Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dalkowski110
    replied
    Well-put. BTW, here's one of only a handful of period articles about Steve and both his wildness and speed. It appeared in Time Magazine in July, 1960...

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...9618-1,00.html

    Steve is referred to as "Steve Dalkowski Jr." because his father, Steve Sr., was a semi-pro and I believe briefly pro shortstop. Nobody called him Steve though...he was "Ratsy." If he played pro ball, both Steve and his sister claimed he anglicized his name. Steve thought he played as "Steve Dalko" and his sister wasn't sure either way.
    Last edited by Dalkowski110; 07-27-2008, 11:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • deadball-era-rules
    replied
    Originally posted by evetts18 View Post
    But as far as Earl Weaver's (who I really like by the way) comments are concerned, Dalkowski appears to have been his special project. Don't you think that he might have been tempted to exaggerate just a little when talking about him?
    Ok, truthfully, I don't have one sliver of knowledge about dalkowski, but I can say this in his defense: A manager doesn't just pick a favorite player if they don't have something special. there are a few famous cases of managers with pet players, but look at who they were: John McGraw was crazy for Christy Matthewson, Connie Mack had Rube Waddell, Clark Griffith had Walter Johnson. You think they loved these guys because they told good knock-knock jokes? Heck no, you don't become a manager's favorite unless they know you've got some serious special talent. I do think you're being a bit harsh with the incessant questions, you'll never get anywhere asking about every detail like that. I would say that Walter Johnson said it best when rating the fastest of the fastballers. (This isn't an exact quote) There isn't that much of a difference between a fast pitcher and the fastest pitcher, but that tiny difference makes a big difference.

    I'd say that guys like Zumaya, Feller, Dalkowski, Johnson (Walter) and Rusie could all throw with a top speed differential of about two mph. Once you get to 101, a guy throwing 102 isn't that big of a deal, you can barely get a bat around fast enough to make contact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dalkowski110
    replied
    "For example: (A) How do you know he pitched the previous day before being timed? Is this actually documented somewhere? (B) How do you know that he pitched continuously for 15 minutes before getting the ball through the machine? (C) How do you know the distance from which he threw into the machine? (D) How do you even know the effects of these things when put together? (E) What was the velocity recorded by the machine? There seems to be some confusion on that."

    A) I know it because I've seen the boxscore. He pitched against the Reno Silver Sox (was with Stockton at the time) and was yanked in the sixth after walking 12 batters. I've also talked to Steve, and even he thought at the time it was kinda illogical to get him the next day after he started.

    B) Based on estimates from Steve and his sister. They said the 45 minute figures from Sports Illustrated's 1970 article on Steve had been exaggerated and that while he was struggling to get one over, it was more like "15 or 20 minutes, not 45."

    C) The distance was actually specified and recorded by the Baltimore Orioles. You can find that Harry Brecheen, the guy who asked for the test, wanted the same device that recorded Feller for a reason: it was about the width of home plate.

    D) This question is pretty fuzzy, but read any article by anyone from ASMI or Adair's book on physics in baseball and you 1) lose 1-2 mph from not throwing off a mound and 2) depending on who you are, you lose 5-7 mph off your fastball when it decelerates from 45 feet to 60'6". You lose about 30 mph from your hand to the plate; the area of most rapid deceleration is from your hand to the 45' marker.

    E) The velocity recorded was 93.8 mph at 60'6", which at LEAST translates to 99.8 mph at 45 feet.

    "Although, I wonder if they sent others, as well."

    Nope. The Orioles were actually quite reluctant to let Paul Richards and Harry Brecheen set the tests up and because Dalkowski just reared back and fired for fifteen minutes to no avail, they considered the tests a waste of time and a failure.

    "But as far as Earl Weaver's (who I really like by the way) comments are concerned, Dalkowski appears to have been his special project. Don't you think that he might have been tempted to exaggerate just a little when talking about him?"

    No. Absolutely not. And in fact, talk to Steve and if anyone was interested in getting Steve to the Majors, it was Paul Richards and Harry Brecheen. They acted through Weaver, who initially didn't even like Steve much, though was very impressed by his stuff from the get-go. The only reason one would get that impression about Earl Weaver is because back then, the Orioles were very hands off with regards to their pitchers. Steve Dalkowski essentially forced a change in that policy and the guy who best implemented it was Weaver (due to him already employing the hands-on approach he'd become famous for in the Majors).

