Knuckleball School

[gollum83]

Oh, I didn't realize he was the only pitcher in league history to pitch all of his games at home

True, but it still would invalidate your points to some extent. McLain would have pitched, what, roughly half his games at home? And if anything, the park shrunk some as they expanded the park after Frank Navin died back in 1935 because that's when they started adding to the upper deck and created the upper deck overhangs the stadium was famous for.

 

[richmondesi]

True, but it still would invalidate your points to some extent. McLain would have pitched, what, roughly half his games at home? And if anything, the park shrunk some as they expanded the park after Frank Navin died back in 1935 because that's when they started adding to the upper deck and created the upper deck overhangs the stadium was famous for.

It doesn't invalidate the point at all. The point, and fact, is that the majority of the league had parks that were significantly bigger and with more foul territory... Higher mounds were just part of what gave pitchers a distinct advantage over today's pitchers.

Oh yeah... what was the center field fence? 440

 

[Dennis]

I thought the higher wins in a season had to do with pitchers going on fewer days - every 3 or so. Pitchers today see no where near that so season win totals will likely never equal what they used to.

 

[richmondesi]

I thought the higher wins in a season had to do with pitchers going on fewer days - every 3 or so. Pitchers today see no where near that so season win totals will likely never equal what they used to.

That's true, but I am just pointing out that there are significant additional advantages that allowed the really good guys to be more effective

 

[gollum83]

It doesn't invalidate the point at all. The point, and fact, is that the majority of the league had parks that were significantly bigger and with more foul territory... Higher mounds were just part of what gave pitchers a distinct advantage over today's pitchers.

Paul, I am not disagreeing with you on the mounds. It should be quite obvious that the higher mounds back then would have given an advantage to pitchers. It would have made it much easier to get high into the strike zone and therefore make it harder on average to get a hit, as you have already stated yourself. But I have to agree with Phil that the only real advantage would have been that it would have lower ERAs because every pitcher back in the 60's would have had this same advantage because they were all pitching off of the higher mounds. Personally, I think its erroneous to think that it would increase the number of wins because you're not giving any one team or pitcher an advantage that the other team or pitcher does not. And let's be honest, the same argument could be made for any other other point you've made.

 

[richmondesi]

Paul, I am not disagreeing with you on the mounds. It should be quite obvious that the higher mounds back then would have given an advantage to pitchers. It would have made it much easier to get high into the strike zone and therefore make it harder on average to get a hit, as you have already stated yourself. But I have to agree with Phil that the only real advantage would have been that it would have lower ERAs because every pitcher back in the 60's would have had this same advantage because they were all pitching off of the higher mounds. Personally, I think its erroneous to think that it would increase the number of wins because you're not giving any one team or pitcher an advantage that the other team or pitcher does not. And let's be honest, the same argument could be made for any other other point you've made.

Ok. Take a guy that throws 100 and give him a higher mound and bigger strike zone. If he can control that and hit spots, he will win virtually every game. Now if his counterpart throws in the mid 80s, he doesn't have the same advantage. In fact, it hurts him because he isn't going high in the zone (or he won't if he's smart)... Like I said, if you can reconcile the position that lowering ERAs isn't going to translate into more wins for the truly great pitchers, then your point is dead on. I just happen to disagree with that position

 

[gollum83]

Ok. Take a guy that throws 100 and give him a higher mound and bigger strike zone. If he can control that and hit spots, he will win virtually every game. Now if his counterpart throws in the mid 80s, he doesn't have the same advantage. In fact, it hurts him because he isn't going high in the zone (or he won't if he's smart)... Like I said, if you can reconcile the position that lowering ERAs isn't going to translate into more wins for the truly great pitchers, then your point is dead on. I just happen to disagree with that position

Well I suppose we could keep going around and around about this, Paul, but I refuse to do so. Quite honestly, I don't think anyone will ever agree on whether or not pitching in that era naturally lead to McLain's 31 wins. It is just one of those great debates in baseball, and will likely remain that way until they no longer play the game. Regardless of your position, you do have to admit that getting those 31 wins was an impressive feat considering reaching the 30 win mark only happened 13 times total during the whole of 20th century, and only once after 1934.

