Strikeout Record Watch

[jtur88]

There are now three players who are on a pace to break the all-time record of 199 strikeouts. I'm unaware of any season in the past in which three players all broke a prior record in the same season. (An example of two doing it were McGwire and Sosa breaking the 61-homer mark.)

The three hitters on a pace to hit the 200-K mark are Ryan Howard, Jack Cust and Mark Reynolds. The fact that Reynolds and Cust are out of the pennant race, could result in those players missing some games in September after the roster expansion.

[Grandstander]

This record has been falling like Autumn leaves lately and it is difficult to work up any enthusiasm for yet another new mark. After Bobby Bonds' mark stood for 34 years, it has been broken three times since 2004. It would have been broken twice before that, but both Preston Wilson in 2000 and Jose Hernandez in 2002 were spared by being benched for the last few games.

Further, Howard will be breaking his own record, so how suspenseful is that? Cust and Reynolds would be passing a record that is no longer the record. It might gain some excitement if either Cust or Reynolds could stage a come from behind rush and pass Howard while breaking his record.

[nanwynn]

Records of this sort, that sort of measure prodigious numbers of failed efforts, don't tweak my interest much; but was does fascinate me in looking into possible factors to explain the reason why such a game element has become exaggerated over a generation of play.

For years, I've followed this and been convinced that the ultimate culprits are Little League, "techie" fascination, premature fixations on performance kinetics, warped dimensions, and the ultimate batter tech toy, the aluminum bat.

I won't go into the complete history of Little League [founded 1939, PA]; but just go back to the time the game exploded to 48 states, entered foreign venues and got television coverage, circa 1953.

I don't believe these will be the observations of a disgruntled sandlotter having paced off MLB play dimensions, playing on pebble strewn diamonds [in the rough]. and using wood frame backstops [or bedsprings].

First, the sandlot crowd generally rose to the playing surface not much before age 12, so the entry range would have been 12-16 or so,, with better players being "tapped" for sponsored teams on batter surfaces, with better equipment.

Little League takes the very young, puts them on diminished diamonds to accommodate their age [5-12] and puts them on manicured diamonds, often with all the trappings of higher organized ball, and exposes them, quite young, to glamor and adult competitiveness.

The dimensions, 6o' on the base paths and 46' from the mound, first of all favor the slightly oversized kid who can throw hard, especially in the early years [1947-1953++++], favoring low scoring games because of pitcher dominance. I can recall the spotted and scattered scandals of "ringers" brought in by local clubs as they had progressed into regional elimination status. Such an dynamic would have, as a predictable outcome, a lasting effect on batter psychology and batting proficiency.

If we examine this; and take a kid, say 10-12 in Little League with a wooden bat, [1947-1970], we get a "generation" of players born between 1935 [oldest] though 1958 [youngest], with the older group maturing to potential MLB playing age between 1956 and 1979.

Between the late 1950s and continuing through the 1960s MLB batting went into a slump bordering on pathetic, with 1968 being an excruciating example in an era of league BA @ .240 or lower. It was the word hitting season since 1908. By 1973, one League had opted for a DH. In the interim, MLB decided to lower the pitchers' mound. The pitching strikeout model had risen but not yet exploded. Pitchers were simply blowing the hitters away.

Circa 1970, enter the aluminum bat, a shiny, costly [@ $200 - $400 today] and lightweight affair that imparts bats speed to "virtual sluggers" of ages 5-21 [adopted by Little League and the NCAA], and raising batted ball speed studies suffiicient to make an actuary cringe.

Here, I would argue, we have a two-headed monster. Little tykes, HS kids and college jocks are largely getting even with the old pitching dominance bias by way of bat speeds [that really aren't there].

They really aren't there because, MLB rules state, among other things, that "The bat shall be ONE PIECE OF SOLID WOOD."

So, at one end of the spectrum, we have a game layout that psychologically invites pitcher dominance, and at the othe, we have artificial bat speeds encouraging batters to swing away. the worst of both worlds for competent contact hitting.