    "In other words, I don't think that they (Williams, Gillick, etc.) thought Dalkowski was in a league by himself."

    Then there is clearly no way in hell you've ever spoken with Pat Gillick.

    "There's no need to go through it again. Because you're right, I'm not going to believe it. "

    So why the hell did you ask me a bunch of questions? And what exactly is your angle on this forum, other than to second guess me in the silliest ways possible?
    Last edited by Dalkowski110; 07-27-2008, 10:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • evetts18
    replied
    Originally posted by Dalkowski110 View Post
    "I don't even know if it is even humanly possible to throw higher than 103 or so."

    Depends on the distance you throw at. Zumaya is timed at 45 feet with those off-the-charts, 105 mph readings. On a JUGS Radar gun...at 60'6", he likely throws about 99-100 mph.

    "I don't believe that sort of thing is possible, no mater what Earl Weaver thinks."

    Then you're wasting my time. Weaver saw Dalkowski and Ryan throwing at their fastest (if not best) within FOUR YEARS of each other. Fact is, even if there was a catcher who'd caught Dalkowski and Ryan within one year, you'd discount it. Even if Dalkowski managed to get a pitch over, you'd complain about the device being innaccurate like you did with Feller. But a parting thought unrelated to Steve Dalkowski.

    "One thing the radar guns over the last 20 years have told us, if nothing else, is that no one performs that far out of the norm. We know what the fastest pitchers throw and that the next really hard thrower who comes along isn't going to throw 107 or 108. He'll top out in the low 100's and probably not be able to sustain that for more than a couple of innings. You can bet on it."

    The radar guns over the last twenty years haven't told us much at all. Joel Zumaya threw a pitch at 107 mph. Mark Wohlers hit 103-104 with regularity. Well, at 45 feet. Ironically, we probably agree that Steve could top off in the low 100's for a couple innings. But it's you who foolishly believe it's at 45 feet and I believe, far more convincingly, that he could do it at 60'6".

    "This is all in good fun, isn't it?"

    Nope, not this time. You have never made a single post outside this thread. Every one of your responses save one has been to mock me. Your only evidence provided to the contrary is that you pitched in college once, which oh so obviously has to make you an expert on the physics of baseball. In one post, you even sarcastically asked how fast Bigfoot could throw. You are a TROLL.


    Sorry for the Bigfoot remark. I admit that one was over the top. Also, I didn't realize that your's was the only thread to which I've been posting.

    Hey, look, I'm just asking some fundamental questions. For example: (A) How do you know he pitched the previous day before being timed? Is this actually documented somewhere? (B) How do you know that he pitched continuously for 15 minutes before getting the ball through the machine? (C) It's fair to assume that he pitched off of flat ground, but how do we know he did? (D) How do you even know the effects of these things when put together? They would have no doubt have reduced the velocity of his fastball to some extent, but by how much? (E) How do you know the distance from which he threw into the machine? (F) What was the velocity recorded by the machine? There seems to be some confusion on that.

    I'm not arguing that Dalkowski didn't have a great fastball, otherwise the Orioles wouldn't have sent him to the Army facility to have his fastball clocked. Although, I wonder if they sent others, as well. But as far as Earl Weaver's (who I really like by the way) comments are concerned, Dalkowski appears to have been his special project. Don't you think that he might have been tempted to exaggerate just a little when talking about him? Also, I'm not sure that the other comments, when read on their own, indicate that Dalkowski was anything other than simply the hardest thrower these players believed they had ever seen. In other words, I don't think that they (Williams, Gillick, etc.) thought Dalkowski was in a league by himself.

    There's no need to go through it again. Because you're right, I'm not going to believe it. I think that you make the best case possible, but I just don't think that the evidence is strong enough.

    P.S. Here's a quote from Bobby Cox and/or Pat Gillick from an article on Dalkowski in the Dayton Daily News (4/29/07):

    Gillick, Cox (the Atlanta Braves' manager, who batted against Dalkowski) and others say "it was definitely over 100, perhaps 105."

    I can believe this, but you could say the same about Ryan or Zumaya.
    Last edited by evetts18; 07-27-2008, 10:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dalkowski110
    replied
    "I don't even know if it is even humanly possible to throw higher than 103 or so."

    Depends on the distance you throw at. Zumaya is timed at 45 feet with those off-the-charts, 105 mph readings. On a JUGS Radar gun...at 60'6", he likely throws about 99-100 mph.

