OT: Starting pitchers per rotation spot

[brett05]

Did pitchers not take steroids? Also, why is more players are throwing mud 90s more then ever if steroids was the complete answer. Oh and juice still exist in a different form


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pitchers throwing faster??? Link pls

 

[SilenceS]

I'm on my phone but I will give links. Velocity is at all time high and strikeout to walk rate for pitchers have increased by a large margin with gained velocity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

Spahnn feller ryan mcdowell seaver carlton...some of the fastest ever...no real numbers on most of them

 

[brett05]

And the increase in k shows batters coming back right?

 

[dabynsky]

Given what's come out it has benefitted the hitters by a wide margin....where's the list of great steroid pitchers???

I think hitting is just coming down some but isn't anywhere as rare as pitching. Now raise the mound and we got something

Roger Clemens, Andy Pettite, Eric Gagne, etc...

 

[beckdawg]

And id like to see proof that shows hitting is scarcer than pitching

Btw I did provide that less than 3 SP qualify per team for the past 15

I don't think you're seeing the point of the argument. Whether or not one side is more scare than the other isn't really that relevant because you're going to have injuries and that's going to adjust from time to time. The point in dabs saying the runs are way down is when you consider relative to where we were less than 10 years ago.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/bat.shtml

We currently sit at 4.07 runs per game down from the 2000 peak of 5.14 with a steady decline from 4.86 in 2006. That's pretty significant. 15 years ago roughly you're talking about scoring 26% more runs per game on average and then taking that times two for each team.

As to your initial question, it doesn't really work that way because how do you classify #1 starter? Was Matt Garza a #1 stater with the cubs? If by pitching first in the rotation then yes but I don't think we should ever have considered him "a #1." As such, I don't know any place that tracks such a thing because from a statistical standpoint it's kind of a meaningless term. If you want that sort of information stats people would say just look at individual pitchers.

A better way to do what you're looking to do would probably to look at qualified pitchers and sort based on ERA for two time periods of several years. While that wont give you a team by team example, it will show you how many pitchers are below a certain level. So, if here's 50 sub 3 pitchers now vs say 25 in 2000 you can see the overall difference.

All that being said, I think it's kind of a fruitless endevaour. Whether or not hitters are better or worse than they used to be really only matters so far as scoring runs and it's pretty plain to see that runs have dropped off a cliff. This season is tied for 27th lowest on record. And what that does even if there are fewer Kershaws in the world is makes the separation between good and great less. I mean most don't consider Hendricks an amazing pitcher but at a 2.46 ERA he sure "feels" like one. Especially after we're used to seeing 3.50 ERA being considered edge of "elite" during the steroid era. The average MLB starter this season has a 3.83 ERA. There are 20 starters under 3 this year with qualified innings. In 2000, the average starter had a 4.87 ERA with the the top 20 starters in ERA being between 1.74 and 3.91 compared to 1.77-2.98 this year. In other words, the "elite" range has shrunk from 2.2ish runs to 1.3 in terms of difference. The difference this season between the 20th best era(2.98) and the 50th(3.66) is 0.68 of a run.

Now, you can argue that hitting has declined too so relatively it may be in a similar state but what that smaller difference does is mean that if you have a good hitter his one RBI matters more. One run in the steroid era might not make up the difference between a good and a great pitcher but now it roughly does.

 

[brett05]

I don't think you're seeing the point of the argument. Whether or not one side is more scare than the other isn't really that relevant because you're going to have injuries and that's going to adjust from time to time. The point in dabs saying the runs are way down is when you consider relative to where we were less than 10 years ago.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/bat.shtml

We currently sit at 4.07 runs per game down from the 2000 peak of 5.14 with a steady decline from 4.86 in 2006. That's pretty significant. 15 years ago roughly you're talking about scoring 26% more runs per game on average and then taking that times two for each team.

As to your initial question, it doesn't really work that way because how do you classify #1 starter? Was Matt Garza a #1 stater with the cubs? If by pitching first in the rotation then yes but I don't think we should ever have considered him "a #1." As such, I don't know any place that tracks such a thing because from a statistical standpoint it's kind of a meaningless term. If you want that sort of information stats people would say just look at individual pitchers.

A better way to do what you're looking to do would probably to look at qualified pitchers and sort based on ERA for two time periods of several years. While that wont give you a team by team example, it will show you how many pitchers are below a certain level. So, if here's 50 sub 3 pitchers now vs say 25 in 2000 you can see the overall difference.

All that being said, I think it's kind of a fruitless endevaour. Whether or not hitters are better or worse than they used to be really only matters so far as scoring runs and it's pretty plain to see that runs have dropped off a cliff. This season is tied for 27th lowest on record. And what that does even if there are fewer Kershaws in the world is makes the separation between good and great less. I mean most don't consider Hendricks an amazing pitcher but at a 2.46 ERA he sure "feels" like one. Especially after we're used to seeing 3.50 ERA being considered edge of "elite" during the steroid era. The average MLB starter this season has a 3.83 ERA. There are 20 starters under 3 this year with qualified innings. In 2000, the average starter had a 4.87 ERA with the the top 20 starters in ERA being between 1.74 and 3.91 compared to 1.77-2.98 this year. In other words, the "elite" range has shrunk from 2.2ish runs to 1.3 in terms of difference. The difference this season between the 20th best era(2.98) and the 50th(3.66) is 0.68 of a run.

Now, you can argue that hitting has declined too so relatively it may be in a similar state but what that smaller difference does is mean that if you have a good hitter his one RBI matters more. One run in the steroid era might not make up the difference between a good and a great pitcher but now it roughly does.

And that points squarely to drugs and not a scarcity of hitting to pitching but a relative scarcity to themselves

 

[SilenceS]

And that points squarely to drugs and not a scarcity of hitting to pitching but a relative scarcity to themselves

What? I dont even think that was your original point.

Oh, and here is some links

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...-velocity-felix-fernandez-nationals-strasburg

http://triblive.com/sports/mlb/5423918-74/mph-velocity-cole#axzz3EWX9uWRo

This is an older article, but it does serve a point. The graphs show the increased velocity on pitchers.

http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-has-pitching-velocity-changed-in.html

 

[brett05]

What? I dont even think that was your original point.

Oh, and here is some links

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...-velocity-felix-fernandez-nationals-strasburg

http://triblive.com/sports/mlb/5423918-74/mph-velocity-cole#axzz3EWX9uWRo

This is an older article, but it does serve a point. The graphs show the increased velocity on pitchers.

http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-has-pitching-velocity-changed-in.html

Thx!

You'd agree the data is limited.

That said your second link supports pitching in demand over offense based on the Pirates. Thats my point....pitching is still king even while hitters come down some.

 

[DewsSox79]

i dont think now its so much "roids" but maybe other forms. The velocity would have to come from the legs and not the arms. guys that i think are/were juicing besides clemens and petite are: farnsworth,prior,verlander,peavy,


Sent from My 1998 Palm Pilot Using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

Power comes from the legs: Ask Nolan Ryan

 

[Parade_Rain]

i dont think now its so much "roids" but maybe other forms. The velocity would have to come from the legs and not the arms. guys that i think are/were juicing besides clemens and petite are: farnsworth,prior,verlander,peavy,


Sent from My 1998 Palm Pilot Using Tapatalk

I'm curious, Dews. Why do you have Prior on this list?

 

[SilenceS]

I think 85 to 90 percent of pitchers took something at one time or another. I dont know why peoples list are so short

 

[brett05]

I think 85 to 90 percent of pitchers took something at one time or another. I dont know why peoples list are so short

And it kept them healthy not better imo

 

[SilenceS]

And it kept them healthy not better imo

But it got hitters better?

 

[brett05]

But it got hitters better?

Lets be honest...its hard to quantify outside of healing

 

[SilenceS]

Lets be honest...its hard to quantify outside of healing

I know many of players that have taken roids in college and higher. It makes them better. Now, to what extent it is boosting their performance can be completely debatable.

 

[brett05]

I know many of players that have taken roids in college and higher. It makes them better. Now, to what extent it is boosting their performance can be completely debatable.

Not for pitchers...pitching is not a strength thing and we saw no pitching feats that said otherwise during the time frame

 

[SilenceS]

Not for pitchers...pitching is not a strength thing and we saw no pitching feats that said otherwise during the time frame

What? It def. adds velocity to pitchers. What are you talking about? Strength in certain parts of the body it what makes pitchers velocity rise.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/maga...y?page=magazine-20060703-article29&src=mobile

 

[brett05]

What? It def. adds velocity to pitchers. What are you talking about? Strength in certain parts of the body it what makes pitchers velocity rise.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/maga...y?page=magazine-20060703-article29&src=mobile

Thx for posting that. The article speakers of recovery almost exclusively and doesn't speak of "fake" legs which is credited with speed.