Then comes the exception: Hey, Barry Bonds played Little League ball; and look at his record."

Indeed, and [which just crossed my mind - I hadn't planned to put this observation in here] - and, his natural talents, eye, strength training, and plate discipline PRESERVED him from the undermining influences. I have no clue as to whether Albert Pujols or A-Rod played Little League ball; but I'd guess NONE of the three played BOTH Little League ball and NCAA baseball.

Hitting ain't what it used to be [as an athletic science and discipline] and I think I've presented critical reasons why.

[jtur88]

The culprit, to me, is the replacement of skll and speed of a multi-skill game, with brute strength and power of a media event. The modern pitcher is 6'6" and throws as hard as he can, about 80 pitches or so. The batter weights 245, uses steroids if he thinks he can get away with it, and swings as hard as he can at every pitch. A reality show is staged for television, and ballplayers are invited to participate, for unconscionable prizes.

The reason I thought this statistic was interesting, is because this might be the first time that three players are all chasing an all-time single season record simultaneously.

[LongtimeBravesFan]

Bonds played college baseball at Arizona State. I always thought it was intersting he walked so many times while his dad was a strike out fiend.

In 1884, four players broke the single season home run record and a fifth player tied the old mark. Granted, the old record was only 14, but Ned Williamson hit 27 that year and held that mark until Babe Ruth hit 29 in 1919.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by jtur88

The modern pitcher is 6'6" and throws as hard as he can, about 80 pitches or so. The batter weights 245

While your modern player, as described above, might be better suited to the Brobdingnag Bisons rooster, the point of scouting fixation on "bigger is better" is well taken.

I didn't include your presumption of universal steroid cheating by oversized batters because I don't believe 'roid use, in and of itself, contributes to epidemic "whiffing."

However, neither is is fair to presume that elevated height brings elevated strikeout rates. Barry Bonds is not on the short end of the spectrum; and Ted Williams certainly wasn't, either.

No, there has been a clear erosion is one of the skills essential to the core game, and that skill is plate discipline. [Which I believe incorporates high K rates]. And nobody will convince me that pitchers in the 1901-1941 period were a bunch of rag arm "throwers" incapable of measuring up to modern era pitchers [1967-2008].

Bob Feller was alternately clocked at 98, 101 and 103; and if we allow for technological inaccuracy in an age that produced the A-bomb and laid the groundwork for man-to-moon travel, that speed is unsurpassed by present pitchers. Koufax, at his fastest, "looked" a bit faster; and Hubbell's screwball was a wicked thing indeed, as was "Dutch" Leonard's knuckleball,
The pitchers of the pre WW II era were in no way a lesser talent than today's crop; and, since they were expected to go deep into starts or long in relief [or both], there were fewer of them on overall rosters which makes the argument that pitching depth was better then.

In addition to their natural talents, those guys were known to exploit every opportunity to enhance their "stuff." [cheat?] Emery, slippery elm, spit, Vaseline, scuffing and "notching" with belt buckles [catchers or 3B, usually] gave batters extra things to worry about.

The batters' creed was: CONTACT.

[Grandstander]

nan:

And nobody will convince me that pitchers in the 1901-1941 period were a bunch of rag arm "throwers" incapable of measuring up to modern era pitchers [1967-2008].

I do not think that anyone argues that the earlier pitchers were ragarm throwers, but it does stand to reason that today's pitcher's are superior in all regards, how could they not be?

In every sport where exacting measurements may be used to compare the past and present, the present is clearly established as far superior. Not only have the old world records for speed and strength been eclipsed, but they have been surpassed in such a manner that today you may find 50 track stars who can beat the world record times established before the 1940's. Today's women are faster than the fastest men of the 1930's.

