Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I bet half his Ks were getting batters to swing at pitches off the plate or that broke into the dirt.

I would bet more Ks were from those called third strikes way outside the Braves staff were famous for getting.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would bet more Ks were from those called third strikes way outside the Braves staff were famous for getting.

Maddux and Glavine were geniuses at expanding the strike zone. Pedro got a lot of those calls too.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maddux and Glavine were geniuses at expanding the strike zone. Pedro got a lot of those calls too.

Isn't that true of every great, in every sport...to get the calls?

[HistoricNewspapers]

I also want to add that in addition to being taller AND throwing harder, that command has gotten better over time, not worse, especially by the hard throwers.

The two kings of fastballers, Feller and Ryan, averaged 4.1 and 4.7 walks per nine innings, which is not good. They were marvels in their time and they did possess velocity as good as the best today, but they were rare in that regard...and their control was not as good as the flame throwers of now.

They were freaks of nature in their time due to their velocity, and now they would just be another pitcher in the clubhouse in regard to velocity, but with the organization waiting for them to develop command before they were good enough to contend with the big boys for awards and the big contracts.

In all of this, I do not want to minimize Koufax though. Koufax did have a great prime good enough to be in the discussion, even considering everything I've said, and it is unfortunate we didn't get to see how he would have held up. Just that Johnson was better .

PS, and a nod to Ryan for reinventing himself to gain command and that knowledge did help pitchers like Randy Johnson. The early players get their due to being pioneers, as without them the next generations of players wouldn't have learned more by watching the best of the previous generations.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

I also want to add that in addition to being taller AND throwing harder, that command has gotten better over time, not worse, especially by the hard throwers.

The two kings of fastballers, Feller and Ryan, averaged 4.1 and 4.7 walks per nine innings, which is not good. They were marvels in their time and they did possess velocity as good as the best today, but they were rare in that regard...and their control was not as good as the flame throwers of now.

They were freaks of nature in their time due to their velocity, and now they would just be another pitcher in the clubhouse in regard to velocity, but with the organization waiting for them to develop command before they were good enough to contend with the big boys for awards and the big contracts.

In all of this, I do not want to minimize Koufax though. Koufax did have a great prime good enough to be in the discussion, even considering everything I've said, and it is unfortunate we didn't get to see how he would have held up. Just that Johnson was better .

PS, and a nod to Ryan for reinventing himself to gain command and that knowledge did help pitchers like Randy Johnson. The early players get their due to being pioneers, as without them the next generations of players wouldn't have learned more by watching the best of the previous generations.

Don't disagree with anything you've said, just not sure what the overall point is in regard to the size and condition of players today versus yesterdays, and the finesse/control versus speed/dominance comparison, and where your take is on all this. If I missed or didn't connect the dots properly from something in an earlier post, my apologies.

Your comment about Feller and Ryan being freaks of nature is not inaccurate, but then, so are all the modern pitchers that throw close to or over 100 MPH today. Just because more of them are now pitching in the majors today is probably a bigger testament to the money and modern technology fueling the search for such talent, not that there were necessarily fewer freaks back in Feller's days. The overall world population back then was smaller, as was the portion of the population even being considered as possible MLB candidates. But no average, normal human being can go anywhere near consistently throwing 80-90 MPH pitches, let alone 100 MPH, then or now.

And the talk about pitchers being taller and stronger nowadays has some equal questions I feel. The taller aspect does have some play as it does give players a physical advantage over shorter players, such as in terms of the angle at which pitches come at batters. Think back to the '60s when pitcher dominance was so great that MLB lowered the mounds. Suddenly finding a pitcher of Randy Johnson's height would negate that mound reduction. Also, someone of Johnson's height has longer legs and arms than the average MLB pitcher. So not only are his pitches coming at batters from a higher release point and angle, his increased stride distance and arm length due to height results in him actually releasing the ball a lot closer to home plate than anyone else. And if memory serves, isn't a pitcher's MPH velocity still measured at a single point just after having released the ball (if not, please correct me)? In which case, even though a shorter pitcher may be clocked at a higher absolute MPH speed, a taller pitcher's throws will have a shorter distance to go, thus reducing the amount of speed reduction during flight from the pitcher's hand to the catcher's mitt, and likewise significantly reduce a batter's time to react to a pitch. And I believe the reduced batter reaction time is a much more critical and important factor than the absolute MPH velocity of pitches in determining a pitcher's success. So it begs the question, since there are supposedly so many taller athletes today (just look at the NBA), why aren't all MLB rosters filled with multiple pitchers closer to '7 tall than to '6 tall?

