Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[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.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

Yes, I read your post and it did not refute the size factor, so I again said, if size didn't matter, then where are the five foot five pitchers because you somehow came up with the notion that the best size for a pitcher is six foot tall or six foot one, which is wrong. So you recognized size on one hand and then made a comment like that to seemingly refute it, and that notion was wrong.

Maybe in 1940 the best size was six feet tall because that is how tall most of them were. That bar has been raised.

I said from the very start that Feller and Ryan were marvels(back then) based on their VELOCITY, not their size, so you sir are the one not reading what was written. And no, their command was not good enough for them to be elite in the modern age because their fastballs were not as special anymore because half the league had the same fastball. Still great, but not with the other stuff the pitchers have now, including superior size.

But again, to your main point about size not mattering and the point that you think six feet tall is the optimal height of a pitcher. Not sure where you got those notions, maybe they are from the same people that think size does not matter in baseball and that strength training was bad for baseball, which were both wrong.

The HOF pitchers(and the ones on track to be HOF pitchers) that pitched the bulk of their career after 2000 include:

Roy Halladay six for six 225 lbs. Elite MPH, elite command, elite off speed pitches.

Clayton Kershaw six foot four 225 lbs. Elite MPH, Elite command, elite off speed.

Max Scherzer six foot three 208 lbs. Elite MPH, elite command, elite off speed.

Justin Verlander six foot five 235 lbs, elite MPH, elite command, elite speed.

Clemens and Unit could count too, but their career spanned so long, so I would view them a little earlier. Clemens and Unit are the two best pitchers probably ever. Six four and six eleven, with off the charts measureables.

Guys like Wainwright and Jon Lester are knocking on the door and they are six foot seven and six foot five respectively. They are each missing an elite element, Wainwright not elite MPH and Lester not elite commmand. But their size and elite other aspects are there.

So this notion that six feet tall is the optimal pitcher height is completely wrong.

Size alone does not matter, but If two pitchers both possess the same MPH, same movement, same command and same EVERYTHING else, and one is six foot tall and the other is six foot seven, then the six foot seven guy will be more effective. That is reality.

When Lefty Grove is competing for his ERA+ there were no such things as a pitcher like Justin Verlander that could throw 100 MPH AND do it with command, AND have the requisit off speed/breaing pitches AND be six foot five.

Walter Johnson is hailed as the best pitcher ever, but why would he be better than Verlander?? Even 'if'(a big if) Walter Johnson did throw 99 and tied Verlander in that one aspect, he falls short in those other key areas. There would be no good reason to put Walter Johnson on the mound over Verlander or Halladay, and neither of those two are even the best pitchers of their era.

Yet WJ has a better ERA and better ERA+, both of which were attained because the hitters were nowhere near as good, and the league pitchers where nowhere near as good that Verlander had to compete against for his ERA+

Heck, a side arm RH with primarily just a fastball, standing six one, WJ would see a steady diet of modern LH hitters who see 95 MPH EVERY SINGLE DAY. WJ would be no mystery whatsoever, and there would be zero reason to pitch him over Verlander, despite what the current flawed statistics say.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Yes, I read your post and it did not refute the size factor, so I again said, if size didn't matter, then where are the five foot five pitchers because you somehow came up with the notion that the best size for a pitcher is six foot tall or six foot one, which is wrong. So you recognized size on one hand and then made a comment like that to seemingly refute it, and that notion was wrong.

Maybe in 1940 the best size was six feet tall because that is how tall most of them were. That bar has been raised.

I said from the very start that Feller and Ryan were marvels(back then) based on their VELOCITY, not their size, so you sir are the one not reading what was written. And no, their command was not good enough for them to be elite in the modern age because their fastballs were not as special anymore because half the league had the same fastball. Still great, but not with the other stuff the pitchers have now, including superior size.

But again, to your main point about size not mattering and the point that you think six feet tall is the optimal height of a pitcher. Not sure where you got those notions, maybe they are from the same people that think size does not matter in baseball and that strength training was bad for baseball, which were both wrong.

The HOF pitchers(and the ones on track to be HOF pitchers) that pitched the bulk of their career after 2000 include:

Roy Halladay six for six 225 lbs. Elite MPH, elite command, elite off speed pitches.

Clayton Kershaw six foot four 225 lbs. Elite MPH, Elite command, elite off speed.

Max Scherzer six foot three 208 lbs. Elite MPH, elite command, elite off speed.

Justin Verlander six foot five 235 lbs, elite MPH, elite command, elite speed.

Clemens and Unit could count too, but their career spanned so long, so I would view them a little earlier. Clemens and Unit are the two best pitchers probably ever. Six four and six eleven, with off the charts measureables.