So, are we to believe that in track and field, in swimming, in weight lifting etc, modern athletes are considerably superior to the ones who came before, but somehow or other baseball talent has remained stagnant and the better players were performing when Ruth and Grove were out there? Isn't that an incrtedibly unreasonable belief in light of what we know from those other sports? Today's players are bigger, stronger, faster, have better nutrition and training, and with enhanced salaries, are able to devote themselves to their sport and preparation for it year round, as opposed to the old timers who had to sell insurance during the off season to make ends meet.

You write that "no one will convince me" and I suppose that is true if you simply decide to ignore the evidence and the logic. However, you are wrong. The Ruth era hitters facing today's pitcher's would not be able to put up the fat numbers they posted against weaker arms. The Ruth era pitchers would get raked by today's hitters. There would be ten guys or more as good or better than Ruth and ten guys who had better pitching records than Walter Johnson or Carl Hubbel.

Clinging to the notion that they were better players in the good old days is romantic and emotional, it is not logical or evidence based.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by LongtimeBravesFan

In 1884, four players broke the single season home run record and a fifth player tied the old mark. .

In 1876, all records were broken by everybody. I'm referring, obviously, to an era when records had time to simmer for a few years. More specifically, I refer to the so-called "modern era". Also, I believe (but I'm not sure) that the rulebook definition of a home run might have been changed. I think there was an interval in which a ball over the fence was a triple. However, that may not have been the case (or was the case in only one league) because in the American Association (the other major league), there was no increase in homers that year. The NL total number of HRs hit by the league almost doubled from '83 to '84, so I have to assume that there was non-performance-related blip that led to the scoring bubble.

I think one year in the '70's, umpires were instructed to call a balk on every pitch that they could not award a Perfect Ten. It was abandoned after about a month, but I think almost every pitcher broke the old season balk record before the month was out.

[jtur88]

GS, I think there is also a psychgological motive factor at work in ever-improving records. When the record mile was 4:10, a runner would be inclined to work only hard enough to run 4:09.

While you are correct that modern athletes are "better" than their preceding generations, the athletes of a century ago are no less remarkable. The best hitter in the world was still the best hitter in the world, no matter how much better some future hitter might become when he could practice 15 hours a day without any hay to be brought in, coached and trained by digital criteria, and pumped full of a scientific diet of nutrition and pharmaceutical and have his birth defects repaired in infancy, and given equipment made from miraculous synthetics. It's the East Germany phenomenon, that athletes can be created by the introduction of factors above and beyond the random and unforced selection and opportunity, which is what prevailed in the Cobb-Mathewson era.

The fact that a latter-day Frankenstein could create a Barry Bonds is interesting, but not necessarily admirable, nor is the monster that was created. Bonds was created to be a hitting machine, and he would never have hit 60 if he had been raised drinking and smoking behind the woodshed of a Baltimore orphanage.

[Grandstander]

jtur:

I think there is also a psychgological motive factor at work in ever-improving records. When the record mile was 4:10, a runner would be inclined to work only hard enough to run 4:09.

This seems shakey to me, wouldn't the motivation be to run as fast as you possibly can regardless of the records?

Your business about the modern athletes being the product of some sort of lab zombie animations, that's also a stretch, isn't it? That Babe Ruth used hot dogs and beer while Frank Thomas used protein shakes, doesn't make Frank Thomas some robot with unfair advantages.

Hitting is harder today.....period. It is impossible to believe otherwise. The batters are facing harder throwers with greater varieties of pitches, they are trying to drive balls through massively improved defenses featuring players who are way faster than the outfielders Ruth had to frustrate.

Ever read Christy Matherson's "Pitching In a Pinch?" It is tremendously worthwhile, well written and you learn a great deal about what the game was like at the start of the 20th century. Mathewson explains that pitchers do not go all out with their efforts until critical situations arise or especially dangerous batters are up, then they reared back and gave it their all.

Modern pitchers could not get away with that sort of thing, the standards have been raised impossibly high. That's among the reasons that strategies have changed and more pitchers are used. Today's starters have to go all out at all times. They wear out and get replaced by a fresh pitcher who also goes all out against all batters in all situations. And for the final inning, most clubs have some fresh 100 mph firing monster to bring in who goes all out against all batters.

