This may devolve into IMHO or Cafe Society, but it starts with GQ:
Is there any way to tell what the speed of pitching was back in the days of Babe Ruth? How about Hank Aaron?
I ask as a way of attempting to compare Ruth vs Aaron vs Bonds. Things like curves, sliders, change ups, etc are more subjective, but it seems it should be possible, using old film, to gauge approximately how fast the pitching was before the advent of modern measuring techniques like radar guns to clock pitches. My assumption is that the pitching Ruth faced wasn’t as fast as it is now, but that could of course be negated by things like “live” vs “dead” balls, dilution of talent by baseball expansion and distance to the fences. Is there any subjective way to measure this kind of stuff?
It should be doable with old films WRT speed. One problem might be how many such films exist? We may be able to gague the speed of some pitchers. But were a representative sample of enough pitchers filmed at this time to really know about the average pitcher? Baseball is very much a game of averages. To compare Ruth vs Aaron vs Bonds we really know how fast the mediocre and submediocre pitchers were throwing.
A complete analysis of the history of pitching, pitchers and the pitches they threw. It includes the development, speed, acceptance and delivery of the different types of pitches and the pitchers who did the work.
There were ways to measure the speed of pitches before the radar gun. In 1914, a ballistic pendulum is supposed to have clocked one of Walter Johnson’s pitches at 99.7 mph. Or so says Robert K. Adair, author of They Physics of Baseball (1990).
Unfortunately, I don’t think a lot of game film exists from the Ruth era, and what does exist, was probably hand-cranked newsreel footage, and thus may be impossible to scientifically analyze to get pitch speeds. I’m not even sure if the film truly captures the ball in flight from mound to the plate. Plus, the vast majority of surviving films are from World Series games, which hardly gives you a representative sample.
As I recall, Bob Feller (World War II era) was the first man to have his fastball clocked by a radar gun (though not in a game situation), had a legitimate near 100 mph fastball. Walter Johnson very likely did too, and it is probably fair to compare him to Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson (no relation, save for their freakishly long arms).
In general, I think its fair to say that old-tyme pitchers probably relied on “junk” that is easier on the arm. Back then, a young fireballer like Kerry Wood was done the first time his elbow gave out, which is probably why Walter Johnson was such a singular figure…few people could throw like him and keep their arm operable for very long. The banning of the spitball was a large contributor to the end of the dead ball era, as it took away a major “junk” option.
Also, keep in mind that complete games were the rule rather than the exception in Ruth’s time. Pitchers had to pace themselves to get through games. Nowadays starters throw 100% all the time, knowing that if necessery five guys can come in from the bullpen if he gets worn out by the 5th.
Other things to keep in mind other than speed of pitches:
Way back then, there were fewer teams, but a similar number of games. That meant that batters faced the same pitcher much more frequently and so were able to learn that pitcher’s strengths and weaknesses (and the other way around, too.)
Most teams also used a three-man rotation back then, as opposed to today’s five-man rotation. Again, this meant seeing the same pitcher more frequently.
And, as fiddlesticks pointed out, there were more complete games pitched by starters. That meant that, late in the game, batters got to face a pitcher who wasn’t as fresh as he started out. Today, as soon as a starter gets tired he gets pulled for a relief pitcher. So instead of a tired arm, batters now have to face fresh arms late in the game.
But, according to old-time major leaguers, the pitches were the same, just with less-fancy names. Sliders were “nickel” or “dime” curves, split-finger fastballs were “drops”, etc. Some pitchers held the seams, others held away from the seams.
Also, there was a lot less of the umpires putting a new ball in play, so pitchers could work with balls that had become scuffed or saggy. Raw speed from the two or three best pitrchers in the league isn’t an accurate gauge to compare the overall pitching.
Interesting. Is there any data that indicate increased hits/homeruns as the games got into the later innings? From what I know of baseball I have to assume that the batters weren’t getting fatigued at the same pace as the pitchers would, although you might expect the pitcher to hold more in reserve.
I would be pretty surprised if the home run frequency per each inning (in relation to each year) has changed much over time.
The distribution of home runs and runs overall throughout a game would be fairly stable. I don’t know if anyone has done a study. It would be quite an undertaking for the Retrosheet folks.