On This Date in Baseball...

grote15 · July 16, 2006 5:59AM

Joltin' Joe DiMaggio went 3 for 4 to extend his consecutive game hitting streak to 56 games. In this day and age of watered down pitching and bandbox ballparks it's somewhat surprising that no one hitting streak has even exceeded 40 games since 1978 when Rose hit safely in 44 consecutive games. Makes you realize just how great a hitter Rose was and Joe D of course, as well.

bri2327 · July 16, 2006 6:34AM

Todays game may have watered down pitching and band box ballparks, but we also have a game where the hitter is seeing 3 or 4 different pitchers a game, with late inning lefty/righty matchups, something Joe D didnt have to go through. Im sure several times during his streak he continued it with a late inning hit against a tiring pitcher he already saw 3 or 4 times that day, something that just doenst happen today.

grote15 · July 16, 2006 6:56AM

That may be true, bri, but I'm not sure the general decline in pitching quality due to expansion and smaller ballparks offsets that scenario. The pitcher also had a much bigger advantage back then before they lowered the mound. Before the mound was lowered, ERAs below 3.00 were common. Now, if a guy gives up 4 runs in 7 innings it's considered a "quality start".

bri2327 · July 16, 2006 7:33AM

If none of that were true then players today should be hitting for higher averages, which they are not. The amount of guys batting .330, .340, .350 and up has been on the decline lately, which I think has a great deal to do with the late inning matchups and fresh arms in the game.

hardcorehockeyfan · July 16, 2006 8:04AM

It also has a ton to do with the moving away from manufacturing runs, and power hitters becoming the norm. Fans I suppose, would much rather see 50 homers from a .250 hitter, instead of 20 homers from a .350 hitter!

grote15 · July 16, 2006 8:08AM

I guess you could argue either point on this. I happen to disagree that hitters are at a disadvantage at the plate these days due to late inning "specialists" and relievers. While it's true that some late-inning relievers and closers are truly dominant, there are more than enough medicore middle relievers to fatten up on as a hitter. In fact, if you look at the batting title winners over the last 10 years and compare them to the batting title winners of the 1960s when the mound was higher, you'll see that the averages are higher for the recent league leaders on average. Also, most of the longer hitting streaks of over 35 games have happened over the past 20 years, excluding the late 19th century and early 20th century streaks.

Skinpinch · July 16, 2006 8:24AM

The level of pitching and use of relievers is so tough, that the batters of this generation are setting all kinds of offensive records

bri2327 · July 16, 2006 10:19AM

<< In fact, if you look at the batting title winners over the last 10 years and compare them to the batting title winners of the 1960s when the mound was higher, you'll see that the averages are higher for the recent league leaders on average. . >>

And if you look at batting title winners over the last 10 years and compare them to batting title winners from every decade OTHER than the 60's you will see the averages are lower. I think by only using the 60's as an example you knew this to be true and used only that decade to skew what is actually occuring.

Skin, other than home runs, exactly what are the " all kinds " of offensive records that are being set ? And before you tell me runs scored, please keep in mind that runs scored are up because every .240 hitter in baseball can hit 30 home runs now. Before trying to make your backhanded stab at me why dont you go on your search and do your usual 16 paragraph breakdown in batting average leaders. If I am wrong when you get the facts I will admit it, but until then if you have an insult to throw my way please do so openly.

Axtell · July 16, 2006 11:05AM

I'd have to say the decline in batting averages has more to do with players trying to hit home runs more often, more so than the pitching matchups.

Instead of taking what the pitcher gives them and getting a base hit, how many times are guys going up there swinging at 0-2 pitches? 3-0? They know the money is paid to power hitters, not high BA guys.

bri2327 · July 16, 2006 11:11AM

The hitters going for home runs instead of average definately accounts for the majority of the league, but it still doesnt account for the top hitters. The high average hitters of today are no different than the high average hitters of the past. They are still primarily contact hitters who play for average over swinging for the fences. Historically the top 10 or so average hitters year in and year out are not players who swing all out, they are contact hitters. This has not changed, so if the parks are smaller, the players stronger, the ball juiced, and the pitching watered down, then the only factor that can account for the lower averages among the league leaders must have to be the change in late inning pitching strategy.

Axtell · July 16, 2006 11:14AM

I have to disagree.

If that were the case, then you'd have an inordinate number of late inning pitchers who are amazing...as it is, the role of a top flight reliever is the exception not the rule.