And then that brings up the question of a pitcher's strength, and how that can possibly effect their ability to, as they say, "throw harder". In truth, it would seem actual physical strength has maybe very little to do with how hard and fast a pitcher throws. Otherwise you'd expect alll modern pitchers to have arms that looked like Schwarzenegger's in his prime. Fact is, most pitchers would likely tell you that bulking up makes them a worse pitcher, and they need their pitching musceles to be more flexible and resilient than as big as possible.

So my point is that as far as modern pitchers are concerned, the bigger, faster, stronger narrative may not really fit it all. Instead, it seems to be more of a question of human anatomy, dynamics and muscle and body structure all coming together in such a way as to optimize the human pitching machine, if you will. Human size, strength, and speed don't seem to matter that much, at least when it seems the optimization of the human pitching machine occurs mostly at or just a bit above the average U.S. male size and body structure, and almost never occurs at extreme outliers like being '5"3 or '6"10 tall. And those on the shorter extreme have the added disadvantage of their stride and arm length, causing their pitches to have to travel farther from hand to catcher's mitt than taller pitchers, and thus giving batters even more time to react to their pitches. So in terms of probability, I would expect there to be more very tall MLB pitchers than there ever will be very short ones. Having said that, if you think Feller and Ryan are freaks, I don't think they even come close to the super freaky level that Randy Johnson is at, to have been able to pitch like he did with those body dimensions. And no one would ever mistake Johnson for Schwarzenegger.

So because of all this, I still think that the notion of all ballplayers from past eras, especially as it concerns pitchers, not being anywhere near as good as today's players, may not stand up as much as they'd like you to believe when it comes to the elite players from those earlier eras. Such as Grove and Spahn, who stood '6"1 and '6"0, respectively, sort of in that wheelhouse size for the optimal human pitching machine.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't disagree with anything you've said, just not sure what the overall point is in regard to the size and condition of players today versus yesterdays, and the finesse/control versus speed/dominance comparison, and where your take is on all this. If I missed or didn't connect the dots properly from something in an earlier post, my apologies.

Your comment about Feller and Ryan being freaks of nature is not inaccurate, but then, so are all the modern pitchers that throw close to or over 100 MPH today. Just because more of them are now pitching in the majors today is probably a bigger testament to the money and modern technology fueling the search for such talent, not that there were necessarily fewer freaks back in Feller's days. The overall world population back then was smaller, as was the portion of the population even being considered as possible MLB candidates. But no average, normal human being can go anywhere near consistently throwing 80-90 MPH pitches, let alone 100 MPH, then or now.

And the talk about pitchers being taller and stronger nowadays has some equal questions I feel. The taller aspect does have some play as it does give players a physical advantage over shorter players, such as in terms of the angle at which pitches come at batters. Think back to the '60s when pitcher dominance was so great that MLB lowered the mounds. Suddenly finding a pitcher of Randy Johnson's height would negate that mound reduction. Also, someone of Johnson's height has longer legs and arms than the average MLB pitcher. So not only are his pitches coming at batters from a higher release point and angle, his increased stride distance and arm length due to height results in him actually releasing the ball a lot closer to home plate than anyone else. And if memory serves, isn't a pitcher's MPH velocity still measured at a single point just after having released the ball (if not, please correct me)? In which case, even though a shorter pitcher may be clocked at a higher absolute MPH speed, a taller pitcher's throws will have a shorter distance to go, thus reducing the amount of speed reduction during flight from the pitcher's hand to the catcher's mitt, and likewise significantly reduce a batter's time to react to a pitch. And I believe the reduced batter reaction time is a much more critical and important factor than the absolute MPH velocity of pitches in determining a pitcher's success. So it begs the question, since there are supposedly so many taller athletes today (just look at the NBA), why aren't all MLB rosters filled with multiple pitchers closer to '7 tall than to '6 tall?

And then that brings up the question of a pitcher's strength, and how that can possibly effect their ability to, as they say, "throw harder". In truth, it would seem actual physical strength has maybe very little to do with how hard and fast a pitcher throws. Otherwise you'd expect alll modern pitchers to have arms that looked like Schwarzenegger's in his prime. Fact is, most pitchers would likely tell you that bulking up makes them a worse pitcher, and they need their pitching musceles to be more flexible and resilient than as big as possible.

