Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 392

Thread: Did Pitchers of Yesteryear Throw With "Much Less" Velocity Than They Do Today?

  1. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister_D View Post
    I don't think anybody doubts that. I believe the argument is whether or not they could throw 100+.
    That's the core of the entire discussion in a nutshell. To add to any generational biases that may arise ["my generation playing now is much better than yours ages ago"], there are other matters never quite clearly defined when velocity figures are tossed around.
    Then, too, there are the measuring devices and their dependability. Finally, the matter of definition of what is actually being measured can further muddy the waters.

    1. Generationally, other sports reflect dramatic evolutions in training methods, equipment worn or used, strength routines that result in shattered old records, with the new one rarely lasting very long themseleves. This is especially so in individual competitions and "team" efforts that arise from individual competitions, like relays. Here the basic competition faced by the athlete is the clock. The skills and feats are awesome; but they are very narrowly and singularly focused, not calling for much in the way of adaptive challenges and other than rote activities and muscle-memorization routines.

    2. Football, despite all the hoopla of Super Bowls and College Bowls and media income funding "higher education" at most institutions, has honed specialized skill sets in athletes, many of whom have sacrifced healthy middle age for a few years of highly payed success of the gridiron: obesity, adult onset diabetes, failed cartilege, joints and muscles, arthritis and rheumatism .... old age by 50. Are they bigger and faster???? Anyone remember 310# Big Daddy Lipscomb tracking running backs across the width of the field annd jarring them to a halt?

    3. Basketball, most legitimately strartling of all has ingeniuosly destroyed the 50 year old sereotype of the clumsy, awkward "big geek" of 6'5" and above who was a potential asset so long as he didn't try to dribble the basketball. Some very savvy types saw the stereotype as a straw man and plugged into the Globetrotter~showmanship theme and devleoped the sport into a run and gun display of physical grace.

    However, if refs called traveling, catching one's own pass, palming, three seconds and other violations with anywhere near the scrutiny of, say the 1950s's and a good percentage of baskets would be disallowed. Also, where the thrill arises from a 6'10" player dunking a ball escapes me completely.

    4. Baseball, by comparison, has skill sets that must be adaptive to changing situations at every position; so the fad is less likely to work its way into the fabric of the game. Aluminum bats are not used for the simple reason that physics tells us somebody would soon be killed at the MLB level of competition.

    5. Pitch velocity: What is really being measured; and what, on the other hand, do most fans and hitters and scouts want to be measured.

    -The modern "guns" are individually callibrated [suspicious???] so their reliability depends on the callibration. These devices capture the forward speed of the pitched ball in the instant of release from the pitcher's hand. So, 103.2 mph is clocked at a distance somewhere around 58-59 feet from home plate. That 103.2 is not what the batter sees a fraction of a second later, when the pitched ball truly becomes a pitch, having entered the batter's contact zone. It has been tested time and again for air pressure, gravity and other forces, revealing that the pitched ball will lose 6-8-10 mph from that instant of release until entry into the swing zone of the batter. [To my knowledge, nobody has been clocked at 103.2 in the contact zone.

    -gravity drop, Army artillery shell velocity devices and the like have tested pitchers from Walter Johnson to Bob Feller; and these seem to focus on feet-per second, where 144 ft/sec = 98.18 mph. If I understand these tests correctly, they capture average speed between point A and point B, which would be more satisfactory than a point-of-release snapshot the the hitter never really "sees" at the plate. The math above is simply 144'/sec * 60 [seconds] = 8,640' in one minute. We know that a mile a minute = 60 mph; so 8,640/5,280 = 1.636*60 mph = 98.18 mph.

    -If this exercise brings us back to the gun, then a Zumaya fastball released at 103.5 mph might just enter the contact zone of the batter at 144'/sec or 98.18 mph, a loss of 5.32 mph from instant of release.

    Bottom line, at least for me, pitchers from 1901 through 1970 could bring it at a release point spped of 100 mph, consistently entering the swing zone @ 92-98 mph. Because of game psychology of starters going deep into games, they paced themselves and didn't go all out on every pitch, preferring to mix speeds and ball movement.