Take a modern hitter who is accustomed to facing all out effort on every pitch from every pitcher and place in in a world where pitchers are trying to coast their way through portions of the lineup....and you would have a ten runs per side per game offensive environment.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

nan:

I do not think that anyone argues that the earlier pitchers were ragarm throwers, but it does stand to reason that today's pitcher's are superior in all regards, how could they not be?

There is no doubt the pitchers today are bigger and stronger than their forbears of 30-80+ years ago, with the comparisons expanding as the time lapse increases. However, there is far more to pitching than being a big, strapping guy who throws hard. One must know how to pitch; and there is a distinction.

The mindset generations ago was that batters were totally focused on contact, so the pitcher "pitched to hit," with stuff, change of speeds, motion and ball location being aggregated to make the batter connect with pitches "controlled" by the pitcher.

In every sport where exacting measurements may be used to compare the past and present, the present is clearly established as far superior. Not only have the old world records for speed and strength been eclipsed, but they have been surpassed in such a manner that today you may find 50 track stars who can beat the world record times established before the 1940's. Today's women are faster than the fastest men of the 1930's.

Again, correct. However, we are NOT talking individual tests of athlete performance against clocks or extremely specialized skill sets in terms of weigh, time, etc. We are talking about team efforts, with varied positional subsets that aggregate for team performance.

So, are we to believe that in track and field, in swimming, in weight lifting etc, modern athletes are considerably superior to the ones who came before, but somehow or other baseball talent has remained stagnant and the better players were performing when Ruth and Grove were out there? Isn't that an incrtedibly unreasonable belief in light of what we know from those other sports?

True, but baseball players to not swim their way to stardom or win prices for lifting the heaviest bats. And again, no the size, strength, potential have advanced; but execution has not only stagnated but gone into reverse. I will say this much: Whether as a factor of surface design and maintenance, glove technology, raw speed + innate talent, fielding skills are at least as good as they were years ago.

Now, as to whether the game has evolved so as to discard skill sets once considered essential, I will not belabor a point.

Today's players are bigger, stronger, faster, have better nutrition and training, and with enhanced salaries, are able to devote themselves to their sport and preparation for it year round, as opposed to the old timers who had to sell insurance during the off season to make ends meet.

This combines points already addressed with the added footnote of sociology and economics, the latter being debatable as positive-negative influences on player off-season discipline.

You write that "no one will convince me" and I suppose that is true if you simply decide to ignore the evidence and the logic. However, you are wrong.

I admittedly was quite decisive in that statement, but no less than you [who are the mistaken one].

The Ruth era hitters facing today's pitcher's would not be able to put up the fat numbers they posted against weaker arms.

Those "weaker" arms were not exhausted after 5 innings; nor were they considered workhorses after working more than 200 innings in a shorter season. I'll go back to the basic hitting premise: contact. The more you make contact, the batter your odds of accumulating safe hits.

The Ruth era pitchers would get raked by today's hitters. There would be ten guys or more as good or better than Ruth and ten guys who had better pitching records than Walter Johnson or Carl Hubbel.

I like your imagery, but only if they batted with rakes. Pujols and Bonds might have been league leaders with a contemporary Ruth. Johnson and Hubbell would eat up today's batters.

Very debatable. I takes no rocket science to watch MLB today and see "star" hitters looking awful on pitches in the dirt, up around their eyes, or so down and away they verge on wild pitch territory. The disciplines of which I speak would have little of that compared with today.

Yes, the best of hitters then could look bad on rare occasions; but it was the exception rather than the rule. Pitchers today can get away with it because the batters are that erratic.

Clinging to the notion that they were better players in the good old days is romantic and emotional, it is not logical or evidence based.

No, it is not. It is a rather detached look at game dynamics and statistics that indicate that the benefits you assume translate to baseball as well as they do to other [especially individual] sports, simply do not.

IF they did translate so tidily, stadium dimensions would be expanding, not shrinking. Pitchers' mound elevation would be standard, not lowered.