    "I don't believe that sort of thing is possible, no mater what Earl Weaver thinks."

    Then you're wasting my time. Weaver saw Dalkowski and Ryan throwing at their fastest (if not best) within FOUR YEARS of each other. Fact is, even if there was a catcher who'd caught Dalkowski and Ryan within one year, you'd discount it. Even if Dalkowski managed to get a pitch over, you'd complain about the device being innaccurate like you did with Feller. But a parting thought unrelated to Steve Dalkowski.

    "One thing the radar guns over the last 20 years have told us, if nothing else, is that no one performs that far out of the norm. We know what the fastest pitchers throw and that the next really hard thrower who comes along isn't going to throw 107 or 108. He'll top out in the low 100's and probably not be able to sustain that for more than a couple of innings. You can bet on it."

    The radar guns over the last twenty years haven't told us much at all. Joel Zumaya threw a pitch at 107 mph. Mark Wohlers hit 103-104 with regularity. Well, at 45 feet. Ironically, we probably agree that Steve could top off in the low 100's for a couple innings. But it's you who foolishly believe it's at 45 feet and I believe, far more convincingly, that he could do it at 60'6".

    "This is all in good fun, isn't it?"

    Nope, not this time. You have never made a single post outside this thread. Every one of your responses save one has been to mock me. Your only evidence provided to the contrary is that you pitched in college once, which oh so obviously has to make you an expert on the physics of baseball. In one post, you even sarcastically asked how fast Bigfoot could throw. You are a TROLL.

    Leave a comment:


  • evetts18
    replied
    Dalkowski

    Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    Actually if we use your analogy then according to that logic what did in fact happen in track would be an impossibility. Heading into the 90's 9.9 was the record for 100m at the end it was 9.79, now going into the 10's the record is down to 9.72. In 1988 the record was 9.93 and Ben Johnson came along and posted a 9.79.

    That's primarily because of better training techniques and nutrition. And the times get only marginally better, they move by 100's of a second, not 10th's of a second.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Originally posted by evetts18 View Post
    Here's the sort of thing your asking me to believe. The best sprinters in the world run the 100 meters in just under 9.7 seconds and probably, on average, run it in about 9.75 to 9.8 or so. However, suddenly some guy could come along who could consistently run the 100 meters in under 9.7 seconds and set the world record at 9.6 seconds, or maybe less. I don't believe that sort of thing is possible, no mater what Earl Weaver thinks.
    Actually if we use your analogy then according to that logic what did in fact happen in track would be an impossibility. Heading into the 90's 9.9 was the record for 100m at the end it was 9.79, now going into the 10's the record is down to 9.72. In 1988 the record was 9.93 and Ben Johnson came along and posted a 9.79.

    Leave a comment:


  • OleMissCub
    replied
    I don't even know if it is even humanly possible to throw higher than 103 or so. I know that some guns have picked up pitches that high before from Zumaya (I think), but I do think some radar guns are juiced a bit these days.

    Leave a comment:


  • evetts18
    replied
    Dalkowski

    Originally posted by Dalkowski110 View Post
    Ah, evetts, thank you for treating me like a condescending jerk. I will return the favor...

    "who's to say that the measuring device used for Feller was any more accurate. It was an Army device, but the government has been known to be wrong a couple of times."

    Not surprisingly, you're completely wrong here. The device the Army used is called a photo cell chronograph. A chronograph is far more accurate than any radar gun on the planet. In fact, if you handloaded ammunition (as I do; I have other hobbies as well), you would realize that photo cell chonographs are A) still in use and B) are accurate to within thousandths of a foot per second. In fact, since you're suggesting that it was somehow tampered with, I'd like to know how. You can only adjust one of these devices for distance.

    "And Pat Gillick still says what? That Dalkowski was the hardest thrower he ever saw or that he threw 110?"

    He claims both, actually, but it's not as if you're going to take that seriously...

    "Did Williams say that Dalkowski threw a lot harder than anyone he ever saw or simply was the fastest he ever saw?"

    I guess "easily the fastest" and "faster than Feller" aren't going to do it for you.

    "How do you know he started a game the previous day? Have you seen a box score or something?"

    Actually, yes, I have...

    "For all we know he rested every couple of minutes anyway."

