This is quite a good little column. The bulk of the argument isn't in the excerpt, but the basic case is:

-not enough teams (too many cities without major league baseball)
-lack of integration
-lack of competitive balance
-far too much station-to-station baseball

The golden age of baseball, of course, was the game as it was played when I was between the ages of 7 and 12. The mid-80s game, with its mix of power and speed and a high rate of balls in play, not to mention competitive balance, is what baseball should aim to reproduce.

As Bill James noted in the Historical Abstract, the early 1950s also saw a big decline in the minor leagues, and many feared that major league games on TV would discourage fans from attending them in person. In addition, the NFL began taking seriously competing with MLB, especially late in the decade.

Jayne makes the unanswerable case that the game is better on the field and in its geographic reach than it was in the 50's, and he didn't even have to include the ability to sit at home and watch every game of the season on "color TV" for about 60 cents a day. Fans in the 50's would've died for a deal like that.

The only two things he didn't mention that go in the opposite direction are the neverending and extraneous noise that accompanies the game at the stadium, and the price and lack of walk-up availability of anything but nosebleed seats at many ballparks. That last point's easily explained by all the other factors that have changed since the 50's, but it still doesn't alter the fact that what once was an easy and very low priced entertainment choice is now something that in many cases you have to think long and hard about, and often think about many months in advance.

All in all the tradeoff is well worth it, since the TV and internet options to those high priced stadium seats are so cheap and accessible, and the game on the field is so much better than it was during The Boys of Summer era. But it's not a 100% improvement by any means for those of us who remember how much less expensive and complicated the stadium experience used to be.

This is understandable, but it’s also a misnomer. Now, with modern stadiums spread all over the country and players from all over the world displaying a combination of speed, power, and fielding prowess, the game of today is far more entertaining than it was 60 years ago.

I tend to agree with most of that, but what really drives me batty about today's game is epitomized by yesterday's top of the 8th in the Rays/Yankees game.

Jake McGee, a lefty quickly retired Granderson and Cano. Maddon then replaces him with righty Joel Peralta to pitch to Rodriguez. He walks ARod on 6 pitches. He then walks Tex on 10, with 2 pickoff throws for good measure. He then takes 7 more pitches to retire Swisher. The first 2 outs of the inning took 3 minutes. The last one a half hour, with no runs scoring or anyone even reaching 3rd base.

I'm pretty convinced that the LaRussa bullpen is in many ways good strategy - platoon differential is significant and predictable, and if you ask a guy just to throw 10-25 pitches in an outing, almost all with the platoon advantage, you can turn a mediocre pitcher into a very good one.

The problem is that it makes the game more boring to watch. When a good strategy is developed that hurts the game on the field, rule changes become necessary. I think a batters faced minimum would be a good one. (And obviously they need to enforce the time limit between pitches.)

I tend to agree with most of that, but what really drives me batty about today's game is epitomized by yesterday's top of the 8th in the Rays/Yankees game.

Jake McGee, a lefty quickly retired Granderson and Cano. Maddon then replaces him with righty Joel Peralta to pitch to Rodriguez. He walks ARod on 6 pitches. He then walks Tex on 10, with 2 pickoff throws for good measure. He then takes 7 more pitches to retire Swisher. The first 2 outs of the inning took 3 minutes. The last one a half hour, with no runs scoring or anyone even reaching 3rd base.

The problem with that is that the ability to work the count is a definite sign of batting skill, and the advance in that skill and the length of games are pretty hard to separate. Add to that the number of specialized relief pitchers and you've got still another factor that keeps the clock ticking. As a Yankee fan, I can go back and forth as to whether Mickey Mantle was better than Alex Rodriguez, or whether Whitey Ford was better than C. C. Sabathia, but I don't have to think very hard about the relative quality of the bullpens, or about the offensive depth of the starting lineups. The managers of today face far more difficult choices in almost every inning than they ever did in the days of banjo hitting infielders, and pitchers in the #9 spot who let starters take a breather between the few genuine offensive threats. It's only natural that the resulting chess game is going to add many minutes or even an hour or more to the time of game. It can be a pain in the butt if you have to get up early the next morning, but you have to take the bad with the good.

The managers of today face far more difficult choices in almost every inning than they ever did in the days of banjo hitting infielders, and pitchers in the #9 spot who let starters take a breather between the few genuine offensive threats. It's only natural that the resulting chess game is going to add many minutes or even an hour or more to the time of game. It can be a pain in the butt if you have to get up early the next morning, but you have to take the bad with the good.

