OT: Starting MLB pitchers in 1963...
- Thread starter HOF Coach
- Start date
I had satellite radio on two weeks ago and was listening Mad Dog. He had a baseball historian on and it was very interesting. Clemente was the MVP in 1966. His year was exceptional yet he had to face 7 future hall of fame pitchers. The guest was talking about how poor the hitting is today and although there aren’t many future hall of famers it’s the era of middle inning specialists and closers.
I talked about this a few weeks ago. Spahn was in his late 30s and Marichal was a young pup. The Giant manager told Marichal he had enough and was going to hit for him on the 14th or 15th inning. Marichal told him as long as that old man (Spahn) is out there I am staying in. I wonder what their respective pitch counts were that night. They don’t make em like they used to.
Is that number in any way remarkable? Historically there are 31 people playing in any given MLB season who end up in the Hall of Fame. Is the fact that one year there were seven of them were pitchers assumedly in one league (which wouldn't matter as much any more) somehow remarkable?
What the expert was saying is that today there are only 2-4 current starting pitchers from both leagues combined who might someday have had the career that would get them into the hall.
I'd take that bet for what ever amount of money he was willing to lose. Historically has there ever been a season where only 2 starting pitchers in the majors ended up in the hall of fame?
Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer, Hernandez, Greinke, plus possibly guys like Sabathia and Lester, and that doesn't even include younger guys like Sale and Bumgarner. And it also doesn't include anyone who is only in their first couple of seasons in the league. Earlier this season ESPN made up a list of players they predicted for the HOF. That list included eight current starting pitchers. And it didn't include any who was in their first couple of seasons. Sure, all those eight might not, heck, probably WILL not make it. But there will also be a few guys who are just starting out who will have a chance as well.
The only way that you can think that there will be no more than 2-4 current starting pitchers make the HOF is if you think that as the game evolves that HOF voters aren't going to take that into account. And if that happens it will be the first time in the history of the voting that it did.
I actually don’t give a crap. The expert on mad dog was pointing out how many great pitchers Clemente faced that year.
Clemente also faced these pitchers several times each that year. Every time the Pirates played the Dodgers Clemente would face Koufax and Drysdale. That’s 6 series every year. Same with Gibson with the Cardinals. Spahn with the Braves. Marichal with the Giants. Fergie Jenkins with the Cubs and so on. I would bet he faced future HOFers40 or 50 times every year. A player today wouldn’t come close to that
He did. He also faced the crappy pitchers in the league more often as well. And no real bullpens to speak of. Just like everyone else.
We will combine our bankrolls on this one, that’s a hell of a bad take by a supposed expert.
I mentioned this awhile back in a similar thread, but former Pirate Rick Langford pitched 22 consecutive complete games for the A’s in 1980, including a 14 inning game.
For some reason no one ever seems to remember or mention this anymore.
Harvey Haddix pitched 12 PERFECT innings for the Pirates against the Braves in '59, and LOST!
Sounds like something today's Pirates could pull off, except the 12 PERFECT inning part.
Sounds like something today's Pirates could pull off, except the 12 PERFECT inning part.
Nowadays, a Harvey Haddix wouldn't even be allowed on the mound. Too small. Doesn't move the needle on the radar gun.
Today's Pirates have trouble getting 12 OUTS without giving up a hit, let alone 12 innings.
Last night they had trouble throwing 12 PITCHES without giving up a hit.
28 complete games total that year. And of course just a couple years later his arm pretty much fell off.
BTW, he was part of the package that the Pirates sent to the As in 77 that brought Phil Garner to the Pirates.
I don't know, wasn't too long ago that Greg Maddux dominated with pinpoint control and a meh fastball. Corners and sinker plus control and changing speeds can get you a long way, you know, a pitcher not just a thrower.
Of course that isn’t true. He took a line drive in the elbow and tore a ligament and never got back.
I’ve seen Greg Maddux a couple times at restaurants, and by seen I mean someone pointed out to me “Hey that’s Greg Maddux!” Otherwise I never would have recognized him, he is about the least imposing looking person that you would ever believe was an all time great. He looks more like a schoolteacher.
That sure makes it a lot easier that he had the opportunity to see them far more and didn't have to prepare for all the elite RPs of today. That makes it a much easier task. Good point.
The quality.of major league B.B. across the board is poor....the Pirates inability to even compete underscores how really poor of an organization they are. The garbage they trot out in their starting lineup every day is mind boggling.