    Today's starters, in an age of higher specialization, do not face 9 inning games as a fact of life, so they may go more often with what they consider their $$$$$$$$ pitch. If it's the fastball, they'll throw it more often.

  2. #277
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,311
    Of course we''ll never know how fast Grove pitched. But looking at Groves' pitching motion I can see where he could throw 95+. But that in no way means that he actually did. Here are video of Groves' pitching motion.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH4KNh_VB8w

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kXJQ...eature=related
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  3. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister_D View Post
    I don't think anybody doubts that. I believe the argument is whether or not they could throw 100+.
    How many people can throw 100+ today? Not that many, that's for sure.

  4. #279
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Caracas, Venezuela
    Posts
    58
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by OleMissCub View Post
    How many people can throw 100+ today? Not that many, that's for sure.
    It depends on the definition of "many people" and "today". At the bottom of this page you can find a list of 50 pitchers who did it since Nolan Ryan in 1974. In my book, that is "many people" and "today".
    Last edited by Mister_D; 07-19-2010 at 06:56 AM.

  5. #280
    Quote Originally Posted by OleMissCub View Post
    How many people can throw 100+ today? Not that many, that's for sure.
    Ole Miss'
    Try Pitch f/x ...

    Here's an example:
    Jonathan Broxton

    These are all the pitches he's thrown which have been clocked at over 99 mph.

    Also, Fangraphs:
    Broxton Overview

    Velocity

    These two sites have complete data (as complete as I could imagine) since 2002.
    Last edited by csh19792001; 07-18-2010 at 07:30 PM.

  6. #281

  7. #282
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,311
    Let me throw this point for discussion. On another forum I posted a short film clip of Mel Ott batting. It shows him batting and there is a slow motion of his swing as well. I made an off-the-cuff comment as to how could Mel Ott be so successful with such a "complex" swing? Someone else commented that he was able to get away with it because the pitcher's of Ott's era didn't throw as hard collectively as today's pitchers. That got me thinking. Is that true? Could a Mel Ott swing even work in today's game? I suspect that if some young prospect came along with a Mel Ott swing his coaches would try to "fix" his swing. Is the fact that the real Mel Ott did succeed with such a swing one piece of evidence that the pitcher's of his era didn't throw as hard collectively as pitchers today? Ott is one of my absolute favorite old time ballplayers by the way.

    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  8. #283
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Northern NE
    Posts
    3,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    Let me throw this point for discussion. On another forum I posted a short film clip of Mel Ott batting. It shows him batting and there is a slow motion of his swing as well. I made an off-the-cuff comment as to how could Mel Ott be so successful with such a "complex" swing? Someone else commented that he was able to get away with it because the pitcher's of Ott's era didn't throw as hard collectively as today's pitchers. That got me thinking. Is that true? Could a Mel Ott swing even work in today's game? I suspect that if some young prospect came along with a Mel Ott swing his coaches would try to "fix" his swing. Is the fact that the real Mel Ott did succeed with such a swing one piece of evidence that the pitcher's of his era didn't throw as hard collectively as pitchers today? Ott is one of my absolute favorite old time ballplayers by the way.
    Ott was only 17 when McGraw got ahold of him...story was that Muggsy saw how well Mel hit the ball with that swing and told the coaches to not mess with the kid.
    A lot of the old timers had very complicated swings...Hornsby, Foxx, and Greenberg had absolutely immense hitches. It may be that lower pitch speeds, and less variety of pitches, let them get away with it...but, I suspect that things like hitches really don't matter a lot as long as a good launch position is achieved at the right time.
    "I throw him four wide ones, then try to pick him off first base." - Preacher Roe on pitching to Musial

