Modern strikeouts records are WAY overrated

[Dodgerfan1]

I know there are a lot of members on this forum who like giving special dispensation to certain players based on particular influencial factors, for example: awarding players an 'era credit' (fielding averages of players in the 'old days' are worse because the gloves were lousy, therefore a guy with a crummy FA was actually a great fielder because the rest of the league sucked), 'war credits' (players' stats are projected one way or another based on how they were doing (peak) right before the war), record-setting hitting stats are recognized as being inflated if set in 1930, record-setting pitching stats are recognized as being inflated if set in 1908 or 1968, etc, etc....

What about strikeouts? Are strikeout stats WAY over-inflated nowadays? I say they are. When Walter Johnson retired in 1927, he was the all-time career strikeout leader. In fact, he held that lofty position for 55 years! As the 1983 season began, Johnson was still first in lifetime K's but, all of a sudden, after the 1983 season was over, he stood at FOURTH place all-time! In a single season, three pitchers had passed him (Carlton, Ryan and Perry). Since then, the books are littered with various strikeout records of one type or another.

Just as the home run records are falling by the wayside as each new year is ended, so, too, are strikeout records. As batters continue to swing from the heels and live or die by the 'big fly', pitchers continue to rack up strikeout records by the boatload.

Should we use the modern era as a point in time to minimize the impressiveness of strikeout records? Or are we still so impressed by the strikeout that we continue to compare the likes of Ryan, Clemens and Randy Johnson to their historical counterparts like Walter, Dizzy and Waddell? Do we give extra 'points' to pitchers like Waddell who struck out so many in a day and age of contact hitters? I think so.

Strikeout statistics in the modern era, much like home run statistics, are way overblown. They need their own wing of the Hall of Fame so that we can compare them with records of other modern players, not with old-time stars. Using this as a benchmark, there is little doubt that the TRUE strikeout king of all-time is probably Waddell. Or possibly Walter Johnson....?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I know there are a lot of members on this forum who like giving special dispensation to certain players based on particular influencial factors, for example: awarding players an 'era credit' (fielding averages of players in the 'old days' are worse because the gloves were lousy, therefore a guy with a crummy FA was actually a great fielder because the rest of the league sucked), 'war credits' (players' stats are projected one way or another based on how they were doing (peak) right before the war), record-setting hitting stats are recognized as being inflated if set in 1930, record-setting pitching stats are recognized as being inflated if set in 1908 or 1968, etc, etc....

What about strikeouts? Are strikeout stats WAY over-inflated nowadays? I say they are. When Walter Johnson retired in 1927, he was the all-time career strikeout leader. In fact, he held that lofty position for 55 years! As the 1983 season began, Johnson was still first in lifetime K's but, all of a sudden, after the 1983 season was over, he stood at FOURTH place all-time! In a single season, three pitchers had passed him (Carlton, Ryan and Perry). Since then, the books are littered with various strikeout records of one type or another.

Just as the home run records are falling by the wayside as each new year is ended, so, too, are strikeout records. As batters continue to swing from the heels and live or die by the 'big fly', pitchers continue to rack up strikeout records by the boatload.

Should we use the modern era as a point in time to minimize the impressiveness of strikeout records? Or are we still so impressed by the strikeout that we continue to compare the likes of Ryan, Clemens and Randy Johnson to their historical counterparts like Walter, Dizzy and Waddell? Do we give extra 'points' to pitchers like Waddell who struck out so many in a day and age of contact hitters? I think so.

No we should not. Remember, guys like Waddell and Johnson pitched many many more innings to rack up those 300 K seasons. How many Ks could Randy Johnson have racked up if he would have pitched 350+ innings?

Strikeout statistics in the modern era, much like home run statistics, are way overblown. They need their own wing of the Hall of Fame so that we can compare them with records of other modern players, not with old-time stars. Using this as a benchmark, there is little doubt that the TRUE strikeout king of all-time is probably Waddell. Or possibly Walter Johnson....?

If we are to nominate a TRUE strikeout king then it should be Dazzy Vance. His 1927 season was simply amazing.

[Dodgerfan1]

No we should not. Remember, guys like Waddell and Johnson pitched many many more innings to rack up those 300 K seasons. How many Ks could Randy Johnson have racked up if he would have pitched 350+ innings?

This is actually to my point! Had Johnson racked up 350+ innings in a single season, he would have WAY more strikeouts than either Walter Johnson or Waddell. WAY more. It's far easier to strike batters out nowadays than just about ever before. If you compare Randy Johnson's lifetime strikeouts per IP ratio (4556/3810) to Walter Johnson's (3509/5915), it's a blowout for Randy.

Hence, I give extra 'points' to pitchers like Waddell who struck out so many in the days of contact hitters.

[Dodgerfan1]

If we are to nominate a TRUE strikeout king then it should be Dazzy Vance. His 1927 season was simply amazing.

Yes it was, but 1927 was also after the dead ball years when Waddell had so many K's.

