Is there any concrete evidence of any of things? Has the percentage of successful bunts gone down? The number of hit batsman? Failed run downs? I believe there were plenty of lazy players then, and plenty of lazy players now. Plenty of players with bad fundamentals then and now.
I don’t fully disagree with you (How is that for an introduction). I think there is ample evidence that pitchers who throw 120+ pitches consistenly are more likely to get hurt. However, that doesn’t mean 12 man staffs are necessary. Teams could be much more creative using there pitchers. 4 man staffs, using closers earlier/for longer, tandem starters, etc. would allow teams to use their best pitchers more often without much additional risk.
Ryan was a freak of nature. Do you want to risk ruining your star pitcher on the off chance he is Nolan Ryan?
I don’t know how to get the stats, but I have been watching with an idea of what I was watching since 1972 or 1973 and the fundamentals are far worse in that time period. I now have to ask you how old you are, I am 41.
Good points, but if the pitchers are trained to throw 120+ from a younger age as they use to be, maybe the number would change. I don’t remember more pitchers getting injured in the 70s and 80s. I would guess about the same amount, but now more would recover with today’s arm surgeries. Mel Stottlemyer’s career ended with something that would today sideline for him for a season. Before Tommy John there was no Tommy John surgery. (He was called the bionic man for a reason, his arm surgery was not an incremental improvement but a revolutionary new procedure that changed the game forever.)
Sure he was, I even agree and now I will go back and say the Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson and Christy Matthewson were also freaks of nature.
It may or may not be that players show more hustle on the field (I really couldn’t say), but a lot of what you mention here has to do with appropriate adjustments to suit the modern run scoring environment. It doesn’t make much sense for players to try bunting for singles with any regularity if they have at least a little bit of power, which almost everyone does today. Likewise, with the influx of (relative) power hitters, you’ve got a lot of players who aren’t very nimble compared to their counterparts of 30 years ago, and ought not to be trying to take the extra base (or to leg out a bunt single).
Also, you say that today’s players aren’t as good at the fundamentals, but that’s a bit of a rigged argument if you’re defining those fundamentals as you seem to be. For instance, hitting home runs and drawing walks are both awfully fundamental, and today’s players do those things superbly compared to the old-timers.
Players also train much harder than they used to and stay healthier. The overall work ethic is much greater; remember, spring training was created to get guys into shape and lose some weight they’d added in the offseason. That doesn’t happen anymore. And for what it’s worth I don’t agree that “Fundamentals” are worse than they used to be, but that’s just our opinions. I mean, bear in mind Leon Wagner played back then. And Dave Kingman. And Marvelous Marv. Not exactly reminiscent of Roberto Alomar in the fundamentals department.
Getting into “what if?” arguments is pointless, anyway. Ruth played when he did, and Bonds played when he did, and Aaron played when he did. They can only fairly be compared by how they helped their teams when they did, not by how they might have helped their teams if they’d been born at different times.
I’m 25. I would suggest you read The New Historical Baseball Abstract by Bill James. In it James takes a look at the general sentiment amongst fans/reporters about baseball in each decade. One of these feelings was that people were always complaining how bad current players of the game were at fundamentals compared to the players of previous decades. This occurred in every decade. Players in the 40’s weren’t as fundamentally sound as ones in the 20’s. Players in the 60’s tried less hard than players in the 40s. Players in the 80’s got paid exhorbant salaries, so they didn’t care about fundamentals like the good old days of the 60’s. I can either believe that people glorify the age in which they grew up in, or that baseball players have been consistenly become less fundamental sounds since baseball started. I choose the former.
Maybe, but the evidence suggests throwing a lot of pitchers when a young pitcher is still developing is highly risky. I think, if anything, it is the veterans who aren’t pushed enough. Once you reach age 26 or so, the risk, while still substantial, is significantly lessened
So the question remains. Do you risk your ace on the chance that he is a freak? Is losing Wood and Prior worth the durablity of Zambrano?