8/7 vs Rockies
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
SteadyFreddy
8/7 vs Rockies
I expect Archer to be much better today then he was last Friday when he pitched. This is why they got a guy like Archer for situations like today where you need to win a series against one of the teams you are a few games behind in the chase for a playoff spot.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
8/7 vs Rockies
7753474F4A260 wrote: Taillon now leads the NL with 2 CGs. 4 AL pitchers also have 2.
Boy how things have changed. Vern Law pitched 18 complete games in 1960.
I have a theory that pitch counts are waaaay higher than back then. It would give an explanation to the lack of CGs other than the old "players today are so soft!" and also explain the reason why games are so much longer. if a 6 inning performance today is 100 pitches and a 9 inning game was 100 40 years ago it would explain a lot. Games aren't longer because of trips to the mound, or stepping out of the box, or whatever, but because the ball is being thrown a lot more. Guys want to work long counts, which gets pitchers out of game, brings in relievers--all good plans, but they extend the games. Any attempts to make games shorter would fall flat unless you somehow got batters to swing and gets outs or hits more.
I can't seem to find a lot of resources to see if that's right, as there only seems to be track of that since the late 80s.
From an article:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/blog ... /7533.html
In 2009, starting pitchers averaged 95 pitchers per game. In 1988, it was 96 per game.
Boy how things have changed. Vern Law pitched 18 complete games in 1960.
I have a theory that pitch counts are waaaay higher than back then. It would give an explanation to the lack of CGs other than the old "players today are so soft!" and also explain the reason why games are so much longer. if a 6 inning performance today is 100 pitches and a 9 inning game was 100 40 years ago it would explain a lot. Games aren't longer because of trips to the mound, or stepping out of the box, or whatever, but because the ball is being thrown a lot more. Guys want to work long counts, which gets pitchers out of game, brings in relievers--all good plans, but they extend the games. Any attempts to make games shorter would fall flat unless you somehow got batters to swing and gets outs or hits more.
I can't seem to find a lot of resources to see if that's right, as there only seems to be track of that since the late 80s.
From an article:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/blog ... /7533.html
In 2009, starting pitchers averaged 95 pitchers per game. In 1988, it was 96 per game.
-
Bobster21
8/7 vs Rockies
30020E0E1A280B020F0A0502630 wrote: Taillon now leads the NL with 2 CGs. 4 AL pitchers also have 2.
Boy how things have changed. Vern Law pitched 18 complete games in 1960.
I have a theory that pitch counts are waaaay higher than back then. It would give an explanation to the lack of CGs other than the old "players today are so soft!" and also explain the reason why games are so much longer. if a 6 inning performance today is 100 pitches and a 9 inning game was 100 40 years ago it would explain a lot. Games aren't longer because of trips to the mound, or stepping out of the box, or whatever, but because the ball is being thrown a lot more. Guys want to work long counts, which gets pitchers out of game, brings in relievers--all good plans, but they extend the games. Any attempts to make games shorter would fall flat unless you somehow got batters to swing and gets outs or hits more.
I can't seem to find a lot of resources to see if that's right, as there only seems to be track of that since the late 80s.
From an article:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/blog ... /7533.html
In 2009, starting pitchers averaged 95 pitchers per game. In 1988, it was 96 per game.
In those old days they didn't have pitch counts. A starter remained in the game as long as he was effective and didn't need to be PH for. Saves were not an important stat and an effective starter with a lead of 1-3 runs was not lifted merely so a reliever could add to his save total. The 100-pitch count is arbitrary. No study has ever determined that it is the optimum number of pitches to throw. It's just a nice round number. A 9 inning game can rarely be completed on 100 pitches and in the days of CGs no one was limiting the starter's pitches. If teams just adopted a 120--pitch philosophy there still wouldn't be the CGs of yesteryear but there would probably be at least twice as many as we see now. But the desire for saves will still limit it. I doubt Taillon would have been allowed to go out for the 9th last night if the score had been 5-2 rather than 10-2. Even in the rare CGs we see in MLB today, they are seldom done unless the lead was big enough in the 9th to preclude a save situation.
Boy how things have changed. Vern Law pitched 18 complete games in 1960.