Agreed. But what I didn't mention about the sequence above is how it took 23 pitches to record the final out. With all three batters, Peralta quickly got 1-2 counts. And then the nibbling began to get to 3-2, and then the fouling off began until either ball 4 or strike 3. Half an hour of baseball without a single ball put in play.

the price and lack of walk-up availability of anything but nosebleed seats

I thought the same thing: for me, the late 1980s, when you could stroll into Yankee Stadium and get night-of-game $3 bleacher seats, was for me a sort of Golden Age. Of course, the subways were terrifying and the Yankees were mediocre, but those, to some degree, were the days.

StubHub does get me into a lot of games under $10, though, without too much nosebleed risk, so when you figure 25 years' inflation, there are still good seats to be had. Of course, that's in Arlington. Ballpark nosebleeds for the Yankees series later this month are as low as $8, and good upperdecks for $23. When the Yankees play in Queens in June (the next time I'll be in New York), comparable seats are $36 and $50. Jeebus.

Perhaps in addition to umpires enforcing the 15-second time limit between pitches, they should shorten it to 12 or even 10 seconds after the sixth inning (or after the first pitching change)...

If the 1950s had truly been a "golden age" of baseball, the Giants and Dodgers -- with great teams and charismatic players -- would never have left New York. As someone noted here the other day, as 1955 opened, the Giants had baseball's newest star in Willie Mays and were coming off a World Series title, and yet they drew below one million for the '55 season. True, season tickets (which the Giants had pioneered in the McGraw days) weren't marketed anything comparable to what we have now, and the double whammy of suburbanization and racial unease weakened the Polo Grounds' allure, but still...

and the price and lack of walk-up availability of anything but nosebleed seats at many ballparks.

That's what you guys get for being Yankee fans. There are still plenty of good seats available here in Seattle!

When the Yankees play in Queens in June (the next time I'll be in New York), comparable seats are $36 and $50. Jeebus.

CitiField was designed without cheap seats. The capacity is only 41,000. The next 15,000 seats that go for $8 at other places don't exist in this stadium.

If the 1950s had truly been a "golden age" of baseball, the Giants and Dodgers -- with great teams and charismatic players -- would never have left New York. As someone noted here the other day, as 1955 opened, the Giants had baseball's newest star in Willie Mays and were coming off a World Series title, and yet they drew below one million for the '55 season. True, season tickets (which the Giants had pioneered in the McGraw days) weren't marketed anything comparable to what we have now, and the double whammy of suburbanization and racial unease weakened the Polo Grounds' allure, but still...

I strongly suspect that most people who talk about the 50's in terms of "golden age" lived in New York City or Milwaukee, because outside of those two cities there wasn't much "golden age" going on. Between 1949 and 1958, New York and Milwaukee (which also benefited form the novelty factor) accounted for 18 of the 20 World Series participants, with Philadelphia and Cleveland having one appearance each.

You mention the Giants' terrible attendance, and all pre-existing franchises except for the White Sox lost attendance in the 50's, but that didn't necessarily reflect a lack of interest in baseball. 1950 was the first year that television obtained a critical mass of viewers, and until the Giants and Dodgers left town, New York fans could watch either one or two games for free during every day of the season, since all three local teams telecast all 77 of their home games. Since the TV rights were sold for ridiculously low rates, it wound up hurting the teams' bottom lines, but for fans it was a bonanza like they'd never even imagined before. Add the TV viewers to the ballpark crowds and it's clear that in the 50's there were far more people watching the games than ever before, and by a rather large margin.

One other reason for those "golden age" memories: Baseball cards, which didn't really come into their own until 1952 with the first Topps set. It's not just the people who actually collected those cards at the time who have tangible memory tokens to look back upon, it's also the presence of all those 1950's players at memorabilia shows, interacting with fans who were too young to have seen them play. All of these factors combine to lend an aura to a decade that outside of New York wasn't really any more special than any other.

That's what you guys get for being Yankee fans. There are still plenty of good seats available here in Seattle!

Yeah, but OTOH a Yankee fan living in Tumbleweed, Texas can watch every game on his big screen TV for the price of a small serving of french fries at his local McDonald's. By comparison, just to listen to one Yankee game on the radio in 1950 would've cost that Tumbleweed fan well over a thousand 2011 dollars, since the only way for him to have heard it would've been to get a friend of his in New York to put a telephone receiver next to his radio.