So my point is that as far as modern pitchers are concerned, the bigger, faster, stronger narrative may not really fit it all. Instead, it seems to be more of a question of human anatomy, dynamics and muscle and body structure all coming together in such a way as to optimize the human pitching machine, if you will. Human size, strength, and speed don't seem to matter that much, at least when it seems the optimization of the human pitching machine occurs mostly at or just a bit above the average U.S. male size and body structure, and almost never occurs at extreme outliers like being '5"3 or '6"10 tall. And those on the shorter extreme have the added disadvantage of their stride and arm length, causing their pitches to have to travel farther from hand to catcher's mitt than taller pitchers, and thus giving batters even more time to react to their pitches. So in terms of probability, I would expect there to be more very tall MLB pitchers than there ever will be very short ones. Having said that, if you think Feller and Ryan are freaks, I don't think they even come close to the super freaky level that Randy Johnson is at, to have been able to pitch like he did with those body dimensions. And no one would ever mistake Johnson for Schwarzenegger.

So because of all this, I still think that the notion of all ballplayers from past eras, especially as it concerns pitchers, not being anywhere near as good as today's players, may not stand up as much as they'd like you to believe when it comes to the elite players from those earlier eras. Such as Grove and Spahn, who stood '6"1 and '6"0, respectively, sort of in that wheelhouse size for the optimal human pitching machine.

Again, if size did not matter, then where are the five foot five pitchers dominating at??

Feller and Ryan were freaks in regard to their velocity, not their size. They were marvels. They would NOT be marvels with that same velocity today because that velocity is more common now. They would just be another hard thrower, and ones with poor command.

Six feet tall is not the wheelhouse of optimal pitchers. Yeah, in 1930 it might be because the average pitcher indeed only stood six feet tall. But that is completely wrong.

Size matters and it isn't a matter of opinion. For one, a taller pitcher releases the ball closer to the plate, which makes a 95 MPH pitch from someone at six foot five come 'faster' to the plate compared to someone six feet. The MPH may be the same, but there is less reaction time for a hitter when the ball is released closer to the plate. As you know in baseball, every inch matters in everything. That makes a big difference.

Would Adam Wainright be as good as he is if he maintained his velocity and location, but was only five foot seven instead of six foot seven? Clearly not.

Everything that Warren SPahn could do with a ball, Randy Johnson could as well, except much faster, with better command, and releasing the ball closer to the plate.

Being able to throw 95 is indeed a combination of natural ability coming from how your body is built, and combined with the timing of your mechanics. There are simply more of those humans now, thus harder for the elite to separate themselves from the pack.

You are missing the overall point, which is the top pitcher from another era 'may' indeed be as good as the top three or four pitchers from a more talented era. But where everyone makes a mistake is when they look at the current numbers available and see where Lefty Grove had an era+ better than Randy Johnson, but forget that Randy Johnson had much better peers in which he had to separate himself from.

But what the numbers say is that the best pitchers and best hitters mostly come from the Pre War era, and that is foolish considering we know the population data etc.

Babe Ruth may be as good a hitter as the best hitter now, but there is no way the best hitter in the league can separate himself from his peers to the degree that Ruth did because the rest of the league is closer in ability to the top now, wheras Ruth had a lot of weak hitters that he is compared to...many guys that would have no chance of even playing single A today.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Again, if size did not matter, then where are the five foot five pitchers dominating at??

Feller and Ryan were freaks in regard to their velocity, not their size. They were marvels. They would NOT be marvels with that same velocity today because that velocity is more common now. They would just be another hard thrower, and ones with poor command.

Six feet tall is not the wheelhouse of optimal pitchers. Yeah, in 1930 it might be because the average pitcher indeed only stood six feet tall. But that is completely wrong.

Size matters and it isn't a matter of opinion. For one, a taller pitcher releases the ball closer to the plate, which makes a 95 MPH pitch from someone at six foot five come 'faster' to the plate compared to someone six feet. The MPH may be the same, but there is less reaction time for a hitter when the ball is released closer to the plate. As you know in baseball, every inch matters in everything. That makes a big difference.

Would Adam Wainright be as good as he is if he maintained his velocity and location, but was only five foot seven instead of six foot seven? Clearly not.