I have a theory that pitch counts are waaaay higher than back then. It would give an explanation to the lack of CGs other than the old "players today are so soft!" and also explain the reason why games are so much longer. if a 6 inning performance today is 100 pitches and a 9 inning game was 100 40 years ago it would explain a lot. Games aren't longer because of trips to the mound, or stepping out of the box, or whatever, but because the ball is being thrown a lot more. Guys want to work long counts, which gets pitchers out of game, brings in relievers--all good plans, but they extend the games. Any attempts to make games shorter would fall flat unless you somehow got batters to swing and gets outs or hits more.
I can't seem to find a lot of resources to see if that's right, as there only seems to be track of that since the late 80s.
From an article:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/blog ... /7533.html
In 2009, starting pitchers averaged 95 pitchers per game. In 1988, it was 96 per game.
In those old days they didn't have pitch counts. A starter remained in the game as long as he was effective and didn't need to be PH for. Saves were not an important stat and an effective starter with a lead of 1-3 runs was not lifted merely so a reliever could add to his save total. The 100-pitch count is arbitrary. No study has ever determined that it is the optimum number of pitches to throw. It's just a nice round number. A 9 inning game can rarely be completed on 100 pitches and in the days of CGs no one was limiting the starter's pitches. If teams just adopted a 120--pitch philosophy there still wouldn't be the CGs of yesteryear but there would probably be at least twice as many as we see now. But the desire for saves will still limit it. I doubt Taillon would have been allowed to go out for the 9th last night if the score had been 5-2 rather than 10-2. Even in the rare CGs we see in MLB today, they are seldom done unless the lead was big enough in the 9th to preclude a save situation.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
8/7 vs Rockies
082528393E2F38787B4A0 wrote: Taillon now leads the NL with 2 CGs. 4 AL pitchers also have 2.
Boy how things have changed. Vern Law pitched 18 complete games in 1960.
I have a theory that pitch counts are waaaay higher than back then. It would give an explanation to the lack of CGs other than the old "players today are so soft!" and also explain the reason why games are so much longer. if a 6 inning performance today is 100 pitches and a 9 inning game was 100 40 years ago it would explain a lot. Games aren't longer because of trips to the mound, or stepping out of the box, or whatever, but because the ball is being thrown a lot more. Guys want to work long counts, which gets pitchers out of game, brings in relievers--all good plans, but they extend the games. Any attempts to make games shorter would fall flat unless you somehow got batters to swing and gets outs or hits more.
I can't seem to find a lot of resources to see if that's right, as there only seems to be track of that since the late 80s.
From an article:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/blog ... /7533.html
In 2009, starting pitchers averaged 95 pitchers per game. In 1988, it was 96 per game.
In those old days they didn't have pitch counts. A starter remained in the game as long as he was effective and didn't need to be PH for. Saves were not an important stat and an effective starter with a lead of 1-3 runs was not lifted merely so a reliever could add to his save total. The 100-pitch count is arbitrary. No study has ever determined that it is the optimum number of pitches to throw. It's just a nice round number. A 9 inning game can rarely be completed on 100 pitches and in the days of CGs no one was limiting the starter's pitches. If teams just adopted a 120--pitch philosophy there still wouldn't be the CGs of yesteryear but there would probably be at least twice as many as we see now. But the desire for saves will still limit it. I doubt Taillon would have been allowed to go out for the 9th last night if the score had been 5-2 rather than 10-2. Even in the rare CGs we see in MLB today, they are seldom done unless the lead was big enough in the 9th to preclude a save situation.
(of course not, he would have been pinch hit for in the 8th inning)
I mean they didn't keep track of numbers of pitches per game per team, not "pitch counts" as it refers to limits on a specific pitcher. No one seems to have kept track of number of balls thrown or how many pitches an batter saw before something happened.
My uneducated guess is that the average number of pitches per starter has been relatively static--it's just that that number only gets you to six innings where in the past it got you to 8 or 9 or whatever.
If a team has to throw 150 pitches to get through a game where it was only 120 (just making up those numbers) 50 years ago, no wonder why games are longer. The "moneyball" era says to work pitch counts and tire out pitchers so that you can get to the bullpen. First pitch swings are exceedingly rare.
Using my own math and the method that the article uses, teams use an average of 148.56 pitches per game in 2018. There have always been freaks like Nolan Ryan, but I imagine that not many guys are going to go out and throw 150 pitches every 4th or fifth day.
For static pitch counts, I understand why people don't like it but at the same time understand the need. And nobody can deny that pitchers are less effective the third or fourth time through the order. That is a stark fact.
