So, are Pitchers Hobby Good now or what?

[johnlocke36]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

As expected, this is the well-stated counterpoint, and I really appreciate the opposing and informed view.

The only thing that I’ll note is that the GM isn’t keeping deGrom off the bump and accruing stats - it’s his inability to stay healthy. If that has anything to do with how hard he throws or body motions to create crazy spin rates, then he seems to be his own worst enemy in a way. GM’s also aren’t to blame for Snell’s 7 mediocre seasons between CY wins.

I agree with you but I will also add that Degrom isn’t his worst enemy it’s the army of baby Degrom that are coming (or in bullpens now). The difference between now and when Carlton pitcherd 50 years ago is even if we conclude whatever it is Degrom an others do to achieve max/velocity spin rate etc also leads to arm injuries there is hundreds/thousands of pitchers saying #@#@#@#@ it here comes max effort every pitch if I get hurt I don’t care.

Then GM say optimal roster construction is having 10 guys that say F it max effort every pitch then when 1 goes down with TJ you replace him other 9 guys (5 of which are coming back from TJ).

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by johnlocke36

... but if Skenes got to face the hitters Carlton faced his ERA would approach 0.0 and would prob avg 25 K/9

I think that's a very debatable assumption.

Back then hitters were much more concerned with (and much better at) making contact and avoiding strikeouts. So it's possible that a pitcher like Skenes might actually face longer at-bats due to the ability of hitters to foul off pitches and work the count, as well as longer innings due to the ability of hitters to get on base via weak contact (i.e. bloops and infield hits).

Part of the reason that strikeout totals are so much higher in the modern era is because strikeouts are tolerated in the quest for more home runs. Contact hitters are a virtually extinct species nowadays (with Arraez being pretty much the only one).

It's not as simple as saying that Skenes has wicked stuff and therefore would blow away hitters from the 70's not used to seeing such wicked stuff.

[johnlocke36]

Originally Posted by mfw13

I think that's a very debatable assumption.

Back then hitters were much more concerned with (and much better at) making contact and avoiding strikeouts. So it's possible that a pitcher like Skenes might actually face longer at-bats due to the ability of hitters to foul off pitches and work the count, as well as longer innings due to the ability of hitters to get on base via weak contact (i.e. bloops and infield hits).

Part of the reason that strikeout totals are so much higher in the modern era is because strikeouts are tolerated in the quest for more home runs. Contact hitters are a virtually extinct species nowadays (with Arraez being pretty much the only one).

It's not as simple as saying that Skenes has wicked stuff and therefore would blow away hitters from the 70's not used to seeing such wicked stuff.

It’s easier to make contact vs 86 mph fastballs than 95 mph splinkers.
Here’s how I look at it. Imagine all of the fastballs they faces were the same speed but now they also broke an extra foot

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by johnlocke36

It’s easier to make contact vs 86 mph fastballs than 95 mph splinkers.

In a vacuum, yes.

But hitting approach matters as well, and back then hitters were much more focused on making contact than they are today. Likewise, you had more horizontal swings (as opposed to focusing on launch angle with uppercuts), meaning that bats spent more time in the strike zone.

It's really hard to draw any hard and fast conclusions....after all it's possible that 70's/80's pitchers could have thrown harder if they hadn't been quite as focused on pacing themselves and pitching deep into games. Tell today's starters that their goal is to pitch nine innings, instead of five or six, and they wouldn't be throwing so hard on every pitch.

[SaveMeTheGum]

Ohtani is pretty popular

[johnlocke36]

Originally Posted by mfw13

In a vacuum, yes.

But hitting approach matters as well, and back then hitters were much more focused on making contact than they are today. Likewise, you had more horizontal swings (as opposed to focusing on launch angle with uppercuts), meaning that bats spent more time in the strike zone.

It's really hard to draw any hard and fast conclusions....after all it's possible that 70's/80's pitchers could have thrown harder if they hadn't been quite as focused on pacing themselves and pitching deep into games. Tell today's starters that their goal is to pitch nine innings, instead of five or six, and they wouldn't be throwing so hard on every pitch.

It’s not that there were trying harder for contact (at least partially true) but you are underselling how easy it was to hit back then and how good hitters are now. Most MLB hitters that hit .240 now would be .300+ if they were seeing 86 everyday.

[theplasticman]

Originally Posted by Bosoxfan5990

This pole stinks.

That's what she said.

[theplasticman]

I see an opportunity to make a little on a few guys. I was buying Skubal Sapphire 1sts for $2-3 for a long time. Hoping he has another great year and I plan to divest a bit and keep some for the long run.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by mfw13

In a vacuum, yes.

But hitting approach matters as well, and back then hitters were much more focused on making contact than they are today. Likewise, you had more horizontal swings (as opposed to focusing on launch angle with uppercuts), meaning that bats spent more time in the strike zone.

It's really hard to draw any hard and fast conclusions....after all it's possible that 70's/80's pitchers could have thrown harder if they hadn't been quite as focused on pacing themselves and pitching deep into games. Tell today's starters that their goal is to pitch nine innings, instead of five or six, and they wouldn't be throwing so hard on every pitch.

The good hitters from the 70s/80s swung with an uppercut. The problem is most players swings from that era were terrible. They were built to minimze power AND contact.

FYI, an uppercut swing spends more time in the path of the ball.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by johnlocke36

It’s not that there were trying harder for contact (at least partially true) but you are underselling how easy it was to hit back then and how good hitters are now. Most MLB hitters that hit .240 now would be .300+ if they were seeing 86 everyday.

Disagree....today's hitters are mediocre because they have a bad plate approach. Everybody is swinging for the fences, everybody is trying to pull the ball all the time, and nobody can hit offspeed stuff.