If I were picked to empathize with any group of modern players, it would be the pitchers. They have been so over trained, over grown and over coddled probably as repayment for the lowered mound to accommodate the pathetic hitting climate.

Where would today's whiffing greats be if the mound were raised back to former height.

[Grandstander]

Well, nan, you make it impossible to take you seriously when your arguments are flowing directly from the YNMYDAY school of mythical golden ages.

You admit that today's players are bigger, stronger and faster, so to rehab the Golden Age Guys, all you are left with are groundless intangibles assertions such as "they knew how to pitch." You of course have no evidence for this, and it flies in the face of ordinary reason. Why wouldn't today's pitcher's know how to pitch? Most of the MLB pitchers have backgrounds of instruction from Babe Ruth League ball on up through the professionals found at the highest levels. They are provided with all the collective pitching wisdom of the ages, so of course they know how to pitch, they know more than the Golden Age guys because there is more information available than there was earlier.

How do you account for all the modern athletes being superior in the sports where precise measurements are possible? Are you going to argue that they were just as good physically as today's competitors, but their records are inferior because they didn't know how to run? Or swim? Or lift weights?

And on top of all this, you managed to contradict yourself later by asserting that today's pitchers are "overtrained." You need to fall back, give it some thought, and make up your mind. If they are simultaneously overtrained and ignorant of how to pitch, then what would be the solution? Even greater overtraining or withholding more knowledge of pitching from them? You should at least be internally consistent within your bs.

There was also your nonsense about the superior stamina of the Golden Agers, why they were ironmen spit, sputter etc. I guess you didn't read what I wrote about Christy Mathewson and how he explained that the pitchers of his era took it easy when they could and only threw hard when the situation demanded. Of course you can pitch more and further into games if you are throwing hard less often.

Today's pitchers have no such luxury, they have no choice but to go hard from the start. It is because today's hitters are so much better than the ones that oldtimers felt comfortable enough with so that they coasted through the at bat and saved themselves for the few really tough hitters. Since modern pitchers have better training and better nutrition, of course they are in better shape than the ones who came before, why would they not be? If they are not pitching as many innings, it is not a matter of the old timers having greater endurance, it is a matter of the job becoming much more demanding.

You want us to believe that it was better back in the day, but you do not provide any reasons which make sense, only ones which are obviously false.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Well, nan, you make it impossible to take you seriously when your arguments are flowing directly from the YNMYDAY school of mythical golden ages.

OK. I will gladly indulge in the game you've just begun, since it is a familiar pattern of debate you follow, with unerring predictability:

1. Rule out the logic of the other by inserting an encompassing statement of his errant fixation or faulty powers of reasoning. While I have no clue as to the word-by-word meanings of your acronym, I may safely assume that it has something to do with my age + the unfortunate stereotype of the old-timer at the cracker barrel who, rubbing his stubble pensively, mutters something like, "Well, young feller, you weren't there, but I was. I seed all those great 'uns; and you can take my word fer it, they wuz giants."

You admit that today's players are bigger, stronger and faster, so to rehab the Golden Age Guys, all you are left with are groundless intangibles assertions such as "they knew how to pitch." You of course have no evidence for this, and it flies in the face of ordinary reason.

GS Rule of Debate 2: 2. Turn what the other has said on its head and show it as self-contradiction; but don't forget to add a special note that attacks the other's reasoning skills.

Yes. I admit today's players are bigger, stronger and faster than their forebears; and I plainly said so as you well know. However, I also, very reasonably pointed out that you honed your initial arguments largely on individual accomplishment athletic competitions of the sort against a clock, a weight challenge, etc.

The older player need no "rehab" [clever, diverting and meaningless] from me; and I have all the evidence I need, in the record books, on film and videotape, and on written histories of the game. There are also certain two-dimensional sabermetric studies of the 3-D game of MLB that mathematically support the competence and accomplishment levels of former players in simulation studies that do not greatly either diminish the oldies or augment the moderns.