Guys like Wainwright and Jon Lester are knocking on the door and they are six foot seven and six foot five respectively. They are each missing an elite element, Wainwright not elite MPH and Lester not elite commmand. But their size and elite other aspects are there.

So this notion that six feet tall is the optimal pitcher height is completely wrong.

Size alone does not matter, but If two pitchers both possess the same MPH, same movement, same command and same EVERYTHING else, and one is six foot tall and the other is six foot seven, then the six foot seven guy will be more effective. That is reality.

When Lefty Grove is competing for his ERA+ there were no such things as a pitcher like Justin Verlander that could throw 100 MPH AND do it with command, AND have the requisit off speed/breaing pitches AND be six foot five.

Walter Johnson is hailed as the best pitcher ever, but why would he be better than Verlander?? Even 'if'(a big if) Walter Johnson did throw 99 and tied Verlander in that one aspect, he falls short in those other key areas. There would be no good reason to put Walter Johnson on the mound over Verlander or Halladay, and neither of those two are even the best pitchers of their era.

Yet WJ has a better ERA and better ERA+, both of which were attained because the hitters were nowhere near as good, and the league pitchers where nowhere near as good that Verlander had to compete against for his ERA+

Heck, a side arm RH with primarily just a fastball, standing six one, WJ would see a steady diet of modern LH hitters who see 95 MPH EVERY SINGLE DAY. WJ would be no mystery whatsoever, and there would be zero reason to pitch him over Verlander, despite what the current flawed statistics say.

We are talking about the greatest lefthanded pitcher not Adam Wainwright.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You could take a Nathan Eovaldi and magically transport him back to 1910 and he would completely dominate. But so what?

[frankbmd]

Deadball pitchers benefitted from their fielders lousy gloves. Lousy gloves create errors. Errors create unearned runs. Unearned runs create create lower ERAs.

I’m not sure about WAR, WHIP, BABIP, and the rest of he alphabet, but the percentage of total runs that are “earned” is a lot higher in today’s game.

The difference in eras (not ERAs) is not always reflected in the statistics.

More errors would also account for fewer hits and lower BABIPs. Do you think WaJo lost sleep because of this? or was he just WHIPPED after a complete game.

[HistoricNewspapers]

I forgot about Madison Bumgarner. Six foot five and 257 pounds of muscle in his legs and ass. As Tabe said, size does contribute to velocity. I see no valid reason why Lefty Grove would be tabbed the starter over Madison Bumgarner when Bumgarner has Grove beat in all those measurables of size, velocity, command...and of course all these modern HOF pitchers have the immeasurables too otherwise they wouldn't be good for so long.

The left handed batters that were so good in Pre War never faced pitchers as described like this. They didn't exist in the combination of size, speed, command.

As Frank pointed out above there are also minute details to cause statistical achievement simply not attainable in modern times.

I often talk about Ruth Out homerering every team in the league. That isn't a point of how great he was, but more of a point of how bad the league hitters were compared to modern times. Then add the fact that Ruth never faced these pitching monsters that have been roaming the earth in the last 35 years, you get statistical achievements from Ruth that are simply unattainable now.

That isn't even going over the fact that Ruth faced the same pitcher three or four times and really beefed up his stats on the fourth time through. Now he would have to face a six foot seven Andrew Miller coming out of the pen throwing left handed at 96 MPH...and again, six foot seven. Heck even guys like Drew Pomeranz didn't exist back then.

The modern hitters have it tougher than ever and the modern pitchers have it tougher than ever, because both groups are at the pinnacle of the best ever.

And this isn't a knock on pre war players. They were special players worthy of study.

But the reality is, WJ would not get the ball over Justin Verlander despite what the current stats say.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Deadball pitchers benefitted from their fielders lousy gloves. Lousy gloves create errors. Errors create unearned runs. Unearned runs create create lower ERAs.

To your point: 25.2% of all runs allowed by Walter Johnson were unearned. 8.4% of runs allowed by Clayton Kershaw have been unearned. So Johnson had 3x as many unearned. At 8.4%, Johnson would have an ERA of 2.65 - still great but far higher. Kershaw at 25.2% would have an ERA of 2.03 - 5th all-time despite playing in a live ball era.

[AndrewJerome]

I agree with most of Peter’s post #1233.

And I don’t think anyone in here is arguing that 1910s 1920s and 1930s players overall are “better” than the modern players. Yet this thread is bombarded with arguments against the overall play of the old guys. You are arguing against no one. No one is arguing the overall play from 1910 or 1930 is better than 2021. So that argument can be put to rest. Except I guess those posters who think Grove is the best ever? Even those posters are selectively taking one player and not an entire era of players.