Perhaps in addition to umpires enforcing the 15-second time limit between pitches, they should shorten it to 12 or even 10 seconds after the sixth inning (or after the first pitching change)...

The time limit is 12 seconds. It goes away with runners on base.

The golden age of baseball, of course, was the game as it was played when I was between the ages of 7 and 12.

No, the golden age of baseball was the game as it was played when I was between the ages of 7 and 12. Fifteen inch mound, ankles to neck strike zone, and a bunch of pitchers posting four-hit, two-run, complete game losses every night.

I strongly suspect that most people who talk about the 50's in terms of "golden age" lived in New York City or Milwaukee,

The people who controlled the media from the 1970s through the 1990s - when the idea of a Golden Age of Baseball in the 1950s took hold - were overwhelmingly people who had grown up in the New York area in the 1950s.

[12] The next 15,000 seats that go went for $8 at other places Shea don't exist in this stadium.

FTFY

The golden age of baseball, of course, was the game as it was played when I was between the ages of 7 and 12.

I was going to say between 6 and 10, but...

The people who controlled the media from the 1970s through the 1990s - when the idea of a Golden Age of Baseball in the 1950s took hold - were overwhelmingly people who had grown up in the New York area in the 1950s.

Or they were people of the same age whose main exposure to Major League baseball when they were growing up was seeing New York teams in the World Series every year, or on GOTW in disproportionate numbers.

I think it can safely be said the gold age of baseball wasn't the game when I was 7-12. I doubt anyone wants labor strife 33% of the time.

I'm pretty convinced that the LaRussa bullpen is in many ways good strategy - platoon differential is significant and predictable, and if you ask a guy just to throw 10-25 pitches in an outing, almost all with the platoon advantage, you can turn a mediocre pitcher into a very good one.

The problem is that it makes the game more boring to watch.

I agree that shorter outings can turn mediocre pitchers into very good ones. But I think the problems with the strategy are:

1. You're getting fewer innings out of your best pitchers.
2. You're going with inferior pitchers in some very high leverage situations while your best reliever sits on his hands.

Now, perhaps if your best relievers are asked to do more, they wouldn't be as good.

On the other hand, if everyone is using relievers this way, you're not getting an edge out of your strategy.

The edge would come if you flip it back around, to get more innings out of your best relievers and in higher leverage spots.

There's also the issue that starters are being severely under-utilized now. Not only do they pitch in a 5-man (and thus you've got a 5th-starter quality pitcher going every time around), but they tend to get pulled soon after the 6th inning. I could perhaps see a strategy such as the LaRussian one if your starters are pitching in a four-man rotation.

Here's the (seeming) paradox: there were far more walks/game in the late 40s/early 50s than is the case today. And yet the games were shorter. There's more to the added length than just the odd confluence of level walk rates but more pitches/batter and increased relief pitcher usage. Some of it has to do with the fact that all games are televised, which adds ten-fifteen minutes to the game length right off the bat (so to speak).

But what I didn't mention about the sequence above is how it took 23 pitches to record the final out. With all three batters, Peralta quickly got 1-2 counts. And then the nibbling began to get to 3-2, and then the fouling off began until either ball 4 or strike 3. Half an hour of baseball without a single ball put in play.

Methinks you exaggerate the length of time there just a wee bit. 23 pitches could not take half an hour, even with a visit to the mound. Two pitches a minute: 140 in a game for each side, 140 minutes, plus relief pitcher changes (10-15 minutes), commercials at half-innings (17 x 2 = 34)...right there you have 189 minutes, or roughly 3:10. The actual average is a good bit less than that, unless you are watching Yankees-Red Sox, Red Sox-Rays, or Yankees-Rays.

If 23 pitches actually took half an hour, and a whole game was played at that pace, you'd have 196 minutes just for the game portion, plus 54 minutes for the non-playing down time, or 250 minutes--4:10. Even Yankee-Red Sox games only average 206 minutes (according to J-Doug's data at BTBS).

But what's most amusing is that we've only had 1 or 2 regular season games for 2012 and we already have grumbling. People's "love of baseball" is also more complicated today than it was "back then." A greater tendency toward complaint might be a symptom of some other set of cultural forces at work in creating this unquenchable sense of malaise.

