonny Siebert and Ray Culp.

 

We never seemed to have those iron horse type pitchers, but even Luis Tiant, a pitcher who remade himself after a very bad injury, pitched 272 innings in '73, 311 in '74, 260 in '75 (at age 34) and 279 in '76. He started 38 games for us twice and over 30 for 7 straight seasons at age 32 and older.

[jad]

We didn't have pitchers like Gibson??? Just who else did?

[Bellhorn04]

We didn't have pitchers like Gibson??? Just who else did?

 

Exactly what I'm saying.

[moonslav59]

We didn't have pitchers like Gibson??? Just who else did?

 

While Gibson was certainly one of a kind, and nobody can really touch his 1968 season, unless you compare it to the rest of the league that year. (One could argue Pedro had more dominating seasons as the league was a hitter's league when he excelled.)

 

Gibson's best 10 years were from 1964 to 1973.

2.58 ERA (139 ERA+)

267 IP per season (average) with 32 GS'd. The WHIP of 1.099 was excellent but not the best ever.

 

ERA- from 1964-1973

57 Koufax

61 Wilhelm

69 Seaver

71 Gibson

 

10 pitchers had a better WHIP, including the players above and Marichal, Jenkins and Vida Blue. Don Drysdale was tied.

 

1968 was amazing. Look up his game logs and you will be shocked.

He had a 258 ERA+ and a 1.77 FIP.

However, his next highest ERA+ were 164, 151, 148 and139.

 

When compared to one's peers, Pedro was perhaps the best ever:

 

TOP ERA+ seasons:

291, 243, 219, 211, 202, 188, 163 and several more over 120.

 

His best 10 years (1996-2005) saw this:

2.60 ERA (177 ERA+) and a 0.992 WHIP

206 IP per season with 30 starts average.

 

The ERA+ margin is high enough for me to call Pedro the best of the best for any given 4 to 10 year period.

 

 

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

Inevitably, when people talk about how great and how mean the old-time pitchers they were, they talk about Gibson.

 

Yes, Gibson was awesome.

 

Now, give me a list of all the other pitchers of that era who were like Gibson.

 

The Red Sox sure as heck didn't have them.

 

The names I remember from listening on the radio starting in 1969 were more like Sonny Siebert and Ray Culp.

 

Lonborg in '67 had a pretty good 'mean' streak. Pedro, also.

[Bellhorn04]

Lonborg in '67 had a pretty good 'mean' streak. Pedro, also.

 

Agreed. And Lonborg had a great season in 1967. Over his career, he was a decent to good pitcher and no more.

 

So we have Gibson and Pedro so far. And there would be a handful of others. We're talking about 'generational' talents.

[moonslav59]

Agreed. And Lonborg had a great season in 1967. Over his career, he was a decent to good pitcher and no more.

 

So we have Gibson and Pedro so far. And there would be a handful of others. We're talking about 'generational' talents.

 

Greg Maddux is on my short list.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

Agreed. And Lonborg had a great season in 1967. Over his career, he was a decent to good pitcher and no more.

 

So we have Gibson and Pedro so far. And there would be a handful of others. We're talking about 'generational' talents.

 

 

Lonborg suffered a severe leg injury while skiing after the '67 season. He was never the same after that.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

Agreed. And Lonborg had a great season in 1967. Over his career, he was a decent to good pitcher and no more.

 

So we have Gibson and Pedro so far. And there would be a handful of others. We're talking about 'generational' talents.

 

Two other 'mean' pitchers that come to mind are Don Drysdale and Sal Maglie. The way the rules are set up today, if pitchers get too'mean', they get removed by the chUMPS.

Gibson couldn't do today what he did in the 60's and 70's, because of the rules.

Edited September 28, 2021 by SPLENDIDSPLINTER

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Two other 'mean' pitchers that come to mind are Don Drysdale and Sal Maglie. The way the rules are set up today, if pitchers get to 'mean', they get removed by the chUMPS.

 

I watched a little of the Nationals game last night. Josiah Gray beaned Brendan Rodgers in the first inning. Rodgers, who dropped and was immediately taken out of the game, homered off Gray just last week. Maybe it was just a coincidence... anyway, the Red Sox will probably face Gray this weekend in Washington.