    Uh, no. According to Steve, his sister, and literally everyone there for the test, he was just winding and firing. He didn't rest...he was actually frustrated he couldn't get it over.

    "Also, throwing off of flat ground vs. a mound doesn't make that much of a difference. I pitched a little in college and I can tell you that it just doesn't."

    You believe that pitching in college makes you an expert on Steve Dalkowski? Hello? McFly? Ever read Adair's book on physics in baseball? You lose 1-2 mph off your fastball sans a mound.

    "As for all of these people who supposedly have said that Dalkowski was the fastest they've ever seen, most, if not all of them saw him while they were first in the minor leagues (some were probably right out of high school)."

    Yes, like Earl Weaver, who had played or managed professionally 11 years before he even saw Dalkowski (and that includes ST invites where he saw Major League pitchers' fastballs). And Ted Williams, who had only been playing since 1939...

    Okay, but to respond to someone else in a civil way...

    "However when we are talking about the difference between 100 mph and 103 mph a person cannot distinguish such a small difference in speed especially if they saw the two pitchers many years apart which is the case of Dalkowski and Ryan."

    Not that many years apart. Weaver last sees Dalkowski in his prime (pre-injury) in Spring Training 1963. He first sees Nolan Ryan in Spring Training, 1966. Not that far apart, IMO, and Ryan was likely throwing pretty hard then. While one could second guess Andy Etchebarren (caught both pitchers over a decade apart and claimed Dalkowski was somewhat faster, but not a lot), I find it much more difficult to second guess Weaver. I should also throw in the theory of mine that not only was Dalkowski throwing regularly throwing 105-110 mph at 45 feet (and 103-105 at 60'6"), but he was also likely "sneaky fast." He started out his windup kinda slowly and then sped up after he dropped his leg.

    "I don't know the details of the 93.8 reading that was brought up, but D110 did mention that some say it was 99.8, with Steve's sister claiming it was the lower reading...I guess Steve doesn't remember. Feller registered 81mph at one of his tests...let's just pick that number and run with it, he would be lucky to throw 90 at best. FWIW, an article on the Hardball Times indicates that Dalko was also exhausted from trying to sneak a ball through that measuring device and took something off it to just get the whole thing over with...those who were there said it wasn't close to his best fastball, even on that day right after a start."

    Correct. Steve had to throw a pitch through *the same* photo cell chronograph you see in the Feller youtube video. As you can see, that's a small target for a guy who walked 12.88 per nine innings over his professional career. One reason it wasn't his best fastball was because Steve made the somewhat poor decision of just letting it rip from the get-go. The first pitch it actually registered wasn't even a fastball...Steve threw a changeup simply because he wanted to get it overwith. They told him to go back to throwing fastballs and whether he took something off it or not (Steve claims he did not), it registered within a few pitches. Aside from stretching a little, he wasn't throwing any warmup pitches at reduced velocity. Feller had warmed up. Incidentally, no one knows where the 99.8 reading came from; it was 93.8. As I said, there ARE a lot of myths about Steve out there. But then again, there's also a lot of truth.


    Here's the sort of thing your asking me to believe. The best sprinters in the world run the 100 meters in just under 9.7 seconds and probably, on average, run it in about 9.75 to 9.8 or so. However, suddenly some guy could come along who could consistently run the 100 meters in under 9.7 seconds and set the world record at 9.6 seconds, or maybe less. I don't believe that sort of thing is possible, no mater what Earl Weaver thinks.

    One thing the radar guns over the last 20 years have told us, if nothing else, is that no one performs that far out of the norm. We know what the fastest pitchers throw and that the next really hard thrower who comes along isn't going to throw 107 or 108. He'll top out in the low 100's and probably not be able to sustain that for more than a couple of innings. You can bet on it.

    By the way, don't be such a sensitive guy. This is all in good fun, isn't it?
    Last edited by evetts18; 07-26-2008, 06:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dalkowski110
    replied
    Ah, evetts, thank you for treating me like a condescending jerk. I will return the favor...

    "who's to say that the measuring device used for Feller was any more accurate. It was an Army device, but the government has been known to be wrong a couple of times."

    Not surprisingly, you're completely wrong here. The device the Army used is called a photo cell chronograph. A chronograph is far more accurate than any radar gun on the planet. In fact, if you handloaded ammunition (as I do; I have other hobbies as well), you would realize that photo cell chonographs are A) still in use and B) are accurate to within thousandths of a foot per second. In fact, since you're suggesting that it was somehow tampered with, I'd like to know how. You can only adjust one of these devices for distance.