Or maybe a Yankee fan is PO'ed that a 3:44 game wound up in the "L" column due to Mo coughing it up for a change?? :-)

The people who controlled the media from the 1970s through the 1990s - when the idea of a Golden Age of Baseball in the 1950s took hold - were overwhelmingly people who had grown up in the New York area in the 1950s.

I think they were young adults by the 50s, Tom, but yes, they were primarily products of the NY metro area. Much of that idea was also part of a larger complaint about the loss of the world they'd grown up in, one they'd expected to remain intact over the course of their lives--only to have the Dodgers and Giants leave town, which was the triggering event for expansion and "changing everything."

Hence the heavy nostalgia, much of it centering around the Dodgers, with a more attractive set of story elements (star-crossed champion, Jackie Robinson, etc.).

Much of that idea was also part of a larger complaint about the loss of the world they'd grown up in, one they'd expected to remain intact over the course of their lives--only to have the Dodgers and Giants leave town, which was the triggering event for expansion and "changing everything."

I think you're on to something with the "loss of their world" angle.

The urban white ethnic world was basically destroyed between 1965-1980, to be replaced by a culturally bereft suburban landscape. I experienced the tail end of those neighborhoods, and they were a wonderful place for a child.

The loss of those neighborhoods where they grew up, and learned to love the game, are a big part of the nostalgia. i.e., the Brooklyn Dodger fan is mourning the loss of the Brooklyn of his childhood, as much as the Dodgers themselves.

23 pitches could not take half an hour, even with a visit to the mound.

You haven't seen Rafael Betancourt pitch.

23 pitches could not take half an hour, even with a visit to the mound.

Yes, I'm sure I exaggerated. It only seemed like 30 minutes. But, there were also 2 throws to first, plus numerous looks, come off the rubber plays also. All I know is that I started making dinner when Peralta came in with 2 outs, and I was finished before he was.

But the larger point again is the way the game has evolved to where you get a guy in the hole, then nibble until it's 3-2, then the batter takes over fouling off numerous pitches hoping to get the walk. As Andy said, it's an effective strategy, but boring.

I turned 7 in 1991 and 12 in 1996, so... baseball was a lot of things between my ages of 7 and 12.

And yes, I do like Sluggerly Sluggersons more than most fans who grew up from the 60s-80s, but sillyball was a little excessive. I really like offensive levels where they are now; I don't even mind the astronomical amount of strikeouts.

I really like offensive levels where they are now

There are some '90s looking games going on today. Lots of home runs for this early in the season.

And two more home runs hit since I last looked. Early returns from today and yesterday are that we're back in 1997.

Well, I suppose I should say I like them where they've been the last couple of years, whether that continues or not. It would take a lot to significantly impact my game-to-game enjoyment, though.

EDIT: Hope I didn't derail the thread by using impact as a verb.

"Impact" is a perfectly fine verb. It was coined from the participle "impacted" instead of the noun "impact", but it's definitely a word, pretty much everyone knows what its definition is. - Brock Hanke

I'm old enough to remember the station-to-station of 1950s ball. I much preferred the 1980s, when almost any offensive tactic had its uses. - Brock Hanke

Early returns from today and yesterday are that we're back in 1997.

I'm not going to add up today's games, since they're far from over, but there were 4.33 runs scored yesterday per team per game. Before today's games, there were 3.29 runs scored per team per game so far this year.

There were 4.77 runs scored per game in 1997.

Oh, what the heck: There are three games in the 8th or 9th inning today, with a total of 24 runs scored: exactly four runs per team.

I was going to say that today's overall figures are skewed by factoring in the two games that are shutouts, but they obviously have to be counted. The fact that either counting them or not counting them changes the numbers so much is, of course, evidence for the obvious fact that the sample so far is too small to draw conclusions from.

But I'm looking at how the starting pitchers have done. Yes there have been the shutouts, but C.C. Sabathia gave up 5 runs yesterday; James Shields gave up 6 runs; Yovani Gallardo gave up 7. Josh Beckett gave up 7 runs today. Even in more pedestrian starts, Dan Haren gave up 5 runs today, Daniel Hudson gave up 4, Gio Gonzalez gave up 4 in 3.2 innings, and Adam Wainwright gave up 3 in 5.2 innings. That's a lot of starters stinking, and people have chalked it up to "bad command." That many starters having "bad command" in the course of a couple of days screams tightened strike zone to me. And I haven't counted them, but it seems like there have been a ton of home runs, too.

