Comparing Era's in Baseball

Fun article on the ESPN website comparing Koufax and R. Johnson by adjusting their stats based on league averages, etc. Very fun stuff. I'd love to see some of Pedro's recent years compared to Gibson's best years. Enjoy!


http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2002/0619/1396600.html

Two 400 strike-out seasons!


If you like this sort of thing, pick up Bill James' new Historical Abstract and Allen Barra's Clearing the Bases.

there is no question in my mind that Johnson is better than koufax, so the article only provides more evidence. I think that 10 years from now there will be a good comparison between todd helton and koufax, since both will have career numbers that overinflate how good they really are.


gibson is probably the most overrated pitcher in history. he was a damn good pitcher, but he is sometimes talked about as a contender for the best of all time, and he is not even close. essentially he is remembered for his 1.12 era, which was not even as impressive as Maddux's when compared to league average.i might have a hard time putting gibson in the top 15 or 20.pedro, johnson and maddux are much better than gibson. why not inflate dutch leonard if we are talking about gibsons era in 1968 without consideration for context?


Pat

Dave-Check out baseball-reference.com

Adjusted for home parks and league averages, Pedro's 1999 and 2000 seasons are possibly the most dominant in baseball history. The only strike against Pedro (and almost all pitchers of the last 20 years) is he wasn't pitching 300+ innings like Gibson, Johnson (Walter), and Koufax.


Also, check out Dennis Eckersley's 1990 season. Absolutely freaking ridiculous.

I don't want to take anything away from the modern pitchers, but I think these comparisons are ridiculous. You can't compare the two (or any two) eras and come up with a definative answer. Comparing stats is one thing, but here, I think they can lead you to a false conclusion.

The main factor not covered by stats is the philosophy under which the game is played. Today's game has an explosion of runs which leads to much better comparitive marks for the modern pitchers. However, I think the strategy that current batters take to the plate with them only serves to make the best of the best look even better than they are.

Current batters are, for the most part swinging for the fences. The adage "homerun hitters drive cadillacs" was never more true than it is today (with the adjustment of vehicle of choice). Batters know that they can secure huge contracts if they can put up big numbers.

Good pitchers, from any era, make their living by making people miss, either by speed, control or movement. When batters are swinging for the fences all day, they only increase the chance of missing, and increase the edge that good pitchers have. Not so good pitchers are not as proficient at making people miss. These are the guys who really get jacked around by the new offense philosophy.

This also leads to a second reason why the statistical comparisons aren't necessarily definative: Dilution of talent. With more teams and more options for young athletes, the number of good young arms reaching the pros is greatly decreased. Basketball, football, golf and other sports have taken their toll on the talent pool that baseball used to have an iron grip on. Additionally, these fewer live arms are competing for more roster spots, as Bud and the crew continue to expand.

There's also a factor that combines the above two. Players who have the talent to both hit and pitch, are often choosing to hit. Pitchers have lost some measure of status (partially due to the explosion in the offensive game) in the eyes of the kids, and, given the choice, most opt to swing the bat.

A last factor is the technological advantages that pitchers today have working for them. Steve Carlton was heralded as a workout czar because he'd stick his left arm in a barrel of rice every day and swirl it around a few times. Todays pitchers have dieticians, diet supplements, strength and conditioning coaches advanced, career lengthening surgical techniques, and a whole host of aid available. Yesterday's hurlers were on their own.


Again, I'm not trying to detract from Randy Johnson, Pedro, the Rocket, Maddux, or any of today's superstar moundsmen. The Unit would be a freak of nature regardless of which era he pitched in. I do think that the pitchers of yesterday would be dealing in today's game as well. Koufax, Spahn, Gibson, Carlton would all be much improved. Imagine the K numbers that Nolan Ryan would have put up in today's free swinging game.

My favorite Gibson story:

He takes a line drive off the leg. Chases down the ball and throws the runner out at first. Then he collapses. Broken femur.


That's sack

"Dilution of talent. With more teams and more options for young athletes, the number of good young arms reaching the pros is greatly decreased."


1) The only guys pitching in the bigs before the 1950s were white Americans. Yes, there are some more teams. The pool of prospective arms has increased by millions, though. Consider how much talent has come out of Japan, Korea, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Panama, etc. Put together five rotations of foreign born pitchers of today and I'll take them over the five best rotations of any decade before 1960.


2) Other options? Take a look at Mike Hampton's contract. Why would any young kid with great pitching talent want to take up another sport? The only league than approaches MLB in terms of annual salaries and career longevity is the NBA.

i dont agree with you. you are right that there are different philosophies that cant be mathematically evaluated. but they can be evaluated and that evaluation may be accurate. for example we all know that mickey mantle was a very fast runner and can take that into account when evaluating his career, even though he did not steal often. we may not liek the fact that we can numerically quantify it. but we can evaluate it.


Pat

1) the era we're talking about was the 50's-70's. Totally agree about pre-integration talent pool, though.


2) given that Mike Hampton is overpaid, but so is everyone else. pitchers are getting rocked and still sticking in the bigs, but, given a choice, I think that kids would rather be the rock-er than the rock-ee (unless we're talking about John Rocker, in which case, it's a personal choice of who to emulate=))

Of course these "other" factors can be evaluated. However, the article seemed to come up with a definative argument based only on statistical analysis. None of the factors I talked about were considered when Randy Johnson was declared a better pitcher than Sandy Koufax.

Mantle stole 108 bases while getting caught only 15 times between 1955 and 1962, an 88% success ratio. It was indeed an era when the stolen base was rare and not regarded as an important offensive weapon. Mantle finished 4th in the league in 1957 with just 16, 4th again in 1958 with 18, and second in 1959 with 21. Between 1948 and 1958, the most stolen bases by any player in a year in the American League was 31, and that player was traded during the year.

"Current batters are, for the most part swinging for the fences."


Indeed. And why not? They can reach them.


If Honus Wagner played today, he'd be swinging for the fences too. It didn't make sense in his time with the dead baseballs, inferior bats, and huge playing fields.

True, but the point is that the batters' approaches at the plate have changed. This leads to increased power numbers at a cost of increased strikeouts. The players of yesterday couldn't play this way, so they played a much more conservative, team game. It's like not playing small edge hands in poker. you may have an increased expectation playing some hands, but you give up your reduced fluctuations when doing it.