"They knew how to pitch" has very little to do with size or speed, but has much to do with game psychology and strategy. NOT making "him" typical but rather an example of the model, I'd refer interested fans to Spurgeon "Spud" Chandler of the [hated] Yankees of my youth, who rarely K'd more than 2 batters per game [or issued BB's as well] yet won consistently by keeping batters off stride, a bit early, a bit late, a bit under, a bit over the "sweet spot."

As a personal aside, my reasoning powers are not "ordinary." [Tongue-in-cheek here in lieu of a cute smiley].

Why wouldn't today's pitcher's know how to pitch? Most of the MLB pitchers have backgrounds of instruction from Babe Ruth League ball on up through the professionals found at the highest levels. They are provided with all the collective pitching wisdom of the ages, so of course they know how to pitch, they know more than the Golden Age guys because there is more information available than there was earlier.

Why? Because coaches at all levels stress points of develpment at odds with the essential mental
and physical refinements essential to pitching [as opposed to throwing]. If you find a collective atmosphere in which 11, 12, and 13 year-olds are undergoing Tommy John surgery as exemplifying the "collective pitching wisom of the ages," then we are at such odds as to suggest we shouls agree to disagree.


Rule 3: Attack the other side of the debate with a question, preferably expressed, but not always, with verb inversion [like "How can you not;" OR "Do you not;"] to indicate that the opponent has[stupidly] overlooked some glaring truth.

How do you account for all the modern athletes being superior in the sports where precise measurements are possible? Are you going to argue that they were just as good physically as today's competitors, but their records are inferior because they didn't know how to run? Or swim? Or lift weights?

Here I'm legitimately surprised by the point being suggested. We are asled to "go to the tape."

I wish I had the Sports Illustrated in front of me [I don't] that photographically presented stadium shots with graphics of the longest recorded HRs ever [measured] hit, as officially recorded. One, which I witnessed in the late summer of 1942, was a Ted Williams rainmaker that looked as if it might clear the roof at Yankee Stadium. It didn't; and on its descent it grazed the filigree green "patina drapery" that so immediately marks Yankee Stadium architecturally. That shot was projected @ 498.'

There have been other shots by Joe Adcock, Reggie Jackson, "Babe" Ruth and Mickey Mantle among a host of players with some measurements that defy physics. However, the point is that over 70 years at least, prodigious shots have been documented; and the NEW ones are no longer than the old ones. Professor Robert K. Adair, in his "The Physics of Baseball," explains the physics of batted balls in flight; and, applying those rules to mythical batted balls concludes that a ball hit over 475' is in very rare company and that one landmark drive by Mickey Mantle at Griffith Stadium, probably traveled @ 510.'

Applying fact to your points about bigger and stronger, I do not see young studs driving balls any further than old-timers did before they were born; and they are playing in smaller parks with slightly livelier baseballs.

The Coefficient of Restitution of a 1938 baseball [ironically tested in 1942, so I'd allow for a humidor effect] was lower than that of contemporary baseballs measured in 1987 and 1999. The two newe balls tested at @58, while the 1938 ball, tested @49. [As I said, I'd make that 52-54 due to ball aging].

Rule 4: Always apply, as a coup de grace, some contradiction revealed by reasoning flaw in the opponent's mental faculties; and, if at all possible, put words [not stated] into his mouth, so that all is unworthy of credibility at any level.

And on top of all this, you managed to contradict yourself later by asserting that today's pitchers are "overtrained." You need to fall back, give it some thought, and make up your mind. If they are simultaneously overtrained and ignorant of how to pitch, then what would be the solution? Even greater overtraining or withholding more knowledge of pitching from them? You should at least be internally consistent within your bs.

They are indeed OVER-trained, in weight gain, muscle mass, nutritional "loading" and power mechanics. Yet, after all that, they are treted like creampuffs when it comes to the WORK of pitching [now throwing] a baseball. They are essentially NOT trained as pitchers and many managers at the MLB level are astounded at the amount of training players at all positions require once they have made the Big Leagues.