Boy how things have changed. Vern Law pitched 18 complete games in 1960.
I have a theory that pitch counts are waaaay higher than back then. It would give an explanation to the lack of CGs other than the old "players today are so soft!" and also explain the reason why games are so much longer. if a 6 inning performance today is 100 pitches and a 9 inning game was 100 40 years ago it would explain a lot. Games aren't longer because of trips to the mound, or stepping out of the box, or whatever, but because the ball is being thrown a lot more. Guys want to work long counts, which gets pitchers out of game, brings in relievers--all good plans, but they extend the games. Any attempts to make games shorter would fall flat unless you somehow got batters to swing and gets outs or hits more.
I can't seem to find a lot of resources to see if that's right, as there only seems to be track of that since the late 80s.
From an article:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/blog ... /7533.html
In 2009, starting pitchers averaged 95 pitchers per game. In 1988, it was 96 per game.
In those old days they didn't have pitch counts. A starter remained in the game as long as he was effective and didn't need to be PH for. Saves were not an important stat and an effective starter with a lead of 1-3 runs was not lifted merely so a reliever could add to his save total. The 100-pitch count is arbitrary. No study has ever determined that it is the optimum number of pitches to throw. It's just a nice round number. A 9 inning game can rarely be completed on 100 pitches and in the days of CGs no one was limiting the starter's pitches. If teams just adopted a 120--pitch philosophy there still wouldn't be the CGs of yesteryear but there would probably be at least twice as many as we see now. But the desire for saves will still limit it. I doubt Taillon would have been allowed to go out for the 9th last night if the score had been 5-2 rather than 10-2. Even in the rare CGs we see in MLB today, they are seldom done unless the lead was big enough in the 9th to preclude a save situation.
(of course not, he would have been pinch hit for in the 8th inning)
I mean they didn't keep track of numbers of pitches per game per team, not "pitch counts" as it refers to limits on a specific pitcher. No one seems to have kept track of number of balls thrown or how many pitches an batter saw before something happened.
My uneducated guess is that the average number of pitches per starter has been relatively static--it's just that that number only gets you to six innings where in the past it got you to 8 or 9 or whatever.
If a team has to throw 150 pitches to get through a game where it was only 120 (just making up those numbers) 50 years ago, no wonder why games are longer. The "moneyball" era says to work pitch counts and tire out pitchers so that you can get to the bullpen. First pitch swings are exceedingly rare.
Using my own math and the method that the article uses, teams use an average of 148.56 pitches per game in 2018. There have always been freaks like Nolan Ryan, but I imagine that not many guys are going to go out and throw 150 pitches every 4th or fifth day.
For static pitch counts, I understand why people don't like it but at the same time understand the need. And nobody can deny that pitchers are less effective the third or fourth time through the order. That is a stark fact.
8/7 vs Rockies
Just as a short reminder note, today's game is at 3:10.
-
Bobster21
8/7 vs Rockies
Another issue is the shrunken strike zone. Batters want to work the pitch counts anyway because they know a good starter will be gone as soon as he gets around 100. So they take pitches that they might otherwise have put in play and sped the game up. But besides wanting to drive up the pitch count, batters can take pitches they could have hit because umps will call them balls and and either try for a walk or try to get a 2-0 or 3-1 count and wait for a fatter pitch. Years ago the strike zone was not so small and batters went after pitches earlier in the count for fear they might not see a better pitch (plus getting rid of the starter based on pitch count was not a thing then).
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
8/7 vs Rockies
7F525F4E49584F0F0C3D0 wrote: Another issue is the shrunken strike zone. Batters want to work the pitch counts anyway because they know a good starter will be gone as soon as he gets around 100. So they take pitches that they might otherwise have put in play and sped the game up. But besides wanting to drive up the pitch count, batters can take pitches they could have hit because umps will call them balls and and either try for a walk or try to get a 2-0 or 3-1 count and wait for a fatter pitch. Years ago the strike zone was not so small and batters went after pitches earlier in the count for fear they might not see a better pitch (plus getting rid of the starter based on pitch count was not a thing then).
Yeah, if doing something with the strike zone makes guys swing more I'm for it. More swings=more things happening=shorter but better games. And no messing with other silly things on the edges to shave a minute or two from game times.
