What a great article Brian. I often find myself stuck in the 20th century as far as baseball records. I have explained to my wife several times about the beauty of baseball and that it is steeped in statistics that can be debated literally forever. That is just one reason why there is year round MLB talk shows and ongoing debates of who the best players are. I watched Cleon Jones hit .340 and Tom Seaver win 25 games. I watched Seaver strike out 19 batters and then waited 16 years to see 20 K’s by Roger Clemons.
714, 660 and 536 and then 755 were the home run totals of my youth (Ruth, Mays, Mantle and Aaron). I have watched 24 of the top 28 home runs hitters play the game as well as 20 of the next 22 in line. At the top of the list is Barry Bonds with 762 home runs, but it’s hard to let go of the fact that he violated the PED rules allowing him to get there. He did hit the most home runs and someday when there is enough turnover from the voters who no longer care about the cheating, he will get elected to the HOF.
While 500 home runs is still something attainable in baseball, 300 wins by a pitcher will never be seen again as only 25 pitchers reached that level, 10 of whom I saw play. The only current pitcher with a shot to reach that level was Justin Verlander, but after 19 seasons, and the injuries he has had the last few years, that’s simply not going to happen. Now, pitching wins is an irrelevant statistics with starters struggling to pitch five innings and when Jake deGrom can win two consecutive Cy Young Awards with only 10 and 11 wins respectively.
Your basic premise is correct Brian. It’s time to let go of the old thought process and realize that there have been so many changes that have altered the records of old and also our consideration of who should be considered for the HOF.
This article makes me think about some of the differences between pitching now compared with various periods throughout history. Pitchers throw so many fewer innings now, and while I don't have data to back it up, it seems like there are many more injuries now. I'm sure there are several factors that contribute to this, such as higher velo putting more stress on the body, pitchers throwing many more pitches from a young age, more sliders and splitters that may put more stress on the elbow, etc. There are probably several more.
You have to wonder whether pitchers were actually getting hurt back in the day but just pitching through it. I have to think there were many pitchers who pitched through torn UCLs, rotator cuffs, etc. and didn't do anything about it, partly because the technology wasn't available to fix them as easily, or maybe they didn't even know. Assuming that this is the case, it begs the question of whether the overall state of pitching in MLB was stronger with pitchers pushing through their injuries and likely not being as effective, compared with pitchers going on the IL, sometimes for a year, and being replaced with someone who wouldn't be in MLB if not for the injuries. I'm not campaigning for pitchers to pitch through injuries but wondering whether, on average, an injured star is more effective than a healthy replacement player.
Great perspective Brian. It reminds us all that despite all the numbers, this remains a people thing and the contemporary conditions. We would be fool hardy to pretend we could compare numbers say prior to PEDs vs after, just as much as mound lowering, moving wall configurations, advent of DH, advent of free agency, change in contract structure, the radical change in tracking everything with tech that would make NASA blush have all radically changed the numbers, but not so much the game itself. I think the end of the 300 game winner has arrived largely because so many other things now make that so against that likelihood, for example, no one ever cares about wins anymore, so why chase it. The way the game is played has changed so dramatically in the past 20 years that some records wont break because they just come from a bygone era. Let’s use deGrom as an example. He was on a surefire HoF career with tremendous hardware accumulating yet, he couldn’t “win” a game because of the way the game around him was played. Perhaps he’s an end member case, and maybe 100 years from now the descendants of the Mets360 crowd will look back and say the same thing about our present era with pitchers winning 400 games in a career, but in the present format of America’s Past Time I don’t see it. And so what? Records are numbers on a page and really not more than that.
What a great article Brian. I often find myself stuck in the 20th century as far as baseball records. I have explained to my wife several times about the beauty of baseball and that it is steeped in statistics that can be debated literally forever. That is just one reason why there is year round MLB talk shows and ongoing debates of who the best players are. I watched Cleon Jones hit .340 and Tom Seaver win 25 games. I watched Seaver strike out 19 batters and then waited 16 years to see 20 K’s by Roger Clemons.
714, 660 and 536 and then 755 were the home run totals of my youth (Ruth, Mays, Mantle and Aaron). I have watched 24 of the top 28 home runs hitters play the game as well as 20 of the next 22 in line. At the top of the list is Barry Bonds with 762 home runs, but it’s hard to let go of the fact that he violated the PED rules allowing him to get there. He did hit the most home runs and someday when there is enough turnover from the voters who no longer care about the cheating, he will get elected to the HOF.
While 500 home runs is still something attainable in baseball, 300 wins by a pitcher will never be seen again as only 25 pitchers reached that level, 10 of whom I saw play. The only current pitcher with a shot to reach that level was Justin Verlander, but after 19 seasons, and the injuries he has had the last few years, that’s simply not going to happen. Now, pitching wins is an irrelevant statistics with starters struggling to pitch five innings and when Jake deGrom can win two consecutive Cy Young Awards with only 10 and 11 wins respectively.
Your basic premise is correct Brian. It’s time to let go of the old thought process and realize that there have been so many changes that have altered the records of old and also our consideration of who should be considered for the HOF.
This old dog can learn new tricks.
This article makes me think about some of the differences between pitching now compared with various periods throughout history. Pitchers throw so many fewer innings now, and while I don't have data to back it up, it seems like there are many more injuries now. I'm sure there are several factors that contribute to this, such as higher velo putting more stress on the body, pitchers throwing many more pitches from a young age, more sliders and splitters that may put more stress on the elbow, etc. There are probably several more.
You have to wonder whether pitchers were actually getting hurt back in the day but just pitching through it. I have to think there were many pitchers who pitched through torn UCLs, rotator cuffs, etc. and didn't do anything about it, partly because the technology wasn't available to fix them as easily, or maybe they didn't even know. Assuming that this is the case, it begs the question of whether the overall state of pitching in MLB was stronger with pitchers pushing through their injuries and likely not being as effective, compared with pitchers going on the IL, sometimes for a year, and being replaced with someone who wouldn't be in MLB if not for the injuries. I'm not campaigning for pitchers to pitch through injuries but wondering whether, on average, an injured star is more effective than a healthy replacement player.
Great perspective Brian. It reminds us all that despite all the numbers, this remains a people thing and the contemporary conditions. We would be fool hardy to pretend we could compare numbers say prior to PEDs vs after, just as much as mound lowering, moving wall configurations, advent of DH, advent of free agency, change in contract structure, the radical change in tracking everything with tech that would make NASA blush have all radically changed the numbers, but not so much the game itself. I think the end of the 300 game winner has arrived largely because so many other things now make that so against that likelihood, for example, no one ever cares about wins anymore, so why chase it. The way the game is played has changed so dramatically in the past 20 years that some records wont break because they just come from a bygone era. Let’s use deGrom as an example. He was on a surefire HoF career with tremendous hardware accumulating yet, he couldn’t “win” a game because of the way the game around him was played. Perhaps he’s an end member case, and maybe 100 years from now the descendants of the Mets360 crowd will look back and say the same thing about our present era with pitchers winning 400 games in a career, but in the present format of America’s Past Time I don’t see it. And so what? Records are numbers on a page and really not more than that.