However, I think there are interesting questions to ponder. Overall quality of play is very difficult to evaluate. Snowman thinks a model could be made to try and get some answers. Who knows. Personally, I think it is much more complicated than just saying players are bigger, taller and stronger now, so every year the quality of play goes up slightly. I think there are more ebbs and flows based on the number of elite players at any one time. Again, who knows. I also think that there is a limit to how much bigger, taller and stronger helps a baseball player. I used around 6’ 3” or 6’ 4” as about the max height that it helps a baseball player. I’ll stick to that. Absolutely for the 8 position players. There are very few 6’ 5”+ players who can play any semblance of defense for the 8 fielding positions (sure, a very tall guy can try to play 1st). There is a point where very tall human simply can’t function as a middle infielder or outfielder. It would be like having a bunch of DH type guys playing in the field. It doesn’t work.

Similarly, no one is arguing short players are abundant or better than 6’ 3” guys. So put this argument to rest. Altuve is 5’ 4” and won a MVP, so clearly short players can be elite. However, no one is saying there are 100s of short guys dominating. But there clearly are some short/small guys who are elite. Height is not a barrier to entry for baseball. Which is what makes baseball great. Just like there are some really tall guys who are elite like Randy Johnson. But certainly there are not 100s of super tall guys dominating either. It would be fun to see a list of the best modern players 6’ 5” and taller. Freddie Freeman is elite at 6’ 5”. However, this 6’ 5”+ list does not include most of he best modern players:

Trout 6’ 2”
Vlad Jr. 6’ 2”
Acuna 6’ 0”
Harper 6’ 3”
Soto 6’ 2”
Jose Ramirez 5’ 9”
Ohtani 6’ 4”
Schertzer 6’ 3”
Kershaw 6’ 4”
Degrom 6’ 4” and 180 pounds!
Cole 6’ 4”

Glasnow is a great example of modern bigger, taller, stronger that isn’t really better. He’s 6’ 8” and throws 99. So what? He’s 27 years old and pitched 403 innings for his whole career. He likely will miss much of his age 28 season with injury and be stuck on 403 innings. He can’t stay healthy because he is too big, tall, and strong. He gets you like 60-70 innings per year before his body breaks down. This is an epidemic for modern bigger, taller, stronger pitchers. The force on their bodies of throwing so hard leads to lots and lots of injuries. It is debatable how much better you can be than previous players if you are constantly hurt.

Randy again is a massive outlier at his height, dominance, and longevity. I have Randy as the best lefty ever. The reasons have been given in great detail. So again to be clear, I am NOT saying old time players are better than modern players. I just think the analysis is much more complicated than some in here seem to think.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I've seen a number of arguments, although I can't specifically now say where, that the overall level of play was better in decades past, or that players were as good or better, not just on a relative basis but on an absolute basis. People cite that other sports hadn't made inroads into the talent pool, the smaller number of teams, that increases in athletic ability aren't all that relevant to baseball because so much of it is skill, etc.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AndrewJerome

I agree with most of Peter’s post #1233.

And I don’t think anyone in here is arguing that 1910s 1920s and 1930s players overall are “better” than the modern players. Yet this thread is bombarded with arguments against the overall play of the old guys. You are arguing against no one. No one is arguing the overall play from 1910 or 1930 is better than 2021. So that argument can be put to rest. Except I guess those posters who think Grove is the best ever? Even those posters are selectively taking one player and not an entire era of players.

However, I think there are interesting questions to ponder. Overall quality of play is very difficult to evaluate. Snowman thinks a model could be made to try and get some answers. Who knows. Personally, I think it is much more complicated than just saying players are bigger, taller and stronger now, so every year the quality of play goes up slightly. I think there are more ebbs and flows based on the number of elite players at any one time. Again, who knows. I also think that there is a limit to how much bigger, taller and stronger helps a baseball player. I used around 6’ 3” or 6’ 4” as about the max height that it helps a baseball player. I’ll stick to that. Absolutely for the 8 position players. There are very few 6’ 5”+ players who can play any semblance of defense for the 8 fielding positions (sure, a very tall guy can try to play 1st). There is a point where very tall human simply can’t function as a middle infielder or outfielder. It would be like having a bunch of DH type guys playing in the field. It doesn’t work.