  9. #284
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,311
    Quote Originally Posted by hellborn View Post
    Ott was only 17 when McGraw got ahold of him...story was that Muggsy saw how well Mel hit the ball with that swing and told the coaches to not mess with the kid.
    A lot of the old timers had very complicated swings...Hornsby, Foxx, and Greenberg had absolutely immense hitches. It may be that lower pitch speeds, and less variety of pitches, let them get away with it...but, I suspect that things like hitches really don't matter a lot as long as a good launch position is achieved at the right time.
    In Ott's would it matter when facing a lefty like Billy Wagner who can jam Ott inside with a 98 mph fastball? I would be an interesting research project to find out how Ott did against hard throwing lefties.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  10. #285
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    Let me throw this point for discussion. On another forum I posted a short film clip of Mel Ott batting. It shows him batting and there is a slow motion of his swing as well. I made an off-the-cuff comment as to how could Mel Ott be so successful with such a "complex" swing? Someone else commented that he was able to get away with it because the pitcher's of Ott's era didn't throw as hard collectively as today's pitchers. That got me thinking. Is that true? Could a Mel Ott swing even work in today's game?]
    I recall watching Ott for the first time [I'm guessing it was 1943] at the Polo Grounds against the Pirates, with Ott homering and Vince DiMaggio displaying his great arm all in the same game. [It was an off year for Ott but a great year for Vince DiMaggio in CF. Of the three DiMaggio brothers, Joe was the "complete" player all-around the best; but Dom was the best defensive CF, and Vince had the best arm - a rifle.

    I wish I had taken note of it; but, during the 2010 and 2011 seasons, watching some ball games on tv, I noted at least 2 modern players who have an Ott-type kick windup in their swings [less pronounced than Ott, but there]. I can't recall their names now; but I'm sure somebody her might be able to name them.

    I believe that Ott may have been onto something good: a batter motion that puts him in some parasympathetic phsican rhythm with the pitcher. It may sound crazy; but a physical-muscle-nervous system "link" into a rhythm MIGHT make batter mechanics better attuned to pitcher mechanics.

    It may not be pretty; but it very nearly forces a hitter to launch off the back leg [much as the pitcher does]; delay a premature swing, yet start a push-off that puts a turbo charge into the initial forward momentum of the bat; and enable the batter to have a "late bat" into the ball ... all helping to judge the pitch, maybe even lay-off the pitch, and still be quick and late at the same time. It LOOKS like bad hitting; but think of how Lee Trevino and Arnold Palmer looked on the tee.
    Last edited by leewileyfan; 02-03-2012 at 07:34 PM.

  11. #286
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    ? Could a Mel Ott swing even work in today's game? I suspect that if some young prospect came along with a Mel Ott swing his coaches would try to "fix" his swing. Is the fact that the real Mel Ott did succeed with such a swing one piece of evidence that the pitcher's of his era didn't throw as hard collectively as pitchers today? Ott is one of my absolute favorite old time ballplayers by the way.
    "Ad-Rock",
    Re: Ott's leg kick/hitch....remember Dave Winfield's hitch? His mechanics were so horrendous and contorted that he'd lose the bat during many check swings, and often the ump couldn't even tell if he had gone around on check swings. Who was more unorthodox than that? Dave got around fine with that ridiculous batting style.

    How about Sheffield? Like Ott, brought the bat almost down to parallel as the pitcher was releasing the ball.



    Winfield was a lock for the HOF, Sheffield would be, if he wasn't a juicer. Steroids or not, he was a hell of a hitter for years, with that (mad whack) style. Nobody coached it out of those two.
    Last edited by csh19792001; 02-03-2012 at 11:20 PM.

  12. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    In Ott's would it matter when facing a lefty like Billy Wagner who can jam Ott inside with a 98 mph fastball? I would be an interesting research project to find out how Ott did against hard throwing lefties.
    Can't speak to the speed portion, but Ott did quite well against lefties (esp. for a LH hitter). Only about 7% less productive against left handed pitching in his career.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...=b#plato::none

    Consider Ted Williams, by comparison:

    Carrer: (1939-1960)
    Against RHP: .389/.527/.731
    Against LHP: .333/.458/.521


    About 29% less effective against left handed pitching.

  13. #288
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    833
    My theory on why most old-timers had such big hitches is that it is because they used such heavy bats. One point though is that I think that a lot of the footage of old-time players hitting is from BP. From what I have seen, they did not hitch quite as much during the actual games. I have seen some footage of Ott during games (e.g. 1937 WS) when his hitch was much less exaggerated.
    "Batting slumps? I never had one. When a guy hits .358, he doesn't have slumps."

    Rogers Hornsby, 1961

  14. #289
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,055
    Blog Entries
    2
    Dave Winfield


  15. #290
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,055
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mel Ott:

    Vs Righties: .298/.410/.518 in over 6,600 PA
    Vs Lefties: .208/.273/.328 in around 900 PA

    About 3,600 PA of unknown hand.