How many 'great' closers/set up men are there, really? I would suspect without looking at the numbers a vast majority of relievers have ERAs similar to league averages for starters.

bri2327 · July 16, 2006 11:19AM

It has nothing to do with whether or not they are amazing. It has to do with the fact that regardless of who is pitching, the pitcher always has the advantage. The best hitters fail 70 % of the time. Even the most mediocre pitchers have an advantage over the hitter. A mediore pitcher entering late in the game but with a fresh arm, in a situational matchup, throwing something different than what was seen by the hitter earlier in the game has a clear advantage over a higher end pitcher who is tiring, has faced the batter 3 or 4 times already, having given the batter enough looks at his entire array of pitches. If this were not the case then obviously there would be no need for relievers, the starters who are better would not come out, they would stay in and pitch complete games. The whole concept of relief pitching in todays game is based on this fact.

Axtell · July 16, 2006 11:26AM

Relievers are in place to keep the multimillion dollar arms of the starters as fresh as possible.

Why do you think 100 pitch counts are so common now, when before they didn't even care? It's not that the relievers are that much better, its that they need to protect their investments.

bri2327 · July 16, 2006 11:32AM

Ax, if you fail to recognize the benefit of a fresh arm as opposed to a tired arm, a matchup of a lefty/righty or righty/lefty, a fastball pitcher to an offspeed pitcher, and so on then this debate cant go any further. The sole purpose of a reliever coming into a game is not just to save the starters arms and pitch counts. Failure to acknowledge any degree of this on your part is typical and a sign of your argumentative nature to the point where you will ignore all points thrown your way just to be correct. I have said enough of this back and forth with you, and I am now done.

hardcorehockeyfan · July 16, 2006 11:36AM

<< Ax, if you fail to recognize the benefit of a fresh arm as opposed to a tired arm, a matchup of a lefty/righty or righty/lefty, a fastball pitcher to an offspeed pitcher, and so on then this debate cant go any further. The sole purpose of a reliever coming into a game is not just to save the starters arms and pitch counts. Failure to acknowledge any degree of this on your part is typical and a sign of your argumentative nature to the point where you will ignore all points thrown your way just to be correct. I have said enough of this back and forth with you, and I am now done. >>

Perhaps you can see the benefits of someone like Ichiro hitting for average because he is a catalyst in manufacturing runs and getting on base, compared to a guy like Cecil Fielder, who hit 40+ homers, batting .230-.260. Do you see? Do you?

Axtell · July 16, 2006 11:37AM

Just as you fail to recognize any differing opinions as well.

For the record, Joe D's 'streak' was marred by several questionable scoring decisions...questionable in that the official scorer just happened to be the yankees announcer.

Read into that what you will.

I can't help but think a player's attempt for power numbers is the primary reason for keeping batting averages down.

bri2327 · July 16, 2006 11:42AM

Can you read and comprehend English ? I clearly stated that the average hitter is different than the power hitter. The distinction was given and conceded. The argument had nothing to do with the two.

bri2327 · July 16, 2006 11:44AM

For the record, I am very well aware of Joe D's favorable scoring decisions during his streak. I am not a fan of the man, nor do I dispute the questionable and favorable calls he received.

detroitfan2 · July 16, 2006 11:50AM

<<Even the most mediocre pitchers have an advantage over the hitter. A mediore pitcher entering late in the game but with a fresh arm, in a situational matchup, throwing something different than what was seen by the hitter earlier in the game has a clear advantage over a higher end pitcher who is tiring, has faced the batter 3 or 4 times already, having given the batter enough looks at his entire array of pitches. If this were not the case then obviously there would be no need for relievers, the starters who are better would not come out, they would stay in and pitch complete games. The whole concept of relief pitching in todays game is based on this fact.>>

I'm curious how many of you believe in this strategy, because it drives me absolutely crazy. Jim Leyland has to be considered one of the best managers in baseball, yet I continue to watch game after game where the opposition ends up with 1 or 2 runs yet the Tigers go through 4 or 5 pitchers. Just my opinion, but if I had a choice between a Jeremy Bonderman who has allowed 1 run on 5 hits through 7 innings and a fresh Jamie Walker or even a Joel Zumaya (who is pretty darned good), I'd go with Bonderman. On top of it, Zumaya will pitch the 8th and strike out the side on 9 pitches, and then it's thanks very much, we're bringing in Todd Jones for the 9th.

