Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintageclout
Point well taken Nick with reference to the large ballparks and "mushed" dark baseballs. I totally agree it is virtually impossible to judge a statistic like ERA "post-WW2" VS. the dead-ball era. I also agree that NO sabermetric including WAR can adjust accordingly, that is with 100% certainty. It's almost as if pre-1920 pitchers need to be placed in a separate bucket and only measured against their peers from that same era. On another note, the other HUGE advantage post 80s/90s pitchers have versus their pre-80's peers are the incredible conditioning programs (+ PEDs) that were established which is why pitchers no longer show a rapid decline in performance as they approach their mid-30s. Imagine pitchers like Gibson, Palmer, etc staying physically fit to 40 or longer??? Pre-1980, lifting weights was considered extremely harmful for pitchers, yet in reality, the mindset changed to realize it was essential for continued and enhanced performance. That concept has created a significant durability for post-90's pitchers with many star hurlers maintaining their skill sets to 40 and over.
|
WAR isn't perfect, it's just the best we have to compare across generations.
There is something to be said for conditioning of course, there is also something interesting to be said for the tendency towards max effort pitching over less innings seemingly leading to MORE injury then back when guys threw 90% and tossed 300 innings a year. It's beginning to appear that it's effort over innings rather than just innings alone as far as the cause of so many elbow blowouts (which is hampered more by so many high school and college coaches overpitching their best arms)
actually, OVERALL, peak performance periods have gotten younger since the roid era ended. it appears that the best thing steroids did was slow decline (and in some bring a 2nd peak) we used to think player peaks were 28-31 now it's 26-28