Similarly, no one is arguing short players are abundant or better than 6’ 3” guys. So put this argument to rest. Altuve is 5’ 4” and won a MVP, so clearly short players can be elite. However, no one is saying there are 100s of short guys dominating. But there clearly are some short/small guys who are elite. Height is not a barrier to entry for baseball. Which is what makes baseball great. Just like there are some really tall guys who are elite like Randy Johnson. But certainly there are not 100s of super tall guys dominating either. It would be fun to see a list of the best modern players 6’ 5” and taller. Freddie Freeman is elite at 6’ 5”. However, this 6’ 5”+ list does not include most of he best modern players:

Trout 6’ 2”
Vlad Jr. 6’ 2”
Acuna 6’ 0”
Harper 6’ 3”
Soto 6’ 2”
Jose Ramirez 5’ 9”
Ohtani 6’ 4”
Schertzer 6’ 3”
Kershaw 6’ 4”
Degrom 6’ 4” and 180 pounds!
Cole 6’ 4”

Glasnow is a great example of modern bigger, taller, stronger that isn’t really better. He’s 6’ 8” and throws 99. So what? He’s 27 years old and pitched 403 innings for his whole career. He likely will miss much of his age 28 season with injury and be stuck on 403 innings. He can’t stay healthy because he is too big, tall, and strong. He gets you like 60-70 innings per year before his body breaks down. This is an epidemic for modern bigger, taller, stronger pitchers. The force on their bodies of throwing so hard leads to lots and lots of injuries. It is debatable how much better you can be than previous players if you are constantly hurt.

Randy again is a massive outlier at his height, dominance, and longevity. I have Randy as the best lefty ever. The reasons have been given in great detail. So again to be clear, I am NOT saying old time players are better than modern players. I just think the analysis is much more complicated than some in here seem to think.

Great points, you think a lot like a do.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Heck, a side arm RH with primarily just a fastball, standing six one, WJ would see a steady diet of modern LH hitters who see 95 MPH EVERY SINGLE DAY. WJ would be no mystery whatsoever, and there would be zero reason to pitch him over Verlander, despite what the current flawed statistics say.

How do you know what kind of movement was on Walter's fastballs? It isn't just about catching up to speed.

Back in Walter's day, hitters were a lot better at making contact, due to the nature of the game. Yet, Walter led his league in strikeouts 12 times. Batters were choking up, just trying to punch the ball, and often they couldn't even make contact. Nobody was holding the bat down at the knob and swinging from the heels against Walter. So, I conclude his pitches must've been moving, sailing, sinking, tailing, or something.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Mark17

How do you know what kind of movement was on Walter's fastballs? It isn't just about catching up to speed.

Back in Walter's day, hitters were a lot better at making contact, due to the nature of the game. Yet, Walter led his league in strikeouts 12 times. Batters were choking up, just trying to punch the ball, and often they couldn't even make contact. Nobody was holding the bat down at the knob and swinging from the heels against Walter. So, I conclude his pitches must've been moving, sailing, sinking, tailing, or something.

Yes indeed his pitches probably were, and why he had great success and why he is still an all time great...but none of that refutes what I said about Verlander and the Superior stuff that modern hitters see, and the superior pitchers that modern pitchers are....and the silly numbers Johnson put up both in raw form and compared to his peers that guys like Verlander cannot do due to superior hitters to face and superior pitchers to compete against.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Six of the top ten pitchers in WAR(including the top two) were born in:

1867
1887
1869
1887
1900
1880

Knowing the population information, the discrimination factor, and the world wide talent added since then, if that doesn't make one scratch their head, then there is nothing that will.

Geronimo was still running wild in the west while some of those guys were alive. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were still at large as late as 1908 to give a snap shot of how different the landscape in the US was...let alone the rest of the world where talent also comes from now.

To make matters even worse, a common top three player list of all-time is Ruth, Cobb, and Wagner...more guys born before the turn of the century.

WAR has its problems but it is one of the few that accounts for ERA, IP, and the peers, and is generally close enough. Generally.

Some objective information:

There are going to be other variables that will sway the information below, such as other modern sports taking athletes away more than pre war sports. However, pre war sports ALSO paid athletes in sports other than baseball. But when other societal factors from Pre war are added in, it mostly washes away that variable. Things in early 1900's such as kids having to work earlier in life to live and never even getting the chance to play sports, kids having Polio or other debilitating diseases that eliminated them from the player pool; and acute injuries back then such as broken bones or torn ligaments that can be fixed now, but back then were career enders(sometimes before the careers even started). Then also families simply not allowing their kid to play sports in PRE WAR because their belief was to get a stable career. That is completely opposite in modern times where the goal is to get a career in sports and get a scholarship or big contract.