I have no problem with removing a guy after 1 or 2 runners get on, or if it's clear that the opposition is hitting the ball hard, but until then, "if it's not broken don't fix it". I guess I just don't get the "Joe Blow is coming in because it's the 8th inning and Joe Blow always pitches the 8th inning" mentality. I blame it all on Sparky Anderson!

Not trying to agree or disagree with anyone here, just would like to hear the thoughts of others . . .

hardcorehockeyfan · July 16, 2006 11:57AM

For the most part, every move Leyland has made this year, seems to work. The replacements for guys getting the day off, seem to perform every time. If you notice, most of the time a starter is pulled, pitch counts are up, and you do not want a "weaker" Bonderman pitching to a David Ortiz, when you have a Jamie Walker in the pen. Today, three hotter Tigers had the day off, Polanco, Pudge, and Ordonez, and they had a shot at winning, past years, you would have turned the game off by the 4th. This is going to be a great year, I am looking forward to Chicago coming to town!!!!!

softparade · July 16, 2006 12:00PM

<< I am looking forward to Chicago coming to town!!!!! >>

and on the heels of getting swept by the Yankees .... here is THE opportunity for the Tigers to put some real distance between the Sox and themselves. Bury them while they are down.

bri2327 · July 16, 2006 12:02PM

<< For the most part, every move Leyland has made this year, seems to work. The replacements for guys getting the day off, seem to perform every time. If you notice, most of the time a starter is pulled, pitch counts are up, and you do not want a "weaker" Bonderman pitching to a David Ortiz, when you have a Jamie Walker in the pen. Today, three hotter Tigers had the day off, Polanco, Pudge, and Ordonez, and they had a shot at winning, past years, you would have turned the game off by the 4th. This is going to be a great year, I am looking forward to Chicago coming to town!!!!! >>

Exactly why you are a dope. You join the thread by arguing with me, then in this post you state EXACTLY what my point was the entire time. A " weaker " pitcher late in the game is replaced by a stronger arm. Perhaps you should read the thread before arguing something you already agree with.

softparade · July 16, 2006 12:04PM

<< 
Exactly why you are a dope. You join the thread by arguing with me, then in this post you state EXACTLY what my point was the entire time. A " weaker " pitcher late in the game is replaced by a stronger arm. Perhaps you should read the thread before arguing something you already agree with. >>

oh boy ya got to love it Bri

Skinpinch · July 16, 2006 12:04PM

Why isn't runs scored an offensive record? Although that isn't a record that has fallen. Where it is true that the use of relief pitching makes it a tad tougher on the hitter...the other factors that benefit the hitters in this era outweigh that factor by plenty. My comment is directed towards the overall ease of which it is to hit, as opposed to simply just a batting average. However, other eras also had their benefits, namely the pre war years.

Individual single season Offensive records in the new live ball era, oh I don't know how about...

Hits
SLG%
Ob % (Twice)
OPS (Twice)
HR (Six times)
BB (three times)
Singles

My statement was simply supporting what grote15 was going with his reasoning of the other factors outweighing the relief pitcher factor. My statement is the overall ease of hitting, and not to a specific element. As the overall ability is what really counts, as opposed to a sliver of the pie.

I know the topic is the hitting streak, but I am referring to overall hitting ease.

It largely depends on which era exactly you are comparing. If you are comparing todays game to the 70's/80's, then all the factors to make hitting(or dominating) easier, are with todays era. If you are comparing this era to the 30's, then the factors pretty much even out.

OK. Specifically getting hits then. A player does not typically face three or four different pitchers in a game nowadays. Facing a GOOD reliever does make it harder, but that doesn't outweight the other factors that make hitting easier.

The best hitters fail 70% of the time? That is good news for Neifi Perez

detroitfan2 · July 16, 2006 12:10PM

<<For the most part, every move Leyland has made this year, seems to work. The replacements for guys getting the day off, seem to perform every time. If you notice, most of the time a starter is pulled, pitch counts are up, and you do not want a "weaker" Bonderman pitching to a David Ortiz, when you have a Jamie Walker in the pen. Today, three hotter Tigers had the day off, Polanco, Pudge, and Ordonez, and they had a shot at winning, past years, you would have turned the game off by the 4th. This is going to be a great year, I am looking forward to Chicago coming to town!!!!! >>

Hardcore, I'd have to agree with you EXCEPT for the way Leyland rests guys. Today they scored 6 runs with their split-squad team (thanks mainly to Thames), but I can think of 2 other games they lost recently (both with Robertson starting) when the pitching held the opposition to less 3 runs. One game was the last game of the series in Milwaukee. He rested Granderson and Pudge. On top of that, he moved his 9th hitter (Inge, who I love by the way, but the guy is hitting .220) to leadoff and batted Pudge's replacement (Wilson) 3rd! The Tigers had to make the long trip from Milwaukee to Detroit that evening, and they had an off day the next day.

Today, perhaps, was the worst I've ever seen. The players just had 3 days off for the All-Star break, they have an off day tomorrow, and he sits 3 of his key starters in ONE GAME! I don't care if the Tigers go undefeated the rest of the year including the playoffs and World Series, nobody can argue that his lineup today was anything but essentially throwing the game. If I were the starting pitcher, or if I paid even $20 to go see the game, I'd be fuming. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem resting Pudge in 100 degree heat on a day game after a night game (as long as he DH'd), but the rest of it is simply ridiculous.

The other thing I just don't understand is that when he rests Pudge, he bats his replacement (Vance Wilson) 3rd! This guy plays once every 10 games and when he does he bats 3rd? What is that all about? Either the guy is good enough to bat 3rd, in which case he should be playing nearly everyday, or he's a guy that plays once a week, in which case he should not be batting 3rd.

Pretty critical I know for a guy who is a miracle worker, but am I wrong? Dissenting opinions certainly welcome, I just don't get it.

hardcorehockeyfan · July 16, 2006 12:14PM

<< 

<< For the most part, every move Leyland has made this year, seems to work. The replacements for guys getting the day off, seem to perform every time. If you notice, most of the time a starter is pulled, pitch counts are up, and you do not want a "weaker" Bonderman pitching to a David Ortiz, when you have a Jamie Walker in the pen. Today, three hotter Tigers had the day off, Polanco, Pudge, and Ordonez, and they had a shot at winning, past years, you would have turned the game off by the 4th. This is going to be a great year, I am looking forward to Chicago coming to town!!!!! >>

Exactly why you are a dope. You join the thread by arguing with me, then in this post you state EXACTLY what my point was the entire time. A " weaker " pitcher late in the game is replaced by a stronger arm. Perhaps you should read the thread before arguing something you already agree with. >>

I never refuted your claim, that a stronger bullpen replacement is not part of the cause, only thing I said, is that you see more power hitters in the game today, than you did in the past 50 years, and I BELIEVE that is the main cause. Even though I saw it happen the other day, you tell me how often Giambi will lay down a bunt to advance runners. You tell me how often Ortiz will take the ball the opposite way, when the Ortiz-shift is on. Think, just a little!!!!

Skinpinch · July 16, 2006 12:16PM

Detroit fan, I hear you on the lineup and resting...especially after the All Star break!

As for batting inferior hitters third? There really is no sound reasoning to do so, unless scoring less runs is your goal. Just like Dusty Baker batting Corey Patterson and Neifi Perez one-two, last season. I guess he likes below .300 OB% guys in front of his big boppers. Some guys like to wear woman's underwear too. There are a lot of things that defy explanation.

detroitfan2 · July 16, 2006 12:19PM

Oops, by the way, my bad, Wilson batted last today, not 3rd. In the past, Wilson batted 3rd. Inge did bat 2nd though.

hardcorehockeyfan · July 16, 2006 12:20PM

<< <<For the most part, every move Leyland has made this year, seems to work. The replacements for guys getting the day off, seem to perform every time. If you notice, most of the time a starter is pulled, pitch counts are up, and you do not want a "weaker" Bonderman pitching to a David Ortiz, when you have a Jamie Walker in the pen. Today, three hotter Tigers had the day off, Polanco, Pudge, and Ordonez, and they had a shot at winning, past years, you would have turned the game off by the 4th. This is going to be a great year, I am looking forward to Chicago coming to town!!!!! >>

Hardcore, I'd have to agree with you EXCEPT for the way Leyland rests guys. Today they scored 6 runs with their split-squad team (thanks mainly to Thames), but I can think of 2 other games they lost recently (both with Robertson starting) when the pitching held the opposition to less 3 runs. One game was the last game of the series in Milwaukee. He rested Granderson and Pudge. On top of that, he moved his 9th hitter (Inge, who I love by the way, but the guy is hitting .220) to leadoff and batted Pudge's replacement (Wilson) 3rd! The Tigers had to make the long trip from Milwaukee to Detroit that evening, and they had an off day the next day.