One can have average to sub-average players and still play fundamentally sound B.B...the Pirates can’t field, miss cut off men and throw to the wrong base, don’t advance runners and don’t know how to run the bases(see Polanco and Marte). They may have the worst scouting and player development personnel in B.B. Thank you, Mr. Nutting, for “saving” BB in Pittsburgh..... minor league B.B.
One can have average to sub-average players and still play fundamentally sound B.B...the Pirates can’t field, miss cut off men and throw to the wrong base, don’t advance runners and don’t know how to run the bases(see Polanco and Marte). They may have the worst scouting and player development personnel in B.B. Thank you, Mr. Nutting, for “saving” BB in Pittsburgh..... minor league B.B.
That is so ridiculous that I hope you don't really believe it.
It always amazes me that in pretty much every human venture that you can easily measure humans are better today than they were 50 years ago, sometimes by large margins, but sports fans will insist that everyone was magically better back then than they are today.
Joe, In 1963 there were 10 teams in the NL. Each team had 4 starters for a total of 40. Today there are 15 NL teams and a total of 70 starters. Eliminate 30 players to get to 40, then maybe another 10 (crappy) players. If you get down to the top 30 starters today this would be the equivalent to what players now would face. I agree todays players are bigger, faster and stronger.
However, you also have to figure in that the population was way, way smaller then. Another factor is that now there is much more participation by players from other countries as well.
The bottom line is it is much harder to make it to the majors than it was in 1963, it’s by far a more elite group.
What was the time of game? Probably less than a 9 inning Yankees-Red Sox endurance test.
1960 World Series
New York: 9 Runs 13 Hits 1 Error
Pittsburgh: 10 Runs 11 Hits 0 Error
Length of Game:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2 hours, 36 minutes!
It is laughable when they dont think the commercial breaks are the reason. Used to be one minute between innings, now its 4-5 minutes. You have 17 sides retiring per game, that is best case 51 extra minutes.
I honestly think batters take more time getting ready now. If you did the stuff you do now back then, you would get shaved by a fastball
I get the gist of the original argument. Back in 1963 you had nine or ten pitchers on each team, ten teams in each league and no interleague play, with four-man starting rotations. So any given hitter faced maybe 100-120 different hurlers across 162 games. The overall quality of the pitchers, IMO, was superior to today's pitching based on sheer numbers. Pitchers had additional built-in advantages: a larger strike zone and a 15-inch mound that created a sharper downward plane for the ball (both repealed in 1969). From 1962-69 MLB was a pitcher's game. A Koufax or Gibson curve coming from the high mound looked as if it was rolling down Mt. Everest. Top-end talent in either era was probably a wash; there is a tendency to romanticize the Gibsons and Marichals (I do). But I insist that the 3-4 starters of yore were better than the crap that is trotted out to big league mounds today. On the flip side, relief pitching today is unquestionably superior. Clemente probably had a tougher time in 1963 than Mike Trout does in 2018 if only due to the strike zone and mound conditions that I noted earlier.
There are nearly 75% more Americans today than in 1963. There were very few baseball players in 1963 from the Caribbean and other foreign countries. Today foreign players make up around 30% of the league. In 63 there were still numerous teams that limited the number of black players on the team.
The talent pool that MLB is picking from is way more than double what it was in 63. It is much, much harder to make the majors today than in 1963.
The talent pool that MLB is picking from is way more than double what it was in 63. It is much, much harder to make the majors today than in 1963.
So maybe we are in the same boat as in 1963 because you have more professional teams in all sports now vs, 1963 which gives top-level talent more options than baseball including The Beautiful Game The World Has Tried to Shove Down Americans' Throats. I'll say one thing -- baseball at the MLB level is played poorer fundamentally than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. That I have observed from a seat in the stands.
Are the athletes of today bigger, stronger, faster? yes without question. Does that make them better especially at a unique position like pitcher? I don't think so. I think too many athletes and coaches for that matter concentrate too much on getting bigger, faster, and stronger, and x's and o's, that they fail to develop fundamentals. Too many MLB pitchers are out there throwing 95 mph plus, but know shit about pitching. They go out there and throw, not pitch.
The same is true in football. Seriously watch a game from today compared to the 70's and tell me that today's players (despite being bigger, faster, stronger) cannot tackle as well as players from the 70's. Today's players provide a bigger hit, but they miss more tackles then back then.
Similar threads