Then one other big factor that hurts the early 1900 player pool is the fresh immigrants coming into the US that are eventually counted in the population below. Kids weren't coming from Italy through Ellis Island with baseball gloves in their hands...so even though they are counted in those populations, they simply were not viable candidates for MLB players(until their families started having kids IN the United States).

Putting that stuff as basically a wash, it could be rehashed over and over. Lets look at the reality of what is more certain.

First and foremost, I am going to take away the African American population from available human males in the pre war time. It isn't going to be a footnote or variable. They will be lumped off right off the bat since they were barred. By the 1970's African American players comprised 18% of MLB, so to take into account any plus/minus I am going to lump off 15% to leave some margin of error.

That is just African American. The Latin American population is still not deducted and they were banned for the most part too.

The below figures represent available male humans to form the player pool of potential players of which MLB had to populate their teams with.

I purposely used age 12-17 year old humans so as to eliminate the birth mortality as a factor or variable.

Here is the number of viable American Born humans available in the United States to form the player pool.

In 1890 there were 3.6 million males aged 12-17 in the United States .
In 1900 there were 4.5 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1910 there were 5.4 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1920 there were 6.2 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.

In 1950 there were 12.9 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.

In 1970 there were 24.3 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1980 there were 23.0 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1990 there were 20.0 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.

Babe Ruth's most direct peer group would be 1910 and Lefty Grove floating between the 1910 and 1920 group, and of course they would touch peers of the sandwhich groups.

Similarly, Rand Johnson's birth puts him floating between the 1970 and 1980 group.

The 1910 and 1920 group gives Lefty Grove 11.6 million peers.
The 1970 and 1980 group gives Randy Johnson 47.3 million peers.

I'm not sure those vast differences need to be expounded upon. I will differ to common sense and logic.

But as can be seen, Randy Johnson had four times as many peers to compete with/against from the available population compared to Grove.

People often make the point that there were only 16 teams, but that doesn't change how many 95 MPH pitchers were born or not. But even considering that, Johnson had four times as many peers and Grove had(16 teams compared to 28/30 for Johnson).....so less than half in Grove's favor, while Johnson is four times as many in his favor.


....that is just the United States! By 1970 and onward, the world stage got bigger and bigger as time went on...and of course the last ten years the world stage is at its biggest point.

In 2017 29.8% of MLB players were born outside of the United States. That is another 13 million peers that Johnson had to contend with.

So in reality;

Johnson had 60 million peers in which to compete against and separate himself from.

Grove had 11 million peers in which to compete against and separate himself from.

We know for a fact that these numbers produced taller and heavier players. We know that fastball velocity has been steadily increasing over time and that size can help velocity. We know that command has stayed at least even, but in reality has improved with the science of mechanics.

In reality, half the league in the early pre war years most likely does not even get drafted now, let alone make the minor leagues or having any chance at MLB. A five foot five 130 pound ground ball hitter with a subpar arm does not get a job on a college team now.

MLB could expand its league to twice the size right now and still have more overall talent than 1920.

I'm not sayings its impossible that Babe is still the best player ever, or that WJ at 6 foot one with really one pitch is the best pitcher ever(I have a hard time saying that part seriously)...but looking objectively we see factually how the height and weight has changed over time. We know the fastball MPH has risen steadily in the last 30 years, and that size and selective breeding does lead to increased velocity.

We see the elite pitchers of modern times being bigger, throwing harder(with movement), having as good or better command, and better breaking pitches.

I'm not certain everyone watches these pitchers closely anymore otherwise they would not be so set in their stance of the older guys being as good.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't have a personal stake in this, but am offering information that I hardly ever see taken into account. Factual measureable information.

Given two pitchers, if I know one is 9 inches taller, throws harder, has a littler better command, and the mental acuity to dominate for two decades...there is nothing that would point any level headed person to choose to take the lesser of those two physical attributes. That isn't even accounting for the peers. Just what that person can provide to a team trying to get hitters out.



i

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems apparent that like every other human athletic endeavor, baseball has evolved and on an absolute level, all things being equal, today's players are "better." Perhaps the disparity is a little less than in track and field etc. because a great deal of skill is involved in baseball that is somewhat distinct from pure athleticism, but I don't think there's any denying the part that involves athleticism.

I guess to me it's an obvious point but one that doesn't really detract from the players of the past, if one evaluates them on a relative, era-neutral basis which I think is legitimate. I don't really care if Lefty Grove as he was then would be mediocre if fast forwarded 8 decades. It's meaningless.

A fair question is why some people seem to have such a nostalgia bias that they resist the arguments about advances in athleticism, and seem to think baseball is immune from that.

[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.