With the Mets stinking a lot of those cheap seats have come back. The most expensive upper deck seat now is $25 for most games. Outfield seats are $12.

But 41,000 is shockingly small for a New York baseball team. The Mets averaged close to 50,000 from 2007-8, that's really what they should have built as a stadium. The A's have gotten criticism for wanting to build a 34,000 seat stadium in San Jose, but I think building a 41,000 seat stadium in New York is just as bad.

I also don't understand why the Mets would want to make their stadium without cheap seats when they have a reputation as the preferred team of ethnic/working class New York.

C.C. Sabathia gave up 5 runs yesterday; James Shields gave up 6 runs; Yovani Gallardo gave up 7. Josh Beckett gave up 7 runs today. Even in more pedestrian starts, Dan Haren gave up 5 runs today, Daniel Hudson gave up 4, Gio Gonzalez gave up 4 in 3.2 innings, and Adam Wainwright gave up 3 in 5.2 innings.

Roy Halladay gave up 0 runs, Johan Santana gave up 0 runs, Zack Greinke gave up 0 runs, Justin Verlander gave up 0 runs, Johnny Cueto gave up 0 runs, Jered Weaver gave up 0 runs, Chad Billingsley gave up 0 runs, Cliff Lee gave up 1 run, Jeff Karstens gave up 1 run, Stephen Strasburg gave up 1 run, Erik Bedard gave up 1 run, Tommy Hanson gave up 1 run, Justin Masterson gave up 1 run, Jon Lester gave up 1 run, Ryan Dempster gave up 1 run. Justin Harrell, who I never heard of before today, gave up 0 runs.

Some pitchers have pitched poorly. More pitchers pitched very well.

I hope you're right that that's all it is. Matt Latos and Hiroki Kuroda joined the hit parade of good starters with bad outings tonight. Walks seem up. I'm worried. But I hope I'm wrong.

I hope you're right that that's all it is. Matt Latos and Hiroki Kuroda joined the hit parade of good starters with bad outings tonight. Walks seem up. I'm worried. But I hope I'm wrong.

It's been three days.......

So far teams have been averaging 3.9 runs per game, compared to 4.3 last year. In the first 34 games last year, teams scored 4.5 runs per game.

None of this information has a meaningful sample size, but I'm not seeing cause for alarm that run scoring will be up.

None of this information has a meaningful sample size, but I'm not seeing cause for alarm that run scoring will be up.

Unless he is injured, Cespedes will definitely hit 120 homers though.

ITT: We make conclusions about current offensive levels while completely ignoring sample size.

I was 7 in 1991 and 12 in 1996 as well. My biggest hope for baseball's future is that somebody other than FOX gets the TV contract.

I also hope that MLB decides to make it possible to download audio streams, so I don't have to use Replay Media Catcher anymore. It would be very helpful for those of us who live in northeast China, where internet conditions are extremely slow.

41,000 does feel too small for a New York stadium to me. I wish I were old enough to actually remember the days of walking up to the stadium and securing tickets on game day. StubHub isn't awful, but it seems silly that we have to go through a third party to purchase tickets at any discount rate.

Why can't teams offer a day of game discount on unsold tickets? I know all the arguments about having to pay extra for janitorial services and food providers -- but playing in front of empty seats has always felt like a very odd way of doing business to me.

I really wish pitchers would pitch faster, especially in tense situations. I just finished listening to Game 4 of the 1941 World Series the other day. The famous top of the 9th is over before you know it. There's no strolling around the mound after every pitch, no shaking off sign after sign, no endless throws to first base. Of course, that's probably why the Dodgers were unable to stop the Yankee rally.

I also wish the ESPN / StarSports network out here would show us more than just Yankee games. Of course, the games are all shown at 7 or 8 AM, when I'm at work anyway.

Why can't teams offer a day of game discount on unsold tickets?

People wouldn't buy ahead of time if they thought tickets could be had cheaper on game day. And people who bought ahead of time anyway would feel ripped off that the game day prices were cheaper.

I really wish pitchers would pitch faster, especially in tense situations. I just finished listening to Game 4 of the 1941 World Series the other day.

Agreed. They pitched fast even as recently as the Buckner inning in 1986. We can all feel the famous situation - last out, down by two runs, bases empty - frozen in time poised over infinity. But actually watching it, the whole thing is over in like six minutes.