    In Mel's day Lefty NL'er that were not playing for the Giants completed about 40% of the games they started.
    Last edited by Ubiquitous; 02-19-2012 at 02:07 PM.

  16. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    Dave Winfield

    Super athlete and all the size to boot. If not for that level swing, which worked fine for him, he would have hit some of the longest homers in his time. Most of his home runs were "quick", gone.

    With that level swing, a wonder he never really hurt any infilelders.... or did he, I don't think so.

  17. #292
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,940
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    Super athlete and all the size to boot. If not for that level swing, which worked fine for him, he would have hit some of the longest homers in his time. Most of his home runs were "quick", gone.
    Yeah you're right. I always wondered why Winfield didn't hit more homeruns, or Dave Parker as well for that matter.

  18. #293
    Quote Originally Posted by Joltin' Joe View Post
    Yeah you're right. I always wondered why Winfield didn't hit more homeruns, or Dave Parker as well for that matter.
    Looked to me that Dave with that level swing hit many low drives and some hard gounders, hit so hard they skipped past infileders.
    His swing was something like Frank Howard's, both giants hitting some bullet line drives. I wouldn't want to be playing third base when these two came to bat.

  19. #294
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    Dave Winfield

    Re: Big Dave...

    Should be replayed for all those that think he was just a big, lumbering HR hitter.

    Thanks for sharing this, Ubi.

  20. #295
    On the league quality issue:

    Retrosheet recently posted the 1918 box scores and game logs...I was looking at Walter Johnson's 1918, and realized that he really was either A) Simply the greatest that ever lived, or B) That hitters just weren't nearly as good, on average, back then. Or perhaps, C) both??

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...ear=1918#below

    How did baseball bear any resemblance to today's baseball (or pitching of that era to today's pitching, when, for example):

    1. Clark Griffith left their franchise player (Walter Johnson) in for 18 innings on May 15th? Did anyone know ANYTHING about shoulder and elbow injuries? Forget MRI's and scientific inquiry...didn't they intuitively know they would usually ruin a guy for months, maybe forever, making him endure these workloads? Was their really THAT much of a scarcity of very good or great pitchers on the roster that could have relieved him?

    2. He pitched more than 9 innings 10 times.

    3. Johnson threw 29 complete games. He ALSO relieved 10 games. Earlier in the decade he was completing 40 games and pitching 50.

    So, how was STILL able to put up a 1.27 ERA?

    My line of thinking is.....there's just no way that guys like Johnson were averaging over 30 complete games per season- AND relieving/finishing 5-10 games per year- for over a decade, if they were exerting nearly as much effort per pitch (i.e., throwing nearly as hard) as guys do today. They couldn't have been! It's just not physically possible. When these guys knew they would be pitching on either no rest, or maybe 2-3 days rest, AND would have to complete nearly every game they started, shoulder and elbow injuries must have been far more common than rested arms. AND guys must have pitched injured all the time. Hitters were often teeing off against an exhausted starter for the 4th and 5th time most games, sometimes even more often.

    That never, ever happens today.

    Back then the top starters had to have been throwing 200 pitches regularly...in the past 20 years only a knuckleballer has been over 160 in any single game.

    What also doesn't make sense is how Johnson could have had ERA's like that, despite that workload...unless he was very rarely throwing his 100mph fastball, didn't have to worry about home runs (ever), and just threw 80-90% on most pitches against most hitters. The only logical conclusion I can come up with, given the incredibly low ERA's people put up despite this impossible workload is that there must have been far more "easy outs", with almost no power hitters, most of the action in the infield, and much weaker bottom half of the order hitters. It must have often looked like more like batting practice than what we're used to.

    The other conclusion is that Big Train and others like Pete Alexander were simply bionic men, and he could throw with almost max velocity/effort like Koufax did, 45 games and 340 innings a year, almost always on short rest and often on almost no rest.............and still never suffer a significant arm injury. Which, from what I read in the biographies of both pitchers, neither did until 1919 (Alexander) and 1920 (Big Train).....

    Walter Johnson won 297 games before 1920 even rolled around. 4100 innings, 388 complete games. He allowed 31 home runs, total. That's one (poor) season for a starting pitcher these days....

  21. #296

  22. #297
    The mentality back in the late 1930s and into the '40s was much different from what it is today. Overpowering speed was an eye-opening novelty that made onlookers "oohhhh and aahhhh"; but the key for successful pitchers was MASTERY.

    Mastery meant control and control over the pitches one considered to be in his repertoire. Infield chatter pretty much summed up the psychology: "Make 'im a hitta, babe!" "Ya can't hit it with the bat on yer shoulder, man!" 'Gotcha covered, babe!" The fielders kept the pitcher well-informed why they were out there wearing gloves.

    For batters, contact was crucial. A strike out was frowned upon as a wasted at bat. Of course, anybody with a strong arms and a powerful fastball [as a young guy] loved to pile up the K's [like a gunslinger with notches]. However, if one was lucky enough to have a strong coach or mentor of any kind, he was reminded that strikeouts require multiple pitches [as do walks]; so the non-batted ball at-bats can wear you out.

    Bottom line: Pitchers back in Johnson's day were perfectly capable of bringing it. Those who mastered pitching knew when, how, and in what situations to bring the heat.

    The physical aspect on pitching work loads was: Use it or lose it. Of course, that brought abuses; but the basic concept [IMO] was better tan coddling arms; making specialists out of kids' and limiting endurance expectations to the point that more than half a game per start makes one a workhorse.

  23. #298
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    location, location
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by csh19792001 View Post
    My line of thinking is.....there's just no way that guys like Johnson were averaging over 30 complete games per season- AND relieving/finishing 5-10 games per year- for over a decade, if they were exerting nearly as much effort per pitch (i.e., throwing nearly as hard) as guys do today. They couldn't have been! It's just not physically possible.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...-blisters.html
    A swing--and a smash--and a gray streak partaking/Of ghostly manoeuvres that follow the whack;/The old earth rebounds with a quiver and quaking/And high flies the dust as he thuds on the track;/The atmosphere reels--and it isn't the comet--/There follows the blur of a phantom at play;/Then out from the reel comes the glitter of steel--/And damned be the fellow that gets in the way.                 A swing and a smash--and the far echoes quiver--/A ripping and rearing and volcanic roar;/And off streaks the Ghost with a shake and a shiver,/To hurdle red hell on the way to a score;/A cross between tidal wave, cyclone and earthquake--/Fire, wind and water all out on a lark;/Then out from the reel comes the glitter of steel,/Plus ten tons of dynamite hitched to a spark.

    --Cobb, Grantland Rice

  24. #299
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,311
    Quote Originally Posted by leewileyfan View Post
    The mentality back in the late 1930s and into the '40s was much different from what it is today. Overpowering speed was an eye-opening novelty that made onlookers "oohhhh and aahhhh"; but the key for successful pitchers was MASTERY.

    Mastery meant control and control over the pitches one considered to be in his repertoire. Infield chatter pretty much summed up the psychology: "Make 'im a hitta, babe!" "Ya can't hit it with the bat on yer shoulder, man!" 'Gotcha covered, babe!" The fielders kept the pitcher well-informed why they were out there wearing gloves.

    For batters, contact was crucial. A strike out was frowned upon as a wasted at bat. Of course, anybody with a strong arms and a powerful fastball [as a young guy] loved to pile up the K's [like a gunslinger with notches]. However, if one was lucky enough to have a strong coach or mentor of any kind, he was reminded that strikeouts require multiple pitches [as do walks]; so the non-batted ball at-bats can wear you out.

    Bottom line: Pitchers back in Johnson's day were perfectly capable of bringing it. Those who mastered pitching knew when, how, and in what situations to bring the heat.