Take a looks at a typical profile for a kid coming up and you see size, strength, power, speed IN ISOLATION and not amalgamated into 3,4, and 5 tool combinations. Baeball at the highest levels is a game of execution.

The bs is all on your side of the court. [Step carefully, lest you "squish."]

There was also your nonsense about the superior stamina of the Golden Agers, why they were ironmen spit, sputter etc. I guess you didn't read what I wrote about Christy Mathewson and how he explained that the pitchers of his era took it easy when they could and only threw hard when the situation demanded. Of course you can pitch more and further into games if you are throwing hard less often.

Was that another thread? What nonsense? Instead of reading with some comprehension what Mathewson was saying, you attempt to turn it into a debating tool to make a point exactly opposite to his.

Knowing when to throw hard is a key element to pitching; and the admonition to "stay within yourself" is wise advice in any worthwhile enterprise. "Throwing hard" is NOT pitching.

Today's pitchers have no such luxury, they have no choice but to go hard from the start. It is because today's hitters are so much better than the ones that oldtimers felt comfortable enough with so that they coasted through the at bat and saved themselves for the few really tough hitters.

Well, you did bring such terms as "nonsense" and "bs" into the discussion, so I guess I can identify such stuff when I see it. This last bit is just such a sampling. You beg a question which you would forbid me to do; and you offer nothing to support it.

Fact is, pitchers are trained TO BELIEVE they must overpower hitters, all out for an ever-decreasing numbers of innings per start, because others [13 or 14 on staffs now - and with what paucity of depth] will pick up the slack for the last three or four innings.

Older guys would have gone deep today; and, by pacing themselves, might well have fanned some of these guys fewer times that the modern guys do [maybe not]. The mindset would have been to make batters hit the ball BUT [the kicker] hit the ball where you pitched it so that the results would be least damaging to the team in the field. Therein lies the real difference.

Since modern pitchers have better training and better nutrition, of course they are in better shape than the ones who came before, why would they not be? If they are not pitching as many innings, it is not a matter of the old timers having greater endurance, it is a matter of the job becoming much more demanding.

As stated above, very needlessly so.

You want us to believe that it was better back in the day, but you do not provide any reasons which make sense, only ones which are obviously false.

No. Batting and contact were superior. I have never used "back in the day," an expression I find [personally] vapid, hollow and without meaning. Heck, I don't use "back in the old days" either, although I have slipped into "When i was a kid" on occasion.

I do not want you to believe anything. Missionaries have a way of winding up in cooking pots. I have provided far more supporting data for my debating points than you have, however.

[jtur88]

When you consider the talent pool, the number of very good players that arose by about 1930 is quite remarkab. We now have 750 MLB players, of whom about 500 would have been eligible to play a century ago. Those 500 are drawn from a raw populatin base of American white boys, which a century ago had to populate MLB rosters of 400, yet have three times as many boys to pick from. The ratio widens rapidsly when you begin to consider other factors, such as the number of boys with unrepaired birth defects or injuries, horrible nutrition for many, widespread accidents, debilitating childhood illnesses, and the simple fact that when boys were old enough to work on the farm or in the mine, they had at best a few hours on Sunday afternoon to develop their baseball skills. Yet, from this thin demographic of healthy boys with the liesure to play ball, there were an astounding number of players who were unarguably remarkable ball players, skilled at all aspects of the game including fielding bad hops with tiny gloves and ducking beanballs.

Of course it is true that if Babe Ruth had been 6'5" and weighed 245, and went through a coaching and training regime and a 60-game season at a large Florida high school, he would have been a "better" slugger. That is so obvious, that it is meaningless to articulate it. But is it fair to say that his records are meaningless because he had no such advantage, nor did his opposition? I don't think so.

I'm wondering if you would also argue that any Civil War regiment would have gotten mopped up by a modern army, and were therefore second-rate soldiers led by inferior generals.