Today, perhaps, was the worst I've ever seen. The players just had 3 days off for the All-Star break, they have an off day tomorrow, and he sits 3 of his key starters in ONE GAME! I don't care if the Tigers go undefeated the rest of the year including the playoffs and World Series, nobody can argue that his lineup today was anything but essentially throwing the game. If I were the starting pitcher, or if I paid even $20 to go see the game, I'd be fuming. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem resting Pudge in 100 degree heat on a day game after a night game (as long as he DH'd), but the rest of it is simply ridiculous.

The other thing I just don't understand is that when he rests Pudge, he bats his replacement (Vance Wilson) 3rd! This guy plays once every 10 games and when he does he bats 3rd? What is that all about? Either the guy is good enough to bat 3rd, in which case he should be playing nearly everyday, or he's a guy that plays once a week, in which case he should not be batting 3rd.

Pretty critical I know for a guy who is a miracle worker, but am I wrong? Dissenting opinions certainly welcome, I just don't get it. >>

If you look, when Vance Wilson plays, he does well, he had 2 hits today too, but he batted 9th today. Pudge sat today, because it was a day game, they have done that with him the last 2 1/2 years, and he is not 19 years old anymore. Perhaps the rest he gives these guys now, will pay off in the end, but most every decision Leyland has made thus far, has been the correct move, and from what I see, he is not your conventional coach either. And BTW, Brandon Inge is much better than his BA shows, he is as clutch as any player in baseball IMO, he just needs to work on his strikeouts!!!

detroitfan2 · July 16, 2006 12:24PM

<< And BTW, Brandon Inge is much better than his BA shows, he is as clutch as any player in baseball IMO!!! >>

I would take 9 Brandon Inges on my team. In the dictionary next to the term "gamer" is a picture of Brandon Inge. I don't understand why HE never gets an off day though!

softparade · July 16, 2006 12:29PM

detroit ..... switch your attention to the Sox series! They are coming into town after getting swept and this is probably the first really big series of the EARLY stretch run for them. Some real distance can be put between the Tigers and the Sox ...... especially with the series being at home for the Tigers. Pennant stretch baseball is THE BEST!!

hardcorehockeyfan · July 16, 2006 12:30PM

<< << And BTW, Brandon Inge is much better than his BA shows, he is as clutch as any player in baseball IMO!!! >>

I would take 9 Brandon Inges on my team. In the dictionary next to the term "gamer" is a picture of Brandon Inge. I don't understand why HE never gets an off day though! >>

Brandon Inge has rarely had an off day since he became the 3rd baseman, and he NEVER wants to be out of the game, and he is a true gamer. Why the other guys were rested, I do not know, Pudge always gets the day games after a night game off, I think Mags has a leg that is slightly bothering him. I think a ton had to do with the heat today, but otherwise, I cannot tell you why. Probably just as simple as giving them two days off, and having well rested players.

hardcorehockeyfan · July 16, 2006 12:31PM

<< detroit ..... switch your attention to the Sox series! They are coming into town after getting swept and this is probably the first really big series of the EARLY stretch run for them. Some real distance can be put between the Tigers and the Sox ...... especially with the series being at home for the Tigers. Pennant stretch baseball is THE BEST!! >>

I agree with you on that, and the stretch run is going to be exciting!!!

detroitfan2 · July 16, 2006 12:36PM

<<detroit ..... switch your attention to the Sox series! They are coming into town after getting swept and this is probably the first really big series of the EARLY stretch run for them. Some real distance can be put between the Tigers and the Sox ...... especially with the series being at home for the Tigers. Pennant stretch baseball is THE BEST!! >>

Softparade, you can't even believe how psyched I am! Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately), I'm old enough to have been in my "baseball fan" prime in 1984, so at least I've seen some baseball excitement in Detroit (something a whole generation of teenagers cannot say). The town is very ready. Still a long way to go, I know, but it looks like they're in it for the long haul, and this upcoming series can go a LONG way towards determining the eventual winner.

I'm not sure having another Detroit team finish the regular season with the best record in the league is a good thing though after what the Pistons and Red Wings pulled.

In any case, thanks to your Yankees for taking care of the Chisox. All of a sudden things are heating up in the East too, which is always a good thing for baseball.

hardcorehockeyfan · July 16, 2006 1:22PM

<< I'm not sure having another Detroit team finish the regular season with the best record in the league is a good thing though after what the Pistons and Red Wings pulled.

<< 

I hate basketball, but they lost to the eventual champ.

