PDA

View Full Version : Back when complete games were expected



7chuck7
10-13-2012, 12:08 PM
I remember back in the 60's when a pitcher was regularly taken out by the 7th. or 8th. inning people would say, 'he is ok but he can't finish most of the time'.

Now if a pitcher goes 7 or 8 all the time he is a stud and if he goes 9 it makes Baseball Tonight headlines and fans are jumping up and down. It used to be expected. Some complete game totals for some great pitchers.

Steve Carlton 254
Don Drysdale 167
Bob Gibson 255
Whitey Ford 156
Noln Ryan 222

That is 1054 complete games by five pitchers!

I am sure someone can come along and explain how those guys really stunk and would not even be playing on any of todays teams and how much better today's athletes are. Not to mention they pitched against players who would not bat .125 if they played today. lol

Killer Clown
12-09-2012, 04:21 PM
This thread went well

JaysLeafs98
12-09-2012, 05:20 PM
Times have changed, now if this was a thread about how maybe teams are babying pitchers too much, then we'd have a real discussion. Personally I do think there would be way fewer injuries if guys were allowed to throw a lot more. guys used to pitch 20-30 complete games in a season at times. Now, if a guy like Verlander has a CG with 120 pitches, Leyland gets roasted for risking injury to the guy even though I think he could do it every game if he had too.

Jeffy25
12-09-2012, 05:46 PM
Are you trying to have a discussion or something?

Because you never asked a question or anything.


Let's compare these guys to the generations before them why don't we?


Steve Carlton 254
Don Drysdale 167
Bob Gibson 255
Whitey Ford 156
Noln Ryan 222

vs

Cy Young 749
Pud Galvin 646
Kim Keefe 554
Kid Nichols 532
Walter Johnson 531

Carlton's 254 is 75th most all time.


How do the players you mentioned compare to the generation before them?

Obviously the game has changed, and it isn't he pitchers fault.

Jeffy25
12-09-2012, 05:48 PM
Times have changed, now if this was a thread about how maybe teams are babying pitchers too much, then we'd have a real discussion. Personally I do think there would be way fewer injuries if guys were allowed to throw a lot more. guys used to pitch 20-30 complete games in a season at times. Now, if a guy like Verlander has a CG with 120 pitches, Leyland gets roasted for risking injury to the guy even though I think he could do it every game if he had too.

And he probably could. You can handle whatever you are trained to handle. If he got used to throwing 150 high effort pitches in a night, he could probably handle it for a decade or more.

But the game is more specialized now, and the evolution of the bullpen has helped to cause a simmer in hitting for awhile (although it has since gone up and down again since).

flea
12-09-2012, 05:54 PM
I agree with recent bullpen usage for the most part. The two glaring exceptions are the use of a designated closer in the 9th inning no matter what and the quick hooks with teams' aces. The latter is mostly a symptom of the flawed fixation on 100 pitches. If your ace is pitching less than 230-240 innings in the NL (without getting injured) you're doing something wrong. In the AL i would argue they should be getting 250 innings a year or you're screwing up as a manager.

Of course this is very broadly speaking. Not every ace is created equal, and sometimes guys like Mark Buehrle aren't exactly aces but are able to be equally effective for virtually as many pitches as you let him have.

JaysLeafs98
12-09-2012, 07:03 PM
And he probably could. You can handle whatever you are trained to handle. If he got used to throwing 150 high effort pitches in a night, he could probably handle it for a decade or more.

But the game is more specialized now, and the evolution of the bullpen has helped to cause a simmer in hitting for awhile (although it has since gone up and down again since).

I don't disagree, but i think a 7 or 8 man bullpen is a little extreme, on most teams half the guys have no business being in the big leagues. Even a 4 man rotation was better than 5 in my opinion and for me its the reason my Jays fell apart last year. They started with a 4 man rotation and then as soon as they went to 5 they lost 3 guys in 4 days.. I think coming through the minor leagues they should start training guys to go deeper into ball games and build up their strength to more than a 100 pitch effort. If you have them throwing 150-160 per start in the minors, they may be better suited to throw 110-120 in the bigs

mtf
12-09-2012, 07:11 PM
Even a 4 man rotation was better than 5 in my opinion and for me its the reason my Jays fell apart last year. They started with a 4 man rotation and then as soon as they went to 5 they lost 3 guys in 4 days

What the hell? lol. The Blue Jays played until around April 22 with a 4 man rotation because they didn't have a 5th man due to Dustin McGowan getting injured at the end of spring training. They called up Joel Carreno to make a spot start for the third game of the season and used off-days as buffers for 2 weeks to maintain a regular 4 days rest for each starting pitcher. The injuries were merely flukes or due to poor training, but hardly the result of a 4 man rotation + off days for a couple of weeks..

dodgerdave
12-09-2012, 08:00 PM
The steroid era really chewed up pitchers, so it was understandable why their innings decreased and why relief roles became much more compartmentalized. Now that ridiculous era is over. Pitchers are dominating again and should be pitching deeper into games. Relievers should be allowed to pitch more than one inning. I'm not saying that we should abuse pitchers and let them pitch 280+ innings with 25 complete games again, but I think most starters in the prime of their careers are perfectly capable of pitching 200-230 innings yearly with about five complete games or so. Pitch counts are nonsense. 100 pitches is too stupidly arbitrary because some pitchers are gassed at 90 pitches whereas others can consistently toss 120 or 130 pitches every time out. Looks like managers and coaches have also forgotten the concept that starters are starters and relievers are relievers because starters are better pitchers in general than relievers. It does peeve me at times when a #1 or #2 caliber starter who is showing no signs of fatigue is removed because of some arbitrary number of 100 pitches that he's approaching for a lesser talented reliever who then proceeds to cough up the lead.

Pinstripe pride
12-10-2012, 09:53 AM
the game has changed simple as that

thefeckcampaign
12-10-2012, 02:36 PM
This thread went wellI like it very much.

1-800-STFU
12-10-2012, 02:39 PM
People want to protect their investments. Thats why.

OaklandFan75
12-10-2012, 08:48 PM
People are pu$$ys now a days... They should change a quality start to 6.1 innings

statquo
12-10-2012, 09:05 PM
I remember back in the 60's when a pitcher was regularly taken out by the 7th. or 8th. inning people would say, 'he is ok but he can't finish most of the time'.

Now if a pitcher goes 7 or 8 all the time he is a stud and if he goes 9 it makes Baseball Tonight headlines and fans are jumping up and down. It used to be expected. Some complete game totals for some great pitchers.

Steve Carlton 254
Don Drysdale 167
Bob Gibson 255
Whitey Ford 156
Noln Ryan 222

That is 1054 complete games by five pitchers!

I am sure someone can come along and explain how those guys really stunk and would not even be playing on any of todays teams and how much better today's athletes are. Not to mention they pitched against players who would not bat .125 if they played today. lol

:laugh2: