My point w wasn’t that pitching doesn’t win. It’s that a lot of teams pursued other formulae. The fact that 1968 was “the year of the pitcher” shows how ubiquitous it was. Flash forward to the 1970’s and what was the calling card of the Big Red Machine? Or in the 1980’s with the Brewers aka Harvey’s Wallbangers. Or the Cardinals of the early 1980’s. They had pitching, but best teams were built around more. Heck, most of those 1980’s teams early in the decade focused on speed and stolen bases. That was the fad - the launch/angle and escape velocity of the day.
You didn’t see this mad league-wide rush for starting pitching and 200 IP starters until the late 1970’s, when the success of Earl Weaver finally went mainstream.
Some of this is due to expansion. With 6 more teams in the league, finding superior pitching is getting tougher. A lot of it is driven by economics (personal theory, but not unsupported).
KC won a title with a mediocre staff of no names. Tampa has made the postseason four (and counting) straight years while getting fewer IP from their starters than the overwhelming majority of the league. Like it or not, the Opener is a brilliant strategy when deployed properly.
It’s very possible starting pitching just isn’t as desirable as it used to be. It can never go away completely, but it can be reduced and deployed different. This might be a fad, but every future was once a fad. And if it is the future of the game, most of those who stay in the past will remove themselves from competition soon enough…