Wings lost to a Cup finalist who lost in the 7th game.

Makes things much easier to bear, but we have seen those teams win 3 times since the Tigers made the playoffs last!!

grote15 · July 16, 2006 1:27PM

Actually, Bri, if you compare the MLB batting leaders from 1970 through 1979 with the MLB batting leaders over the last 10 years, you will discover that in 9 out of the last 10 seasons, the batting champ had an average of .350 or higher. In the 1970s, only 6 batting leaders had an average better than .350. Also, if you exclude Rod Carew's average of .388 in 1977, no batting champ in the 1970s hit higher than .366. Over the last 10 seasons, we've seen league-high averages of .379, .372 (three times), .370. The reason, however, that I used the 1960s in my example to you, though, was that the 1960s represented the last decade with the higher mound. Can you imagine a starting pitcher today with an ERA of 1.12 like Bob Gibson's in 1968? Like Skin stated, the role of the reliever in today's game has certainly changed the complexion and the strategy of the game, but I don't agree that it has made it any tougher on the hitters with all the advantages they have in this day and age. One needs only to look at the league ERA numbers for most teams to see that.

perkdog · July 16, 2006 11:42PM

<< I am not a fan of the man,. >>

Bri, your not a fan of Joey D? That suprises me

bri2327 · July 17, 2006 12:04AM

<< 

<< I am not a fan of the man,. >>

Bri, your not a fan of Joey D? That suprises me >>

Nope, never was, never will be. Several reasons.

First let me say that I never saw him play, so I am going on secondhand accounts of him and stories I have heard over the years.

One thing that really sticks in my head is the stories told of how he treated Mickey Mantle as a rookie. He wouldnt give the guy the time of day. Apparently he was too good for many of his teammates. Of course there is the play in the 51 series where he called Mantle off the ball late, causing Mickey to shred his leg in the drainpipe.

Another story that will always cause me to have a sour taste for the guy is one I heard several years ago regarding a benefit dinner held in Dimaggio's honor. As the story went there was a dinner in NYC held for him, with former teammates, contemporaries of his, press, other celebrities, etc. As the guest of honor they commisioned an artist to do a painting of Joe D. The painting depicted DiMaggio in the outfield of Yankee stadium. Well, with all on hand to give the man his day they unveiled the painting for him. He took one look at it and noticed the artist had gotten the dimensions of the old Yankee stadium incorrect in the painting. It was a simple mistake, the numbers in the background of the painting were off by a bit....well, instead of having some class and overlooking the incident, taking into account that all these people came out in his honor and took their time to be there strictly for him, DiMaggio proceeded to leave right there on the spot. Apparently it bothered him so much that the painting was incorrect that he just flat out left everyone there hanging and took off.

Again, I never saw him play, though I am sure he was great, but there is enough stories out there about him as a person for me not to like him.

Skinpinch · July 17, 2006 12:46AM

53 players hit over .340 in the 14 year span from '93 - '06

54 players hit over .340 in the previous 38 YEARS!

Add the individual season records that fell...

Hits
SLG%
Ob % (Twice)
OPS (Twice)
HR (Six times)
BB (three times)
Singles

I would say that relief pitching does make it harder, but in the live ball-small park-body armored-no inside pitching-expansion pitching era, those factors dwarf the relief pitcher factor. So it is fair to say that Wade Boggs in his prime had a tougher time than Joe D, but not anybody in this era can make that claim.

Then of course, the guys from the 30's on down, mainly due to the defensive limitations, had the best chance to have a high batting average, when .400 was eclipsed often. The .400 average is a result of a few things, none of which translates to a .400 average in the tougher eras.

In summation, the 70's/80's had the largest talent pool to choose from(depth in MLB), and they also had to deal with the relief pitcher(though not to the crazy degree of today). So if somebody is saying Rod Carew/Boggs had a harder chance to do what Joe D. did, then it is accurate. But if it is simply based on the notion of relief pitching making it harder, and then applying that statement to this era because it is the king of relief pitching use, then it isn't accurate at all.

EDITED TO ADD: The reason why the league batting average is somewhat supressed, in light of the fact that the stars had their way with the thin pitching, is because expansion(and lower talent pool) also create thin hitting. The thin hitting supresses the overall batting average, while the stars have their way. The same is for ERA. The league ERA is ballooned by a bunch of guys who would not be there in the era 25 years earlier, so the ace pitchers beef up on the thin hitters, and the thin pitchers balloon up the ERA. This creates an environment where the stars of the era can A) Reach lofty accomplishments, and B)Can separate themselves from the league average to a degree that is simply not attainable in a more balanced talent era.