 

[richmondesi]

Well I suppose we could keep going around and around about this, Paul, but I refuse to do so. Quite honestly, I don't think anyone will ever agree on whether or not pitching in that era naturally lead to McLain's 31 wins. It is just one of those great debates in baseball, and will likely remain that way until they no longer play the game. Regardless of your position, you do have to admit that getting those 31 wins was an impressive feat considering reaching the 30 win mark only happened 13 times total during the whole of 20th century, and only once after 1934.

First, I totally agree that it was a totally impressive feat that will almost certainly not be matched again. Second, I'm not debating with you because to debate you have to have common ground from which to build. I say that advantages that lower ERAs will necessarily bring more wins to pitchers with great abilities, and you disagree. There can not be a debate about which advantages led to any number of wins because we disagree about the foundation upon which the debate would build. For us to debate this issue, we would have to go back and find an area of agreement...

 

[gollum83]

First, I totally agree that it was a totally impressive feat that will almost certainly not be matched again. Second, I'm not debating with you because to debate you have to have common ground from which to build. I say that advantages that lower ERAs will necessarily bring more wins to pitchers with great abilities, and you disagree. There can not be a debate about which advantages led to any number of wins because we disagree about the foundation upon which the debate would build. For us to debate this issue, we would have to go back and find an area of agreement...

So are you saying that point doesn't count?

 

[richmondesi]

So are you saying that point doesn't count?

No, it doesn't count because it's irrelevant to the discussion of why people had more wins during his era.

 

[BullGoose]

I thought the higher wins in a season had to do with pitchers going on fewer days - every 3 or so. Pitchers today see no where near that so season win totals will likely never equal what they used to.

That certainly has a lot to do with it. The more starts a pitcher makes the more chances he has of earning a win.

 

[richmondesi]

That certainly has a lot to do with it. The more starts a pitcher makes the more chances he has of earning a win.

In fact, it's the most significant factor I would argue. I was just adding the point that pitchers were at a distinct advantage in that day than now. This is one of the reasons that it's so impressive to see what the greats of baseball past have done offensively.

 

[BullGoose]

This is one of the reasons that it's so impressive to see what the greats of baseball past have done offensively.

+1 I absolutely agree!

 

[BullGoose]

Back to the idea of the knuckleball school.

 

[Brodirt]

It doesn't invalidate the point at all. The point, and fact, is that the majority of the league had parks that were significantly bigger and with more foul territory... Higher mounds were just part of what gave pitchers a distinct advantage over today's pitchers.

Oh yeah... what was the center field fence? 440

1968 saw the AL batting title won by Yaz with 301, Tiant and Gibson lead in ERA with the lowest numbers in the previous 50 years. Batting titles have been .030 or more higher since and only Guidry and Gooden have come anywhere near the numbers of Tiant, no less Gibsons 1.12 mark in 1968.

If you don't think it was the lowering of the mound that made all the difference just use Gibson himself and his 69 and 70 seasons as a measure. He didn't change teams or parks...he was in his prime and his competition didn't change either...no new ball parks in those years either. So, he still won 20+ games each of those years and he still struck out about 270 and only gave up about 11 home runs each season. He did, however, give up 50 more hits per year, a 25% increase and his ERA went up 1 run in 69 and another in 70.

Now, it wasnt just Gibson who suffered at the lowering of the mound. In 68 MLB saw just under 26,000 total hits. In 69 there were 32,500 hits. There was no league expansion during that period and the change from 154 to 162 games was 8 years prior in 1961.

So, I say its all about the rule changes of 69 which were the lowering of the mound and the slight decrease in size of the strike zone, but since a called strike was always a subjective element of the game I give less credit to the strike zone than to the 5" they took off the mound.

 

[richmondesi]

1968 saw the AL batting title won by Yaz with 301, Tiant and Gibson lead in ERA with the lowest numbers in the previous 50 years. Batting titles have been .030 or more higher since and only Guidry and Gooden have come anywhere near the numbers of Tiant, no less Gibsons 1.12 mark in 1968.

If you don't think it was the lowering of the mound that made all the difference just use Gibson himself and his 69 and 70 seasons as a measure. He didn't change teams or parks...he was in his prime and his competition didn't change either...no new ball parks in those years either. So, he still won 20+ games each of those years and he still struck out about 270 and only gave up about 11 home runs each season. He did, however, give up 50 more hits per year, a 25% increase and his ERA went up 1 run in 69 and another in 70.