Everything that Warren SPahn could do with a ball, Randy Johnson could as well, except much faster, with better command, and releasing the ball closer to the plate.

Being able to throw 95 is indeed a combination of natural ability coming from how your body is built, and combined with the timing of your mechanics. There are simply more of those humans now, thus harder for the elite to separate themselves from the pack.

You are missing the overall point, which is the top pitcher from another era 'may' indeed be as good as the top three or four pitchers from a more talented era. But where everyone makes a mistake is when they look at the current numbers available and see where Lefty Grove had an era+ better than Randy Johnson, but forget that Randy Johnson had much better peers in which he had to separate himself from.

But what the numbers say is that the best pitchers and best hitters mostly come from the Pre War era, and that is foolish considering we know the population data etc.

Babe Ruth may be as good a hitter as the best hitter now, but there is no way the best hitter in the league can separate himself from his peers to the degree that Ruth did because the rest of the league is closer in ability to the top now, wheras Ruth had a lot of weak hitters that he is compared to...many guys that would have no chance of even playing single A today.

Did you actually read what I posted? For example, I said why there probably aren't any real great short pitchers in the majors and how if there were, they would be real freaks. Yet your very first question was where all the great '5"5 pitchers were then. You didn't seem to understand my points at all. Like I never said Feller and Ryan were freaks because of their size, it was because of their speed. Yet you seemed to be arguing against me, but using my own argument. Exactly why I was asking in that earlier post what your point(s) was.

And your saying that elite pitchers from way back in the day like Feller wouldn't do as well today because more pitchers throw as fast he does now, isn't proof that he still wouldn't be elite today. Typical argument that can't be proven either way that I'm sick and tired of hearing.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Again, if size did not matter, then where are the five foot five pitchers dominating at??

Feller and Ryan were freaks in regard to their velocity, not their size. They were marvels. They would NOT be marvels with that same velocity today because that velocity is more common now. They would just be another hard thrower, and ones with poor command.

Six feet tall is not the wheelhouse of optimal pitchers. Yeah, in 1930 it might be because the average pitcher indeed only stood six feet tall. But that is completely wrong.

Size matters and it isn't a matter of opinion. For one, a taller pitcher releases the ball closer to the plate, which makes a 95 MPH pitch from someone at six foot five come 'faster' to the plate compared to someone six feet. The MPH may be the same, but there is less reaction time for a hitter when the ball is released closer to the plate. As you know in baseball, every inch matters in everything. That makes a big difference.

Would Adam Wainright be as good as he is if he maintained his velocity and location, but was only five foot seven instead of six foot seven? Clearly not.

Everything that Warren SPahn could do with a ball, Randy Johnson could as well, except much faster, with better command, and releasing the ball closer to the plate.

Being able to throw 95 is indeed a combination of natural ability coming from how your body is built, and combined with the timing of your mechanics. There are simply more of those humans now, thus harder for the elite to separate themselves from the pack.

You are missing the overall point, which is the top pitcher from another era 'may' indeed be as good as the top three or four pitchers from a more talented era. But where everyone makes a mistake is when they look at the current numbers available and see where Lefty Grove had an era+ better than Randy Johnson, but forget that Randy Johnson had much better peers in which he had to separate himself from.

But what the numbers say is that the best pitchers and best hitters mostly come from the Pre War era, and that is foolish considering we know the population data etc.

Babe Ruth may be as good a hitter as the best hitter now, but there is no way the best hitter in the league can separate himself from his peers to the degree that Ruth did because the rest of the league is closer in ability to the top now, wheras Ruth had a lot of weak hitters that he is compared to...many guys that would have no chance of even playing single A today.

Exactly. Glad to see that at least one other person gets it.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

And then that brings up the question of a pitcher's strength, and how that can possibly effect their ability to, as they say, "throw harder". In truth, it would seem actual physical strength has maybe very little to do with how hard and fast a pitcher throws. Otherwise you'd expect alll modern pitchers to have arms that looked like Schwarzenegger's in his prime..

Strength matters A TON for pitchers and contributes significantly to velocity - except it's leg and core strength, not pure arm strength. Many pitchers coming back from Tommy John gain velocity - because they are in much better shape all over. Rehab from that surgery is grueling but it isn't focused on just arm and shoulder.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Strength matters A TON for pitchers and contributes significantly to velocity - except it's leg and core strength, not pure arm strength. Many pitchers coming back from Tommy John gain velocity - because they are in much better shape all over. Rehab from that surgery is grueling but it isn't focused on just arm and shoulder.