There are also other factors that make it easier for super stars to take advantage, and where it may help the HR type hitters, the BA type hitters also receive an advantage. Heck, even the pitchers batting average went up in this era. In the 80's/early 90's the pitchers average would be typically about .138, and in this era it is in the .145 range. So even though HR hitters see a greater benefit to the environment, the singles hitters also see an advantage. You can't get any more singlish than a pitcher hitting.

perkdog · July 20, 2006 10:18AM

Hammering Hank hit his last homerun.

Wabittwax · July 21, 2006 1:37AM

I really disagree with the argument the pitching is diminished nowadays due to expansion. Sure there might have been less teams back then, but there were also less people in the US. So the talent pool to choose from for major league teams was also smaller. I haven't checked for sure, but I would guess that the population growth in the US (or the world for that matter) is on equal pace with the growth of players in baseball.

That's also not taking into account the massive explosion of baseball's popularity in Latin America in the last few decades. Including the millions of aspiring MLB players in Central America and the Carribean that is present today, I would say that pitching is actually tougher now than 70 years ago. I would apply the same theory to hitters as well. Think about it, there is probably at least hundreds of thousands of people, just in the North America region, that can throw a ball 90 MPH. The best of the best are going into MLB today.

Skinpinch · July 21, 2006 3:50AM

When you are comparing the late 70's/80's to the late 90's/00's, there is a big difference. There were four less teams in those years AND there are LESS people to choose from now, which makes it a double whammy. While the total US population has risen, that population increase is from older non playing age. There are less viable baseball aged players to choose from.

Latin America....the best players from latin america were already being taken in the 70's/80's, so that doesn't matter. While the Latin ballplayer population has gone up, it has coincided with a similar decrease in black/american players. Asian players who have made an impact can be counted on one hand. THe notion of the world game is a Bud Selig-ism, and is simply not true.

For instance, in 1985 there were appx 2,154,000 twenty eight year old american born males to choose from for baseball, or 82,596 per team. In 2004 there were appx 1,583,894 twenty eight year old american born males to choose from, or 52,796 per team. 1985 was already getting all the best Latin Players, and had a large black population. 2004 gets the same best lating players, and more of them as well(but that is offset by the large decline of the black population in the game). The only other place the 80's didn't draw from that is drawn from now is the Asian rim.

This is just 28 year old males. Ages 24-34 see the same differential. Were talking appx. four+ million more baseball aged people to chose from in 1984, as compared to 2004. A thinner population to choose from in 2004. To make matters worse, in 2004 THERE WERE FOUR MORE TEAMS TO FILL TOO! So yeah, the talent is thinned out for sure.

The Big Unknown!?! The big unknown, unlike the known of the demographics, is the number of players baseball has lost to other sports. There is no doubt whatsoever that baseball has lost far more players to other sports when being compared to the 70's 80's. We just don't know how many. Whatever the number is, it thins out this age even more, and should account for any other variable in the populations.

If the same stuff is being applied to the Pre War years, then yes, it pretty much evens out...the number of teams compared to the population available.

Wabittwax · July 23, 2006 10:21PM

Interesting data. I didn't realize that there were so many twenty something males in the US in the 70's and 80's. That theory might explain the lack of real power in those decades. Maybe the pitching was just that tough then. 40 HR's back then would be cosidered a monster year and might even win you the MVP. Nowadays, some players are close to that at All Star break.

Skinpinch · July 23, 2006 11:50PM

Wabbit, there are lot of factors for the total offensive explosion. This is more for competition study, and how it is easier/harder to separate oneself from the league average(which is the standard way of measurement.

Aside from the stuff above about thinning of talent, there is one other unknown factor to go along with the other unknown(the loss of talent to other sports), and that is the way players are scouted and drafted.

Baseball drafts on tools, and not ability to play. They don't even look at pitchers unless they can light up the radar gun, and/or are tall. The result is that you see a lot of guys in MLB who can light up a gun, but who have horrible command...and they can't 'pitch'. Baseball scouting wasn't always like that. They didnt' live by a radar gun like now. Sure, a guy who throws 70 MPH wouldn't get looked at anywhere, but they wouldn't live by the gun like they do.