    "And Pat Gillick still says what? That Dalkowski was the hardest thrower he ever saw or that he threw 110?"

    He claims both, actually, but it's not as if you're going to take that seriously...

    "Did Williams say that Dalkowski threw a lot harder than anyone he ever saw or simply was the fastest he ever saw?"

    I guess "easily the fastest" and "faster than Feller" aren't going to do it for you.

    "How do you know he started a game the previous day? Have you seen a box score or something?"

    Actually, yes, I have...

    "For all we know he rested every couple of minutes anyway."

    Uh, no. According to Steve, his sister, and literally everyone there for the test, he was just winding and firing. He didn't rest...he was actually frustrated he couldn't get it over.

    "Also, throwing off of flat ground vs. a mound doesn't make that much of a difference. I pitched a little in college and I can tell you that it just doesn't."

    You believe that pitching in college makes you an expert on Steve Dalkowski? Hello? McFly? Ever read Adair's book on physics in baseball? You lose 1-2 mph off your fastball sans a mound.

    "As for all of these people who supposedly have said that Dalkowski was the fastest they've ever seen, most, if not all of them saw him while they were first in the minor leagues (some were probably right out of high school)."

    Yes, like Earl Weaver, who had played or managed professionally 11 years before he even saw Dalkowski (and that includes ST invites where he saw Major League pitchers' fastballs). And Ted Williams, who had only been playing since 1939...

    Okay, but to respond to someone else in a civil way...

    "However when we are talking about the difference between 100 mph and 103 mph a person cannot distinguish such a small difference in speed especially if they saw the two pitchers many years apart which is the case of Dalkowski and Ryan."

    Not that many years apart. Weaver last sees Dalkowski in his prime (pre-injury) in Spring Training 1963. He first sees Nolan Ryan in Spring Training, 1966. Not that far apart, IMO, and Ryan was likely throwing pretty hard then. While one could second guess Andy Etchebarren (caught both pitchers over a decade apart and claimed Dalkowski was somewhat faster, but not a lot), I find it much more difficult to second guess Weaver. I should also throw in the theory of mine that not only was Dalkowski throwing regularly throwing 105-110 mph at 45 feet (and 103-105 at 60'6"), but he was also likely "sneaky fast." He started out his windup kinda slowly and then sped up after he dropped his leg.

    "I don't know the details of the 93.8 reading that was brought up, but D110 did mention that some say it was 99.8, with Steve's sister claiming it was the lower reading...I guess Steve doesn't remember. Feller registered 81mph at one of his tests...let's just pick that number and run with it, he would be lucky to throw 90 at best. FWIW, an article on the Hardball Times indicates that Dalko was also exhausted from trying to sneak a ball through that measuring device and took something off it to just get the whole thing over with...those who were there said it wasn't close to his best fastball, even on that day right after a start."

    Correct. Steve had to throw a pitch through *the same* photo cell chronograph you see in the Feller youtube video. As you can see, that's a small target for a guy who walked 12.88 per nine innings over his professional career. One reason it wasn't his best fastball was because Steve made the somewhat poor decision of just letting it rip from the get-go. The first pitch it actually registered wasn't even a fastball...Steve threw a changeup simply because he wanted to get it overwith. They told him to go back to throwing fastballs and whether he took something off it or not (Steve claims he did not), it registered within a few pitches. Aside from stretching a little, he wasn't throwing any warmup pitches at reduced velocity. Feller had warmed up. Incidentally, no one knows where the 99.8 reading came from; it was 93.8. As I said, there ARE a lot of myths about Steve out there. But then again, there's also a lot of truth.
    Last edited by Dalkowski110; 07-25-2008, 11:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hellborn
    replied
    Originally posted by evetts18 View Post
    93.8 was what the device read. That's the only objective thing we know. Somehow we get from 93.8 to way over 100? I'm not buying it. And Pat Gillick still says what? That Dalkowski was the hardest thrower he ever saw or that he threw 110? Did Williams say that Dalkowski threw a lot harder than anyone he ever saw or simply was the fastest he ever saw? That makes a big difference. And if Earl Weaver or Cal Ripken, Sr. said that Dalkowski threw a lot harder than Ryan, and if a lot harder means anything over 1 mph, then, no, this guy who briefly pitched in college ain't buying it.