The article:"In 1988, teams averaged 136.2 pitches per game. In 2009, it was 147.4, an increase of 8% over the 21-year period." So that's per 11 team, that's 22 more pitches per game. Like an entire half inning of nothing happening. I wouldn't be surprised if he was much more going further back.
Yeah, if doing something with the strike zone makes guys swing more I'm for it. More swings=more things happening=shorter but better games. And no messing with other silly things on the edges to shave a minute or two from game times.
The article:"In 1988, teams averaged 136.2 pitches per game. In 2009, it was 147.4, an increase of 8% over the 21-year period." So that's per 11 team, that's 22 more pitches per game. Like an entire half inning of nothing happening. I wouldn't be surprised if he was much more going further back.
8/7 vs Rockies
665458584C7E5D54595C5354350 wrote: Another issue is the shrunken strike zone. Batters want to work the pitch counts anyway because they know a good starter will be gone as soon as he gets around 100. So they take pitches that they might otherwise have put in play and sped the game up. But besides wanting to drive up the pitch count, batters can take pitches they could have hit because umps will call them balls and and either try for a walk or try to get a 2-0 or 3-1 count and wait for a fatter pitch. Years ago the strike zone was not so small and batters went after pitches earlier in the count for fear they might not see a better pitch (plus getting rid of the starter based on pitch count was not a thing then).
Yeah, if doing something with the strike zone makes guys swing more I'm for it. More swings=more things happening=shorter but better games. And no messing with other silly things on the edges to shave a minute or two from game times.
The article:"In 1988, teams averaged 136.2 pitches per game. In 2009, it was 147.4, an increase of 8% over the 21-year period." So that's per 11 team, that's 22 more pitches per game. Like an entire half inning of nothing happening. I wouldn't be surprised if he was much more going further back.
I couldn't get pitch counts but I compared AL 2017 to AL 1949 on baseball reference.
Some things were close.
Average Age of pitchers in 1949 28.5, in 2017 28.6
Average age of hitters in 1949 28.8 in 2017 28.6
Average Complete games in 1949 63 in 2017 2
Average homers in 1949 96 in 2017 211
Average walks in 1949 703 in 2017 519
Average strikeouts in 1949 546 in 2017 1320
Team batting avg. in 1949 263 in 2017 256
Average runs per game in 1949 4.67 in 2017 4.71
Yeah, if doing something with the strike zone makes guys swing more I'm for it. More swings=more things happening=shorter but better games. And no messing with other silly things on the edges to shave a minute or two from game times.
The article:"In 1988, teams averaged 136.2 pitches per game. In 2009, it was 147.4, an increase of 8% over the 21-year period." So that's per 11 team, that's 22 more pitches per game. Like an entire half inning of nothing happening. I wouldn't be surprised if he was much more going further back.
I couldn't get pitch counts but I compared AL 2017 to AL 1949 on baseball reference.
Some things were close.
Average Age of pitchers in 1949 28.5, in 2017 28.6
Average age of hitters in 1949 28.8 in 2017 28.6
Average Complete games in 1949 63 in 2017 2
Average homers in 1949 96 in 2017 211
Average walks in 1949 703 in 2017 519
Average strikeouts in 1949 546 in 2017 1320
Team batting avg. in 1949 263 in 2017 256
Average runs per game in 1949 4.67 in 2017 4.71
-
DemDog
8/7 vs Rockies
Hey Bobster, in the good ol' days some of the great pitchers, Law and Koufax in particular messed up their arms. I know Law was plagued at the end of his career with arm troubles at age 37 and Koufax was done by age 30.
I think some of the concern besides what you have said is that teams have soooooo much money tied up in the big time arms that they want to avoid the TJ and Rotator Cuff injuries as much as possible. I think the teams are looking to the Drs, Jobe, Andrews, el-Atrache for guidance on just how much an arm can take and now get screwed up.
Like you those I long for those good ol' days and the ol' fashioned pitcher's duels.
I think some of the concern besides what you have said is that teams have soooooo much money tied up in the big time arms that they want to avoid the TJ and Rotator Cuff injuries as much as possible. I think the teams are looking to the Drs, Jobe, Andrews, el-Atrache for guidance on just how much an arm can take and now get screwed up.
Like you those I long for those good ol' days and the ol' fashioned pitcher's duels.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
8/7 vs Rockies
There are also of course a lot more starting pitchers now (more teams) so many that never would have "made it" back then.