Looking at hitters is done the same way. They want guys who can run like deers, have a cannon arm, and can hit the ball 400+ feet. There is a good chance that Pete Rose would not even get drafted if he was in high school within the past 15 years, as he didn't really excel in any of those attributes. MLB would be more inclined to pick a guy like Gabe Kapler, who can hit the ball far, run fast, and have a strong arm.

Wabittwax · July 24, 2006 12:18AM

Well, then for as much crap as McGwire takes these days, his 49 HR Record in 1987 should be touted much higher than it is if the pitching was tougher. As a rookie, it's really an incredible feat in a non-HR era of baseball.

aro13 · July 24, 2006 2:28AM

~"Baseball drafts on tools, and not ability to play. They don't even look at pitchers unless they can light up the radar gun, and/or are tall. The result is that you see a lot of guys in MLB who can light up a gun, but who have horrible command...and they can't 'pitch'. Baseball scouting wasn't always like that. They didnt' live by a radar gun like now. Sure, a guy who throws 70 MPH wouldn't get looked at anywhere, but they wouldn't live by the gun like they do."~

While I agree with this comment I am not certain that this drafting process is a new idea. The book moneyball tries to make the opposite case. Plus, it shows the drafting of Billy Beane by the Mets in the early 80's was because of his tools. The scouts drooled over him. Scouts have always been in love with position players who are very athletic and hard throwing, big pitchers.

In one of Bill James books he talked about why home run hitting and offensive statistics have exploded. He put very little argument forward for the shortage of good pitching.

One of the biggest changes in home run hitting today is the huge amount of opposite field homeruns being hit. Hitters today stand on the plate and while they are hit hit far more often they also have control of the outside corner of the plate. Since the early 80's opposite field homeruns have almost tripled. This fact has nothing to do with bad pitching but rather, strength training, smaller ballparks and James would argue the use of aluminum bats in amateur ball.

Skinpinch · July 24, 2006 2:44AM

Aro, I agree with much of what you say. There are many factors for the advent of the big offensive numbers, and the batters standing on top of the plate is one of the key ones(and the body armor that goes with it). Jeff Bagwell simply would not get away with his batting style in a different era. He may have still stayed on top of the plate, but without being able to wear body armor, he would have many broken wrists in his lifetime. He certainly would not have been able to own both sides of the plate. I couldn't agree more with this.

As for the drafting, yes tools have always been important, but some guys don't even get looked at who don't have the key tools scouts look for. Lets say the draft leans more towards the tools more now than before.

McGwires HR feat was good, though his next four seasons weren't too great.

As for the talent thinning, that has to do with players being able to separate themselves from the league average. There are era's where that is easier to accomplish, because there are less players available. Yet many measurements use the league average as the yardstick to evaluate cross era's, but that isn't quite enough.

hardcorehockeyfan · July 24, 2006 4:48PM

<< 

<< 

<< I am not a fan of the man,. >>

Bri, your not a fan of Joey D? That suprises me >>

Nope, never was, never will be. Several reasons.

First let me say that I never saw him play, so I am going on secondhand accounts of him and stories I have heard over the years.

One thing that really sticks in my head is the stories told of how he treated Mickey Mantle as a rookie. He wouldnt give the guy the time of day. Apparently he was too good for many of his teammates. Of course there is the play in the 51 series where he called Mantle off the ball late, causing Mickey to shred his leg in the drainpipe.

Another story that will always cause me to have a sour taste for the guy is one I heard several years ago regarding a benefit dinner held in Dimaggio's honor. As the story went there was a dinner in NYC held for him, with former teammates, contemporaries of his, press, other celebrities, etc. As the guest of honor they commisioned an artist to do a painting of Joe D. The painting depicted DiMaggio in the outfield of Yankee stadium. Well, with all on hand to give the man his day they unveiled the painting for him. He took one look at it and noticed the artist had gotten the dimensions of the old Yankee stadium incorrect in the painting. It was a simple mistake, the numbers in the background of the painting were off by a bit....well, instead of having some class and overlooking the incident, taking into account that all these people came out in his honor and took their time to be there strictly for him, DiMaggio proceeded to leave right there on the spot. Apparently it bothered him so much that the painting was incorrect that he just flat out left everyone there hanging and took off.

Again, I never saw him play, though I am sure he was great, but there is enough stories out there about him as a person for me not to like him. >>

how he treated Mickey Mantle as a rookie

Wah Wah Wah, as if any other rookie in any other sport has not been treated the same, if not worse!!!

On This Date in Baseball...

Comments