Can Gallardo and Parra go 200 innings next year?

[Patrick425]

Wow, I didn't think mentioning Spahn's name would spark all this discussion. Like I said, it was just a name that popped in my head. You really don't have to go back to Spahn's era to see the difference. Go back 20 years to 88' and the top 5 CG leaders in each league were in the double digits. If you go 5-10 years before that, pitchers like Caldwell, Morris, Steib, Blyleven and Carlton had CG totals in the high teens, low 20's. Now, it's considered a lot if a pitcher completes 4 or 5 games in a season. The complete game has become a note worthy event in a pitcher's season.

 

Maybe you can argue that the hitters at certain possitions in Spahn's era and into the early 80's were not as talented as they are now. I'm not sure that makes sense, since there were less teams and the talent was not as diluted back then. Since CG and IP totals seem to diteriate around the late 80's, early 90's I guess it would make sense to make some correlation with the "steroid era". Now that it appears that HR totals are coming down to more reasonable numbers (doesn't take 60+ HRs to win the HR title), I'm curious if we will start seeing more starters complete games. I'm guessing not. The formula of starting pitcher going 7IP, setup, then closer seems to be forever ingrained into the future of baseball strategy.

 

Yes, maybe I have to accept the fact that the game has changed, but I don't have to like it or think that it's right.

[homer]

Spahn would make hitters of today look silly and to say the greatest lefthander of all time wouldn't make the majors today is not worth a response.

Who said he wouldn't make the majors? Spahn would be a really good to great pitcher in today's game. But you have to admit it's a different game so his numbers would be different. He probably would K more guys nowadays. I'm curious....do you think strike zones are bigger or smaller today than back in those days? I would guess they were smaller back then but I don't know.

[TooLiveBrew]

A lot of that could easily be explained by today's bandbox style stadia.

 

I don't think there's really an appreciable difference in stadiums that can justify the difference in power. If I had to, I'd guess that on balance the park effects are probably not too different today from what they were in Spahn's time. There were hitters' parks & pitchers' parks then just like now.

[Diskono]

I don't think there's really an appreciable difference in stadiums that can justify the difference in power. If I had to, I'd guess that on balance the park effects are probably not too different today from what they were in Spahn's time. There were hitters' parks & pitchers' parks then just like now.

Yep. If anything, parks in general were smaller than they are now. When the Dodgers played their home games at the LA Coliseum, the fence down the left field line was only 251 ft. Lots of parks were under 300 ft down the lines.

[1992casey]

Some parks used a city block with home plate in the middle of the block (ala Borchert Field). In contrast, Wrigley Field has it's home plate at the corner of the block, and may actually occupy two city blocks.

 

I believe the Polo Grounds had home plate in the middle of the block, leading to short distances down the lines with a very deep center field.

Edited October 8, 2008 by 1992casey

[TooLiveBrew]

The 'short lines/deep CF' model wasn't terribly uncommon amongst older ballparks, if my memory serves me. I know Shibe Park in Philadelphia was shaped in that manner, for another example.