And featured a hit parade last night’s 13 to 3 thumping of the A’s.
These guys are real, and they’re spectacular.
Pitching is better now. It just is. There are more arms around than ever. Pitchers have better stuff and control than they ever have before. So there’s going to be more guys with eye-popping numbers.
The strikeout-to-walk ration in the major leagues now is about two and a half to one, which is, historically speaking, INCREDIBLY high. Today if you’re a pitcher who strikes out 150 men and walks 60, you’re just normal. Thirty years ago you’d have been one of the best pitchers in the major leagues. 30 years ago, in 1986, the K-W ratio was less than two to one. The best team in baseball, the Mets, had just three pitchers who reached or bettered the 2.5-to-1 ratio that’s normal today (Bob Ojeda and Rick Aguilera topped it, Dwight Gooden hit it exactly) and had not a single relief pitcher who even reached two to one.
My perception, certainly, watching pitchers today versus 30 years ago, is that they are throwing harder, hit their spots more consistently, and have nastier stuff. While a lot of factors play into this I think it’s simply the case that modern information tech, video, and a more systematic, scientific approach to coaching pitchers is allowing for more repeatable and effective deliveries. I also suspect sabermetrics has had an effect by causing teams to be (rightly) skeptical of pitchers with bad K-W ratios and lucky ERAs.
To some extent of course it’s also that batters are less afraid of striking out, as the wait-and-see approach is more common. But if the effect was all hitting approach in terms of patience, we’d see walks going up. If everyone was Jose Bautista or Paul Goldschmidt the ratio would not have changed, because all the extra walks would offset the extra K’s. But walks are going down now. Pitchers are much better at not allowing free bases.
Thanks for the informative summary. I don’t disagree at all, but it raises a question I’ve been pondering. In the “old days” (1970s) I cannot recall seeing a pitch “in the dirt” except very rarely and it seemed to be a huge embarrassment. Now, most pitchers seem to routinely hit the dirt at least once or twice in every game. Am I mis-remembering the games of my youth or have they changed strategy somehow?
The White Sox are looking increasingly touchable.
Super pitching prospect Julio Urias is going to start Friday for the Dodgers. He’s 19 and has destroyed AAA this year so far. This is pretty exciting.
I saw a lot of games in person in the seventies and a lot more on TV, and I wasn’t aware of pitches not being in the dirt–or of people being embarrassed when they were. There are a number of very clear changes in the game since the seventies–bigger players, many more relievers, longer games for a start–but more pitches in the dirt isn’t one that rings any bells.
I did a quick spot check on wild pitches per team:
1970 NL 53
1975 NL 52
2009 AL 52
2015 NL 55
So, either pitches in the dirt rarely turn into wild pitches, OR pitches are more often in the dirt these days but pitchers used to miss more often outside/inside/high, OR … something else. But if there ARE more pitches in the dirt these days (and as I say that’s not my impression), it isn’t translating to wild pitches, anyway.
I have bitched about him enough in other threads. I assume people out there must like him since he’s still on the air, so more power to you. 
Whenever i see that the White Sox lost a game in the ninth inning, or in extras, or were beaten after giving up a big lead, i fire up my MLB.TV account and set it to the White Sox feed just so i can hear the disappointment in Hawk Harrelson’s voice.
As Ulf points out, this may be memory bias; wild pitches are not up. Of course, catchers have better equipment, which helps.
It is worth noting however that two changes have happened in pitching which could lead to there being more pitches in the dirt, if in fact it’s true:
-
The split-fingered fastball came into vogue in the 1980s as an easily learned alternative to the forkball; it’s not as popular as it was then (it’s often blamed for injuries, so pitchers have to some extent moved to semi-split and traditional forkballs) but many pitchers do use it. The use of more sinking pitches will inevitable result in more pitches in the dirt.
-
The rise of home runs as a central offensive strategy, as well as the statistically supported knowledge that ground balls are preferably to fly balls for the pitcher, has naturally caused pitchers to work the bottom part of the strike zone more and place less emphasis on the upper part of the zone. More low pitches, more balls in the dirt.
So if these are true why aren’t there more wild pitches? Well maybe it isn’t true. But it could be true and
- Catching equipment and skill is better, and catchers are, like all other ballplayers, better drilled and coached, and
- Since catchers are the ones calling for the low pitches and splitters, they know it’s coming and are prepared to block pitches in the dirt, or
- Other types of wild pitches are reduced, which is consistent in theory with the notion pitching is generally better.
That game should be on MLB Network and I’m at least moderately interested to see if this kid can get major league hitters out.
JBJ’s hitting streak halts at 29 with an 0-4 line yesterday. Ah well, was fun while it lasted. Xander Bogaerts is right there with a streak of 19 still going.
I think this is it. We’re seeing pitches in the dirt because catchers are calling for it; and if they know it’s coming, it won’t turn into a wild pitch.
Very good point, RickJay. I feel like there’s a strong correlation between the recent dominance of pitching to MLBs installing the Zone Eval system in 2009 and stating flat out that they’d start calling the high strike. I remember back in the 90’s that a pitch at the letters was never ever ever called a strike. Nowadays, the zone above the belt is part of many a pitcher’s butter zone.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/sports/baseball/09highstrike.html
JBJ hit two atom balls (as in, ‘right at em’) that got caught at the warning track and was waiting on deck at the bottom of the 9th; just shows to go ya that these hitting streaks are 60% skill and 50% luck.
As a math teacher/writer, gotta take issue with your arithmetic there
Couple things:
First, just how impressive was DiMaggio’s streak was. Bradley got a certain amount of attention for hitting in 29 games, which is reasonable–streaks that long only happen every three years or so–but he barely made it *halfway *to DiMaggio’s 56.
Second, the list of guys who’ve hit in 30 consecutive games plus includes a bunch of terrific hitters (Brett, Rose, Speaker, Guerrero, Molitor, Pujols, Hornsby…) but also some folks that make you scratch your head (Jerome Walton, Sandy Alomar Jr., Willy Taveras). Yup, luck is definitely a player here…
I find it surprising that Tony Gwynn never had a 30+ streak. According to www.highheatstats.com, Gwynn’s longest streak was only 25 games.
So much for that. Chased after 2 2/3 innings. But he looked like he good develop into something great. But his first few outings are going to be rough. Next start is against the Cubs.
And the hits just keep on coming for the defending champs:
Mike “Moose” Moustakas is out for the season with a torn ACL.
You gonna argue with Yogi? “Baseball is 90 percent mental. The other half is physical.”
Nope. He was optioned back to the minors today, according to the MLB Network.
nitpick
Since when does “prolific” refer to a single home run(or single anything)?