Am aware of that. Was speaking to arm strength, not overall body strength, that is often also referred to in relation to being able to throw harder. Of course they need leg/core strength to throw harder, but again, that alone will not get them to an elite pitching level velocity.

The main point I was trying to make, and which HistoricNewspapers didn't appear to grasp, is that the human body is basically a biomechanical machine. And when it comes to pitching, there would appear to be a specific makeup of the human body that optimizes that human biomechanical machine to throw baseballs faster and harder than anyone else. And that was the context I was referring to in regards to size not mattering so much. When most people refer to someone's size, it invariably always seems to go to height and weight for that measure. And that seemed to be the course a lot of people were pushing, that when it comes to pitching, bigger (in this case primarily height) is always better. My point is that despite the obvious physical advantage a much taller pitcher has over a shorter one (because the ball they throw has less distance to get it to the catcher's mitt), it seems that a pitcher can be too tall and thus the human biomechanical pitching machine falls out of that optimal condition for throwing harder and faster than anyone else. If not, then one would assume the best pitchers today would all be '7 foot or taller. Just look at all the taller basketball players out there in the world today, its not like we have a complete dearth of tall athletes. So why aren't there more Randy Johnson types (super tall) pitching in MLB then? Gee, maybe its because they get too tall and their biomechanical pitching machine, which is their body, no longer operates at that optimal level for pitching. And the drop off is apparently so drastic at some point that it even negates the physical pitching advantage their height otherwise brings them. That was why I referred to RJ as a possible super freak in terms of pitching, his body type (height) appears to be way outside the parameters of the optimal human pitching machine, yet he excelled, and endured, as an elite pitcher for a considerable period of time.

If size (height) is so big a deal in athletes as some have stated, here's maybe an even easier example to explain how a biomechanical human machine has an optimal area/range where size does indeed matter, but not in terms of the tallest or biggest. Take sprinters for example. It is obvious that a taller person has a longer stride than a shorter person, so when they go run a 100 yard dash, they can do so in fewer strides than a short person. So why aren't the fastest sprinters in the world all over '7 tall? C'mon size matters people, please explain that one to me! Could it be that the human biomechanical machine for sprinters has an optimal size range somewhere more towards the average, plus a few inches or so to also take into account the physical advantage a taller person also has? And how many really short, say '5"5, world class sprinters are out there? Could this be because the biomechanical bodies of shorter people, plus the shorter physical stride disadvantage, combine to make them slower than taller people? And if that is the case, it will be even rarer to find really short world class sprinters, just like I alluded to in an earlier post how it would likely be even rarer to find elite and successful '5"5 pitchers throwing even close to 100 in MLB. And HistoricNewspapers, that is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post that apparently you didn't understand. But you responded by asking me if size doesn't matter, then where are great are all the great '5"5 tall pitchers. Asked and previously answered counselor, move on. This sprinter example is similar to explaining how the human biomechanical machine works in pitchers, and there being an optimal sort of mid-range size and body type (plus a few inches to take into account the obvious physical advantage). Obviously there is more to being a great pitcher than just velocity, but I specifically picked sprinters for my biomechanical human comparison because unlike the more involved skill of pitching, sprinting (running) is a basic human activity we pretty much all have done at some time in our lives. And there are fewer variables in running than in pitching, as well as sprinters having a much more objective and easily measurable way to determine actually who was the best.

Endurance, which I previously brought up and feel is also an unbelievably important part in this debate, is something that others seem to brush aside. (The best ability is availability!) I refer to a pitcher as a biomechanical pitching machine, and IMO an important factor in how well any type of machine operates is how it doesn't break down from stress or use all the time, and continues to operate at, or near, its optimal level for a long and continuous period. As was alluded to in a recent post by AndrewJerome, it seems that some of these taller pitchers tend to have injury or endurance issues. For an elite few taller pitchers, their biomechanical machines may operate better than almost everyone elses in terms of velocity, but in regards to endurance, the human body/machine wasn't designed for what they're doing to it, and therefore it suffers breakdowns (injuries) or is unable to maintain that optimal operating level for long (lack of endurance). Even RJ was sidelined with injuries for a significant time, was he not? And HistoricNewspapers, I mentioned Grove's and Spahn's heights in that earlir post being '6"1 and '6"0 to show they were not real short, but more toward's average, or slightly above average, height so their biomechanical pitching machines operated at what appears to be a more optimal body size/type for them to be operating at a combined higher level for velocity and endurance. Their human bodies/machines were built to not just pitch faster than a normal human, but also to be able to do so longer and much more often than a typical human as well.