[AstrosFan]

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=59489&page=2

Actually, this method shows Dazzy's 1927 to not even be one of his top three strikeout seasons.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I know there are a lot of members on this forum who like giving special dispensation to certain players based on particular influencial factors, for example: awarding players an 'era credit' (fielding averages of players in the 'old days' are worse because the gloves were lousy, therefore a guy with a crummy FA was actually a great fielder because the rest of the league sucked), 'war credits' (players' stats are projected one way or another based on how they were doing (peak) right before the war), record-setting hitting stats are recognized as being inflated if set in 1930, record-setting pitching stats are recognized as being inflated if set in 1908 or 1968, etc, etc....

What about strikeouts? Are strikeout stats WAY over-inflated nowadays? I say they are. When Walter Johnson retired in 1927, he was the all-time career strikeout leader. In fact, he held that lofty position for 55 years! As the 1983 season began, Johnson was still first in lifetime K's but, all of a sudden, after the 1983 season was over, he stood at FOURTH place all-time! In a single season, three pitchers had passed him (Carlton, Ryan and Perry). Since then, the books are littered with various strikeout records of one type or another.

Just as the home run records are falling by the wayside as each new year is ended, so, too, are strikeout records. As batters continue to swing from the heels and live or die by the 'big fly', pitchers continue to rack up strikeout records by the boatload.

Should we use the modern era as a point in time to minimize the impressiveness of strikeout records? Or are we still so impressed by the strikeout that we continue to compare the likes of Ryan, Clemens and Randy Johnson to their historical counterparts like Walter, Dizzy and Waddell? Do we give extra 'points' to pitchers like Waddell who struck out so many in a day and age of contact hitters? I think so.

Strikeout statistics in the modern era, much like home run statistics, are way overblown. They need their own wing of the Hall of Fame so that we can compare them with records of other modern players, not with old-time stars. Using this as a benchmark, there is little doubt that the TRUE strikeout king of all-time is probably Waddell. Or possibly Walter Johnson....?

Agree with your premise. The approach of this era's hitter needs to be taken into account...an era where even middle infielders won't shorten up with two strikes. Of course a small counterpoint to this idea, is that the strike zone is extremely hitter friendly, and, in some cases like Bonds and a few others, the zone is absurd. You also have the hitters being more comfortable than ever at the plate. So, just imagine what the strikeout numbers would be if just these two issues were normal.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Yes the strike zone is smaller but the fact still remains Johnson played his career in the contact era, more of a factor in strikeout totals in different time periods than the smaller strike zone.

There was almost a shame to striking out in that era from long ago. The idea was to make contact, don't strike out, qiite common to shorten up with two strikes.

For that matter the strikeout ratio for hitters was much higher in modern times before the 1990's when the strike zone was really shaved off the top.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yes the strike zone is smaller but the fact still remains Johnson played his career in the contact era, more of a factor in strikeout totals in different time periods than the smaller strike zone.

There was almost a shame to striking out in that era from long ago. The idea was to make contact, don't strike out, qiite common to shorten up with two strikes.

For that matter the strikeout ratio for hitters was much higher in modern times before the 1990's when the strike zone was really shaved off the top.

There was a shame to striking out, I agree. Sounds like you're arguing with me here, when I agreed with the thread starter. I pointed out a couple things that should factor into the discussion, but by no means did I suggest that they balance things out. Ks are not the same just like HRs are not the same today. Actually, nothing is the same if you look deep enough.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There was a shame to striking out, I agree. Sounds like you're arguing with me here, when I agreed with the thread starter. I pointed out a couple things that should factor into the discussion, but by no means did I suggest that they balance things out. Ks are not the same just like HRs are not the same today. Actually, nothing is the same if you look deep enough.

It may appear I just took the position that the conditions in the days of old, contact hitting meant that strikeouts were much harder to come by. In a way I did but I am also considering the shrunken strike zone in the last 10 or 15 years, works against todays pitchers.

So I can see both sides, pitchers from way back facing contact hitters but with a much higher strike zone.

Todays pitchers facing free swingers more likely to strike out but with the disadvantage of pitching with a much lower strike zone.

I guess the deciding factor, which combination of those conditions favor which pitchers more, years ago or todays pitchers. Could be the answer lies in the middle, both time periods has some plus and minus conditions.

Your right look deep enough and we find that nothing is the same, thats always part most of the debates on the board, can't be ruled by numbers alone.

[honus14]

From Baseballgraphs.com:

[honus14]

Of course a small counterpoint to this idea, is that the strike zone is extremely hitter friendly, and, in some cases like Bonds and a few others, the zone is absurd.

Interestingly, walks have remained relatively consistent for the last 30 or so years (with some spikes here and there, but not now):

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Cool graph. Doesn't mean much when talking about the strike zone though. All one needs to do is watch a game to see how ridiculous it has become. I'm so sick of seeing hitters crowding the plate with no fear of being hit, and I'm sick of them taking a belt to letter high pitch for a ball, but then when they decide to swing at it, they crush it. Just a joke. They should suspend anyone without pay for 10 games, every time they bitch and moan about the ball coming a little too far inside. Welcome to baseball you prima donna pricks! Get a friekin' pair!