Now, it wasnt just Gibson who suffered at the lowering of the mound. In 68 MLB saw just under 26,000 total hits. In 69 there were 32,500 hits. There was no league expansion during that period and the change from 154 to 162 games was 8 years prior in 1961.

So, I say its all about the rule changes of 69 which were the lowering of the mound and the slight decrease in size of the strike zone, but since a called strike was always a subjective element of the game I give less credit to the strike zone than to the 5" they took off the mound.

Don't underestimate how shrinking the strike zone contributes to higher ERAs. I agree that the mound was a (if not THE) major factor, but anytime you give a hitter a smaller area to cover, ERAs are definitely going to increase. FWIW, my whole point was that, back then, pitchers had a distinct advantage over pitchers of today in terms of higher mound, bigger zones, bigger park, more foul territory, etc. Combining this with the fact that they went on fewer days rest (= more starts), IMO necessarily means that the really good pitchers would definitely have more wins than pitchers of the modern era... Keep in mind that analysts are saying now that we may never see another 300 game winner... Or if we do, it will be by someone either not in the league now or very young. Spe......t relief pitchers, pitch counts, 5 (sometimes 6) man rotations are major contributing factors... Combine that with shorter mounds, smaller strike zone, tiny parks (comparatively), and hardly any foul territory, it's really incredible to see guys like Zack Grienke and Felix Hernandez with ERAs in the low to mid 2s... Just my opinion, obviously

 

[ratcheer]

Y'all are starting to hit on one of my biggest pet peeves about baseball, the reduced strike zone. The actual rules of baseball have not changed, but for some reason the umpires have cut at least six inches off the top of the strike zone. If they would call them by the written rules, a normal baseball score would not be 8-6. I have always loved it when Bob Gibson or Tom Seaver or Nolan Ryan made the hitters look silly.

IMHO, the greatest baseball performance of all time was when Sandy Koufax had torn up his elbow to the point that he could only throw the fastball. Against the mighty Yankees in the World Series, they knew he couldn't throw a curve. And they still couldn't hit his fastball.

Tim

 

[ratcheer]

Sometimes, I can throw a knuckleball that dances. Not very often, but sometimes.

Tim

 

[Brodirt]

Y'all are starting to hit on one of my biggest pet peeves about baseball, the reduced strike zone. The actual rules of baseball have not changed, but for some reason the umpires have cut at least six inches off the top of the strike zone. If they would call them by the written rules, a normal baseball score would not be 8-6. I have always loved it when Bob Gibson or Tom Seaver or Nolan Ryan made the hitters look silly.

IMHO, the greatest baseball performance of all time was when Sandy Koufax had torn up his elbow to the point that he could only throw the fastball. Against the mighty Yankees in the World Series, they knew he couldn't throw a curve. And they still couldn't hit his fastball.

Tim

Tim...they officially reduced the size of the strike zone in '69. It was reduced from the 1963 definition of top of the shoulders to the knees to armpits to the top of the knees.

They changed it again in 1988 and in 1996. It reads “The Strike Zone is defined as that area over homeplate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

The only change from '88 to '96 was the lowering to "the hollow beneath the knees" from "a line at the top of the knees."

Don't blame the umps exclusively on this one folks...the rules committee have a lot to do with this, but that is their job. If their is a rule to make the strike zone bigger you can be sure its to take away offense...to make it smaller is to add offense. I suppose making it bigger at the bottom forces the batters to focus more on lower pitches, but again I'm not smart enough to figure out the implications of that.

 

[richmondesi]

Tim...they officially reduced the size of the strike zone in '69. It was reduced from the 1963 definition of top of the shoulders to the knees to armpits to the top of the knees.

They changed it again in 1988 and in 1996. It reads “The Strike Zone is defined as that area over homeplate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

The only change from '88 to '96 was the lowering to "the hollow beneath the knees" from "a line at the top of the knees."

Don't blame the umps exclusively on this one folks...the rules committee have a lot to do with this, but that is their job. If their is a rule to make the strike zone bigger you can be sure its to take away offense...to make it smaller is to add offense. I suppose making it bigger at the bottom forces the batters to focus more on lower pitches, but again I'm not smart enough to figure out the implications of that.

While what you say is true, the effective strike zone isn't even what's been defined as a strike. The "real" strike zone is at the bottom of the knees (if you're luck) to the belt. If it were called according to the written definition, we'd see tremendous improvement in pitching numbers.