Why can't teams offer a day of game discount on unsold tickets?

People wouldn't buy ahead of time if they thought tickets could be had cheaper on game day. And people who bought ahead of time anyway would feel ripped off that the game day prices were cheaper.

That's absolutely true, but what would be nice would be for teams to reserve something like 10% or 15% of their seats for game day walk-up sales at regular prices, or even at a slightly higher price. That would somewhat depress the purely speculative secondary market, and in most cases it wouldn't hurt the total sales. It would also give fans who can't plan their days or evenings months in advance a chance to catch a big game now and then without having to be gouged by the speculators.

39. RayDiPerna Posted: April 08, 2012 at 04:30 AM (#4100194)

It's been three days.......

Seems like today was the appropriate day to mention that.

DB

That's absolutely true, but what would be nice would be for teams to reserve something like 10% or 15% of their seats for game day walk-up sales at regular prices, or even at a slightly higher price.

At the very least several teams do this. For instance, back when the Phillies were playing at the Vet and they couldn't sell all of their season tickets they wouldn't release those tickets until the day of the game in case somebody bought a season ticket package or a season ticket holder needed more tickets. There were numerous occasions where I would call the box office a couple hours ahead of time and get face price tickets for seats behind home plate or the dugouts.

The Nationals last year had $5 walk up tickets for their worst sections. They'd check your tickets if you tried to move down but all you really needed to do was to show them an old ticket for that section and they'd let you through. So basically buy one ticket full price for one game and then every game after that would cost you 5 bucks.

The Nationals last year had $5 walk up tickets for their worst sections.

They've had that day-of-game policy since Nats Park opened in 2008, and the seats aren't that bad (last two sections, 400 level, third-base side, a place I'd rather sit than the top deck of the outfield).

Yeah, they're really acceptable for that price. I'll probably go on the next home stand. I'm worried about the team being better this year though--they'll be tougher to get.

At the very least several teams do this. For instance, back when the Phillies were playing at the Vet and they couldn't sell all of their season tickets they wouldn't release those tickets until the day of the game in case somebody bought a season ticket package or a season ticket holder needed more tickets. There were numerous occasions where I would call the box office a couple hours ahead of time and get face price tickets for seats behind home plate or the dugouts.

The Nationals last year had $5 walk up tickets for their worst sections. They'd check your tickets if you tried to move down but all you really needed to do was to show them an old ticket for that section and they'd let you through. So basically buy one ticket full price for one game and then every game after that would cost you 5 bucks.

The real test for holding out tickets for walk-ups, though, doesn't concern the teams that seldom if ever sell out. It concerns the teams that sell out on a routine basis.

I think you're on to something with the "loss of their world" angle.

The urban white ethnic world was basically destroyed between 1965-1980, to be replaced by a culturally bereft suburban landscape. I experienced the tail end of those neighborhoods, and they were a wonderful place for a child.

The loss of those neighborhoods where they grew up, and learned to love the game, are a big part of the nostalgia. i.e., the Brooklyn Dodger fan is mourning the loss of the Brooklyn of his childhood, as much as the Dodgers themselves.

Too, I think the players were more likely to live among the fans back ten. A lot of the football Giants lived not far from Yankee Stadium during the season.

I just finished listening to Game 4 of the 1941 World Series the other day. The famous top of the 9th is over before you know it. There's no strolling around the mound after every pitch, no shaking off sign after sign, no endless throws to first base. Of course, that's probably why the Dodgers were unable to stop the Yankee rally.

Oddly enough, the reason that managers can only visit the mound once an inning before removing a pitcher is because Durocher and Southworth were visiting the mound early and often during that year's NL pennant race.

Oddly enough, the reason that managers can only visit the mound once an inning before removing a pitcher is because Durocher and Southworth were visiting the mound early and often during that [1941] NL pennant race.

The problem is that rule 8.06(b), which set that limit, wasn't established until sometime in the 60's. The last year of the Baseball Guide that included the Official Rules was 1962, and the section of rules concerning pitchers ended with rule 8.05. I remember the controversy over repeated mound visits in that era, and I remember about when the rule was put into place, but I don't remember the exact year.

codified in 1967 according to this story from 2010:

http://thebaseballcodes.com/2010/07/22/kershaw-upholds-unwritten-rule-while-mattingly-breaks-written-one/