And to further point out how this pushing of a taller pitcher's biomechanical machine is indicative of them maybe not always being the best, isn't one method people use to not have a somewhat sensitive machine, like a human body, continually having issues and breaking down, is to use it less often and not run the machine as long and as hard as they otherwise could. Gee, kind of like how starting pitchers almost never pitch complete, or near complete, games anymore. Management today doesn't want to break the machines, er...pitchers. Yet pitchers like Grove and Spahn regularly started, and completed, games they pitched in, without a big, quick dropoff in their optimal performance or experiencing debilitating and career threatening injuries. I know, Grove had some issues in 1934, but came back afterward to still great performance levels, after taking into consideration other factors such as his ever advancing age, and did so without the benefit of modern medical advances.

What scares me is if you statisticians and other always talking up about how today's players are always bigger, stronger, faster (and thus always better) than yesterday's players are even remotely right, we're going to eventually end up with all MLB rosters having 8-9-10 pitchers on every staff that are all '6"11 or taller, and all able to throw over 100 MPH. So their managers will have a different pitcher come out every inning so they don't overwork and blow-out anyone's arm out, and a pitcher's wins truly will be meaningless. And if that does turn out to be the case, will this type of pitcher really turn out to be the future talent all these brilliant statisticians will then be pushing as their choice for greatest of all time?

Statisticians in their use of numbers and stats dehumanize MLB baseball and it's players by trying to look at only statistics to measure and compare the players, and how best to play the game itself. So I think it only fair then that I can equally push my point as to pitchers being dehumanized as biomechanical machines. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?) And so if you think about it in those terms, what if you went out to buy the greatest washing machine or car (both machines), to actually use, that you could. Would you really want to buy a car or wash machine that ran unbelievably great at some point, but broke down and needed repairs a lot, or that you couldn't use all the time and/or always count on when really needed it, and ended up having to replace after not too many years? Or would you rather buy something that ran pretty great from the start and you could count on to use pretty much whenever and for however as long as you needed it, with minimal repairs and maintenance, and you didn't need to replace it for 20+ years? If anyone reading this is actually being honest with themselves, I think we all know what the answer will be. And if you do recognize how statistics dehumanize players and try to turn them into nothing more than numbers, then considering them as nothing much more than biomechanical machines is a simple logical extension of that thinking. So to follow statistical reasoning alone and ignore the human factor so much, without giving equal consideration and credit to my points, would tend to make one a hypocrite!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Isn't that true of every great, in every sport...to get the calls?

It's only completely anecdotal, but I thought especially after his 1990 playoff tirade Clemens from that point on had to earn everything he got with the umps.

Certainly true in basketball, in terms of foul calls and not calling traveling.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's only completely anecdotal, but I thought especially after his 1990 playoff tirade Clemens from that point on had to earn everything he got with the umps.

Certainly true in basketball, in terms of foul calls and not calling traveling.

I definitely subscribe to this theory. I think it's actually much more significant than people realize, across the board. I actually started including which umpires were behind the plate in my models and always wanted to include interaction variables between umps and pitchers to see who was prejudiced for and against who, but never got around to it. It was too much work and I was retiring from full time gambling anyhow (and sports betting wasn't my primary income source anyhow, poker was. Sports betting was supplementary income). The juice just wasn't worth the squeeze. But it definitely has an effect.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maddux and Glavine were geniuses at expanding the strike zone. Pedro got a lot of those calls too.

The secret, of course, is to almost always be close. The more control you show, the more control you are 'given'.

Wild pitchers almost never get the borderline calls.


.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

The secret, of course, is to almost always be close. The more control you show, the more control you are 'given'.

Wild pitchers almost never get the borderline calls.


.

Yep. If you can get a large percentage of strikes called on pitches even an inch or two off the plate, that's just a huge advantage for the pitcher against most hitters who lose efficiency very quickly as you get towards the inside or outside of the plate and even more off it. An integral part of the confrontation that just isn't measured by BABIP or whatever. And why a master of placement such as Maddux can be every bit as much a joy to watch as a dominant strikeout pitcher, if not more so.