    First Weaver says Dalkowski threw a lot harder than Ryan, then quotes by Williams, Gillick and a few others are dug up saying they believe Dalkowski was the fastest they ever saw and suddenly we have a guy throwing the ball 110. I wonder how fast Bigfoot can throw.
    I don't know the details of the 93.8 reading that was brought up, but D110 did mention that some say it was 99.8, with Steve's sister claiming it was the lower reading...I guess Steve doesn't remember. Feller registered 81mph at one of his tests...let's just pick that number and run with it, he would be lucky to throw 90 at best. FWIW, an article on the Hardball Times indicates that Dalko was also exhausted from trying to sneak a ball through that measuring device and took something off it to just get the whole thing over with...those who were there said it wasn't close to his best fastball, even on that day right after a start.
    I never said that Dalko would show 110 on a gun or anywhere else...you said he might touch 100mph at best on a modern radar gun on a good day, and I'm saying that I believe that statement is totally inconsistent with the testimony of a great many baseball people who actually saw the man throw. Ted Williams said that Dalko was the fastest pitcher he ever faced and probably the fastest who ever lived...he didn't say he threw as hard as Feller and maybe a little more, he just flat out said he was the fastest. This from a man who would start thinking about Feller 3 days before facing him. The story is from a chance encounter in spring training, when Williams stepped into a cage after watching Dalko throw for a while. Steve was wild enough at that point that they were not taking the risk of him maiming a major league player in a spring training game.
    If Weaver had been trying to say that Ryan could throw 103mph or whatever on a gun and Dalko could hit 104, that would be questionable. However, Earl, who was a tremendous major league manager and a wizard at using a pitching staff, said there was no comparison. I believe him. There was a ten year delta there, but I still trust a baseball lifer and genius like Weaver to be able to make that statement and not be so far off that Dalko actually couldn't even match Ryan's radar gun feats.
    You read all the stories about Dalko throwing balls through metal backstop screens and outfield fences, completely out of baseball parks, so hard that he put an ump in the hospital after cracking his mask...I don't think that this was all made up or exaggerated. The man was a prodigy, plain and simple, and the people who saw him are still amazed by what he could do. Too bad Weaver didn't get him straightened out before his arm was about shot so we'd have some major league testimony about him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    The scout who signed him then became "special assistant" (basically the GM) and he immediately transferreed him to the bigs. He had the stuff at an early age and had fanned 8 Cardinals in 3 innings during an exhibition game.

    Before reporting to the Indians Feller reported to Slapnicka (Cleveland GM) that his arm was sore and that he was worried. Slapnicka called him up to the Indians so that the Indians could supervise and manager his training. He didn't want some bush league minor league team destroying the pitcher who Slapnicka thought was going to be the greatest pitcher of all time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    Yes, but both walk totals came early in his career. The 208 in his first full season as a starter and the 194 right before he went off to the war. He then comes back in 1946 and gives up walks but then starts to settle down. Feller came into the league as a raw 17 year old kid and then missed 4 years of his development and prime to a war. If Feller starts off in the minors and then plays a normal career without a war breaking it up his control would look a lot better. On par with Seaver and Clemens? Probably not but it would be better.
    Why did the Indians not give Feller any time in the minor leagues? Do you think his reduced effectiveness after 1947 was due to the large amount of innings he pitched in his early 20s? I wonder if Feller hadn't miss time to serve in WW II if he would have burned out at an earlier age.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Yes, but both walk totals came early in his career. The 208 in his first full season as a starter and the 194 right before he went off to the war. He then comes back in 1946 and gives up walks but then starts to settle down. Feller came into the league as a raw 17 year old kid and then missed 4 years of his development and prime to a war. If Feller starts off in the minors and then plays a normal career without a war breaking it up his control would look a lot better. On par with Seaver and Clemens? Probably not but it would be better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by evetts18 View Post
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Feller didn't have some serious stuff. He could've been the fastest of all time. I'm just saying that I don't see it on that clip. Also, by the way, I think he was a very underrated pitcher, better than Ryan and up there with the greatest right handers like Clemens and Seaver.
    I wouldn't go that far. Compared to Clemens and Seaver, Feller had a serious lack of control. He walked as many as 208 batters in a season plus he also had a 194 walk season. That is a ridiculous amount of walks to give up.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X