True, although several analysts have recently advocated a return to the four-man rotation. See this series of articles, for example.
I am absolutely baffled as to how Wilhelm could be considered not eligible if a man with FEWER innings is eligible. No matter how you slice it, Hoyt Wilhelm threw more innings than Pedro Martinez has, and he had a lower ERA. That is a fact beyond doubt or question.
I think we need to set a clear standard here.
I happen to think that 1947 is a mighty arbitrary year to pick. In order to justify using it, you might want to show me some examples of players whose stats declined drastically with the integration of baseball.
That IS the “logic” of starting with 1947, right? You’re saying that any batting title Stan Musial or Ted Williams won before 1947 is tainted, because they didn’t have to face the best black pitchers, and didn’t have to contend with speedy black outfielders who could run down all their fly balls. By this “logic,” the integration of baseball should have devastated Musial and Williams. Their batting averages should have plummeted.
In reality, integration didn’t hurt the stats of baseball’s elite in the least. In 1957, ten years after integration began, Stan Musial and Ted Williams were beating the hell out of black pitchers just as they’d always done to the white boys.
Nobody should make any excuses for segregation in ANY Walk of life. It was both immoral and stupid. But I see no sign that the presence of black players hurt the stats of any top-notch white ballplayer. If the OP can’t present any proof that it did, I say 1947 is an unacceptably arbitrary starting point.
I think the argument isn’t so much that the current record-holders would have suffered in an integrated league–as you point out, the elite are elite no matter the competition. Rather, the point is that black elite ballplayers who got no chance (or little chance) to play in the majors might have ended up with a number of those records for themselves.
Who’s to say, for example, how many home runs Josh Gibson might have hit in the majors, or how many wins Satchel Paige might have recorded?
If there is to be a dividing point between the “old” era and the “modern” era, I am comfortable with placing it at '47. It’s as good a place as any because it changed the face of the game, even if it didn’t change overall performances.
OK, we have a standard for the season title at 1 IP per team game played. For the sake of simplicity, I’m only going to assume 154 games a season for Wilhelm, and 162 for Martinez. Wilhelm - 21 * 154 = 3234 necessary. Not eligible. Martinez - 11 * 162 = 1782 necessary. Eligible. Honestly, I’m not real sure I like doing it this way for a career, but there was to be some way to weed out the people who otherwise would sneak in on a fluke.
Look, the man was a relief pitcher. He started 52 games out of 1070 in his career; that’s only 2 1/2 starts a season. The earlier claim in this thread that he ate up a lot of innings is just not so. Leaving out the 3 seasons in which he started 10 or more games, his highest innings per game is around 2 1/2. He had 13 seasons where he averaged less than 2 innings per game. I believe relief pitchers should not be eligible for the ERA title unless they can match what a starter would have done over the same period. The only place Wilhelm does that is in GP.
Thanks for the interesting articles, and you’re preaching to the choir on this one. I think going to the 5 man rotation was simply ludicrous.
This is nonsensical, since it makes it possible for a pitcher to fail to qualify even if he IS a starting pitcher but has a number of years where he’s hurt or new and only pitches in 4 games, and also means that the standard of IP is different for different pitchers.
Wilhelm pitched more innings than Martinez. If he isn’t eligible, Martinez isn’t, either, for at least 3 years. We need to set a real standard, as in a specific number of innings pitched. 1500? 2000? I’d arbitrarily choose 1620; ten years of qualifying for the ERA title. (By the same token I’d arbitrarily pick 5020 plate appearances for batters’ percentage records.)
Interestingly, Wilhelm only qualified for the ERA title twice - 1952, as a twenty-eight year old rooke, and 1959, his only year as a full-time starter.
He led the league in ERA both of those years. Don’t know that that proves a thing, but it’s interesting.
Off to find some biographical info on Wilhelm - I wonder why he didn’t reach the majors till he was 28?
Well, I said I wasn’t real sure I liked doing it this way. Although most starting pitchers have enough innings in the bank to cover these situations. Martinez for one; his first season he only had 8 IP, and including that season, 4 of his seasons he has had below 162. I don’t understand how that makes the standard different, though. Relievers, with very rare exceptions, don’t have enough innings for the season title. I am (however dubiously) extending the season rule to cover a career.
Y’know, you might could convince me of this. I’d like to think about it. The one thing that is really sticking in my craw about Wilhelm is that he would only have been eligible for two season titles, and I can’t make myself believe that it’s appropriate to give him a career title. (Even as hypothetical as it is.) It seems to me to be just a statistical hiccup.
I think the 4 vs 5 man rotation should depend on what you have on staff. Do you have depth in the pen, but not great starters? 5 man, get 6 or 7, get to the pen. Big horses up front? 4 men, get 7,8,9. Kinda like football and 4-3 vs. 3-4 defenses. Good linemen? 4-3. Lots of LBS (like the 80s Giants)? 3-4 .
I have to admit my NY Mets were one of the first to convert - the 1969 WS champs used 5 starters and were second in the league in ERA (STL), even though they were young (22, 24, 26,33, 25) and basically only had 10 pitchers throw 10 games. They were very protective of their young arms, and, in fact, 4 of those 10 pitched into their 40s (Seaver, Koosman, Ryan, McGraw - not a shabby bunch), but they were also known for mechanics and leg drive (still can see Seaver and the dirty right shin). It should be noted all 5 of those Mets starters were below league-average ERA. I'd like to see an Arizona try it - last year they had 15(!) guys throw 16 or more games, and only 2 starter below league average. Ride the big horses, send the nags to the glue factory (or White Castle). Kinda surprised Mazzone and Atlanta never did - but I guess they felt they had better starters than relievers. Could they have won more WS if they switched Smoltz to the pen earlier and gone 4 man? Hmmm...
They don’t finish games any more, though - the Backs led the league with 14 games - Seaver and Koosman each had more, and the Giants had 71.
** Wilson**, I think a lot of knucklers seem to need more time to develop their pitch. Phil Niekro started relatively late too. The weirdest thing about that 28 year old rookie? First AB - HR. Career totals? (21 years) 1 HR.
And his second at bat was his only career triple, I believe.
All I could find on Wilhelm with a quick look was that after WWII he played for two years in a minor league, then was signed by the Giants in '48. Played four more years in the minors for them before making the majors.
I wonder if it was a bit of anti-knuckler prejudice? Clearly, from his rookie season he was ready.
Then again, the '51 Giants were a pretty good team without him.
I’ve heard that story too. but questionable. Some accounts have that triple in his second year.
another cite: http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats_historical/mlb_individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=124261
Well, I’ll be…
My source was Baseball Library.com. I know I’ve heard it before, too. Clearly the stat lines don’t bear it out.