    The physical aspect on pitching work loads was: Use it or lose it. Of course, that brought abuses; but the basic concept [IMO] was better tan coddling arms; making specialists out of kids' and limiting endurance expectations to the point that more than half a game per start makes one a workhorse.
    That is still the key to today's game. I don't think that as changed or will ever change. Greg Maddux was a master pitcher. Randy Johnson didn't become a truly great pitcher until he mastered his stuff. Tim Lincecum is struggling because he has yet to really master his stuff and his fastball has declined. Barry Zito is mediocre because he has trouble with his control. Jonathan Sanchez has swing-and-miss stuff but he is terrible because he has no control and no feel for pitching.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  25. #300
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,311
    Quote Originally Posted by csh19792001 View Post
    On the league quality issue:

    Retrosheet recently posted the 1918 box scores and game logs...I was looking at Walter Johnson's 1918, and realized that he really was either A) Simply the greatest that ever lived, or B) That hitters just weren't nearly as good, on average, back then. Or perhaps, C) both??

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...ear=1918#below

    How did baseball bear any resemblance to today's baseball (or pitching of that era to today's pitching, when, for example):

    1. Clark Griffith left their franchise player (Walter Johnson) in for 18 innings on May 15th? Did anyone know ANYTHING about shoulder and elbow injuries? Forget MRI's and scientific inquiry...didn't they intuitively know they would usually ruin a guy for months, maybe forever, making him endure these workloads? Was their really THAT much of a scarcity of very good or great pitchers on the roster that could have relieved him?

    2. He pitched more than 9 innings 10 times.

    3. Johnson threw 29 complete games. He ALSO relieved 10 games. Earlier in the decade he was completing 40 games and pitching 50.

    So, how was STILL able to put up a 1.27 ERA?

    My line of thinking is.....there's just no way that guys like Johnson were averaging over 30 complete games per season- AND relieving/finishing 5-10 games per year- for over a decade, if they were exerting nearly as much effort per pitch (i.e., throwing nearly as hard) as guys do today. They couldn't have been! It's just not physically possible. When these guys knew they would be pitching on either no rest, or maybe 2-3 days rest, AND would have to complete nearly every game they started, shoulder and elbow injuries must have been far more common than rested arms. AND guys must have pitched injured all the time. Hitters were often teeing off against an exhausted starter for the 4th and 5th time most games, sometimes even more often.

    That never, ever happens today.

    Back then the top starters had to have been throwing 200 pitches regularly...in the past 20 years only a knuckleballer has been over 160 in any single game.

    What also doesn't make sense is how Johnson could have had ERA's like that, despite that workload...unless he was very rarely throwing his 100mph fastball, didn't have to worry about home runs (ever), and just threw 80-90% on most pitches against most hitters. The only logical conclusion I can come up with, given the incredibly low ERA's people put up despite this impossible workload is that there must have been far more "easy outs", with almost no power hitters, most of the action in the infield, and much weaker bottom half of the order hitters. It must have often looked like more like batting practice than what we're used to.

    The other conclusion is that Big Train and others like Pete Alexander were simply bionic men, and he could throw with almost max velocity/effort like Koufax did, 45 games and 340 innings a year, almost always on short rest and often on almost no rest.............and still never suffer a significant arm injury. Which, from what I read in the biographies of both pitchers, neither did until 1919 (Alexander) and 1920 (Big Train).....

    Walter Johnson won 297 games before 1920 even rolled around. 4100 innings, 388 complete games. He allowed 31 home runs, total. That's one (poor) season for a starting pitcher these days....
    This kind of stuff was happening into the 1970's. One of my favorite pitching seasons is Gaylord Perry's 1972 Cy young Season with the Indians. It's mostly forgotten now but a while back I was looking at Perry's box scores. Perry had a 22 start stretch where he pitching the following innings per game.

    05/06: 9.0 innings
    05/10: 9.0
    05/14: 10.0
    05/19: 9.0
    05/23: 9.0
    05/27: 8.0
    06/01: 9.0
    06/05: 10.0
    06/09: 9.0
    06/13: 10.2
    06/17: 6.0
    06/21: 9.0
    06/25: 8.1
    06/30: 8.2
    07/06: 9.0
    07/10: 9.0
    07/14: 13.0
    07/19: 9.0
    07/23: 8.2
    07:28: 10.0
    08/01: 9.0
    08/05: 11.0

    Are you kidding me?!! Perry pitched 203 innings in these 22 starts going 15-7 W-L, 1.55 ERA, 19 CG. After this stretch Perry pitched another nine complete games in his final 13 starts.

    48347e125a88c_66095b.jpg
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •