Is MLB pitching really watered down?

SBK,

That's a good point. I agree with you. How could everything else get better except pitchers.

Hitters are better, runners are faster, players are bigger, arms throw harder, athletes are stronger, pitchers are better, etc.etc.

I think when people talk about watered down they often mean the number of pitchers. When there were only 16 MLB teams and pitchers were throwing complete games (what's a closer?) Most teams could get by on less pitching and with only 16 teams there were 70 to 100 or so big league pitchers who ate up all the innings. Now days it takes close to 400 pitchers to fill the Big League rosters and they need them all.

I'm not sure about social values being watered down. Is that true?

PG,

RE: Social Values

I think they are down but my wife won’t let me watch MTV, Howard Stern or the Playboy Channel so that I could confirm it.

The only other thing I can come up with athletically that seems to be going downhill is my vertical jump but I didn’t want to get that personal.

Also, I think you are right when people point simply to expansion as their reason for saying it's watered down. Of course if we had 16 teams, pitching would be tougher today. If last year we only had two teams and the pitchers were someone like Pedro, Clemens, Schilling and Johnson it would have been even tougher. Now that's really profound.

The point is that this "watered down" simplistic cliche is all washed up and needs to be sent down the river.

I would take the bottom half of today's bigger and stronger pitchers and compete quite well against those of yesterday.

In addition to being bigger and stronger, they would also be about 30 to 80 years younger. (just couldn't resist throwing that line in)

Since expansion there are almost twice as many teams yes, but in the US alone there are almost twice as many people, not to mention the contributions from Latin America, and now the beginnings of the best Japanese players. And there weren't many African Americans in the majors when expansion began either.

Old-timers always claim things were better in the past.

Someone, I think Tommy Lasorda, said recently that if pitchers could practice as much as hitters, the average MLB hitter would hit about .120.

Think about it. Hitters are stronger, faster more fit, use video tape, have advanced instruction, indoor cages to use day & night, all to get better.

Pitchers are limited in the amount they can practice or throw due to the fragility of their arms and shoulders.

If pitchers could practice their pitches 4 hours a day like hitters, they could pound nails with five pitches, from 60 feet, all day long.

SBK - Excellent sense of humor - LOL. I get so much enjoyment merely reading the posts on this site.

Two additional reasons pitching may appear to be watered-down are the postage stamp they call a strike zone these days and the numbers being put up against middle relief (weakest) pitchers as the starters (best) are pretty much programmed to go about 6-7 innings which certainly wasn't the case years ago when ya faced Bob Gibson for 9.

Some interesting numbers...

Bob Gibson 258 CG
Steve Carlton 254 CG
Tom Seaver 231 CG
Jim Palmer 211 CG
Don Drysdale 167 CG
Whitey Ford 156 CG
Sandy Koufax 137 CG

MLB pitchings is watered down yes, there are more teams in the league, and with more pitchers in the league, the overall quality for pitchers is sure to be less. However, the core group of pitchers, if u were to look at the top pitchers, im sure they are either better or just as good as the top pitchers in the past.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SBK:
PG,

RE: Social Values

I think they are down but my wife won’t let me watch MTV, Howard Stern or the Playboy Channel so that I could confirm it.

QUOTE]

That's OK just turn to Desparate Housewives?

I don't think the number of pitchers (percentage wise) is the problem. I would expect them to increase at the same rate as hitters have increased to keep up with (or try to) expansion. There are more guys throwing 90+mph than ever before.

However, I feel it is watered down by the rules, the strike zone, the height of the mound, the ball, and the explosion of rotational hitting. The advancements in hitting instruction (overall better understanding of the swing and how to teach it) has outrun the advancement in pitching over the last couple of decades. Especially when compared to what the rules have done to pitching.

No question the rules favor offense which favors butts in seats.

"Watered down" is not the proper term. PG you personally know how difficult it is to make a ML starting rotation. I see Division I and II college pitchers "painting" the black with 90 mph fast balls and sliders that are killers. This is just college ball. There are many,many more in the minors with better talent than that. To say that
major league pitching is "watered down" is not even close to reality. Tell that to
all the pitchers that have toiled in the minors for years-with decent records-and can't break into the bigs because the players ahead are "watered down"????

No, it's just common sense to acknowledge that athletes improve in all sports through
the years.

My opinion is just the opposite-I believe ML Baseball could fill even more teams with
the talent lingering in the minors and there would not be a noticeable decline in ability. The reason there are not more teams is because the markets available wouldn't
support them. Believe me, if the owners thought they could make more money there would
be more teams.

JMHO

Pitching has improved hitting has improved. Players are faster and the base paths are still 90'. Every rule change in baseball has been instituted to provide more offense. Mound was brought down , strike zone shrunk , body armor , better baseballs , much better bats etc etc. Do more guys throw harder now than way back when YES. Are they better conditioned better athletes YES. Are they just plain better YES. And so are the hitters. The big difference is the rule changes that all have favored the hitters.

Teacherman,

I am not even allowed to watch the promos for Desperate Housewives let alone the show.

You and others bring up very valid points regarding the improvement of offense.

People realize that today’s pitchers face some major rule disadvantages that make their jobs more difficult. And in addition today’s hitters up and down the lineup are simply better. Gone is the day when pitchers get to face light hitting middle infielders that can get away with hitting their weight if they can play defense. American leaguers can no loner count on at least one easy out when they get to the opposing pitcher.

On average, today’s pitchers are better and because of whom they now face, they have to be.

Question to parents of pitchers who themselves used to be pitchers, “Is your son a better pitcher than you were”? Or for the parents of younger pitchers, “Does it look like your kid is going to be a better pitcher than you ever were”?

I would guess the answer for most of us is “Yes, they are because they are bigger, stronger and receive better training.” Do you think it’s an anomaly? I rest my case.

SBK,

I mentioned this topic in another thread. I think the major league game usually will have a few REALLY great hitters and a few REALLY great pitchers. However, with almost TWICE the number of teams, use of the bull-pen (w/ so-called "specialists"), etc., the REALLY great hitters and REALLY great pitchers don't meet each other nearly as often.

If PGStaff's numbers are correct (70-100 slots for major league pitchers in days of yore; 400 slots for major league pitchers today), the "crown jewels" of major league pitching are spread pretty thin. That necessarily means that the REALLY great hitters see the REALLY great pitchers much less often.

When Bob Gibson pitched, he usually went the distance, even if he struggled. Apprently, the theory was that, even if he was struggling, he was still the best pitcher the Cards could throw out there...if the opposing team was hitting Gibson, they'd be murdering the rest. The starters (then and now) were usually the best pitchers, and they usually stayed in the game and saw many more innings in yester years.

I, for one, would rather have faced almost anybody else than Bob Gibson...even on his WORST day. In fact, I probably would have least liked to face him on his WORST day (he had a fearsome temper).

Expansion did NOT improve the pitching. The best pitchers of any era would still have made their teams, as would the best hitters...now, the best hitters are seeing the best pitching far less, and see the lesser pitchers far more.

Food for thought.

Major League Batting Average-AL&NL Combined

1994-.270

2004-.264

If pitching is watered down-what is hitting?

Suppose today you had 16 major league teams as opposed to what you have now? Suppose in the 50's you had 32 major league teams?

The overall talent pool, in my mind, is watered down--- it is spread too thin-- too many borderline/ hangerson players-- there are players making millions and they cannot hit .220--
a pitcher has a 10-18 year and he makes 6 million.

Discussion yesterday on a baseball talk show I think shows where it is at--Pedro is now the Mets # 1 pitcher moving Glavine to the #2 slot and so on--the Mets Top 5 pitchers are stronger because of Pedro becoming # 1-- the Met # 4 and 5 are now better than most teams 4 and 5 arms


As for the BA differentials--- there never were set up men until recently-- hitters faced one pitcher until the 8th or 9th inning--now they face as many as 4 pitchers in a game--definitely gives the pitchers , good or bad, the advantage. They have the fresh arms.

For me it is a combination of a lot of things all working together--but that is the way the game is--we just have to live with it--in another ten years we will still be discussing changes that are taking place then.


BOTTOM LINE FOR ME: BASEBALL is still greatest and best game ever developed

In a previous thread I was refering to Barry Bonds HR totals, and said that one contributing factor was Major League Pitching was "watered down". That was based on this thread probably the wrong word to use. I would say that pitching staffs or rotations are not as deep as before. I certainly think the front line guys are just as good as years past. It is when you add more teams to the league, that the 3,4, and 5 starters or middle relievers are not nearly as good as years past. Usually today, most pitching rotations have only two top of the line quality starters. When you face the third or fourth starter in a weekend series, some of those guys should take an L Screen out to the bump with them. I totally agree with TRHit, that there are way way too many hangerson. Guys hitting .220 and want arbitration because they deserve a million dollar a year raise. Still the best in the world, no doubt about it, but with so many teams, they have to fill the rosters with players that should still be in the minors. Would BJ Upton have made it to the show already, if he was in a different organization? i.e. yankees, red sox, braves, etc. I don't know. Just a thought.

"Suppose today you had 16 major league teams as opposed to what you have now?"

I guess you could also suppose you had only 2 teams if you wanted to-they would be called
all-star teams.

Not sure I understand your point unless you are saying that the more teams there are the less talent there will be per team. It goes without saying.

My point is that if pitching is watered down by expansion then so is hitting-and by the
statistics that I have given, pitching has been watered down less than hitting.