The 70’s had everything (save for Naked Fushigi Punchball Leagues..of course)! Bruce has a grooved interview with Dan Epstein of Big Hair and Plastic Grass: A Funky Ride Through Baseball and America in the Swinging ’70s fame.
Markusen: The cover of the book features images of Oscar Gamble, Mark “The Bird” Fidrych, Bill Buckner, Jim Rice, and Luis Tiant. I can think of no better characters to represent the 1970s than Gamble and Fidrych. What did those two players mean to you personally?
Epstein: To me, Gamble represents the coolness and funkiness of the era. He actually owned a disco in Alabama—“Oscar Gamble’s Players Club”—and with his gigantic ‘fro, handsome features, and flashy off-the-field fashions, he could have easily passed for a member of the Chi-Lites or the Spinners. As a kid, I thought he was the coolest-looking cat in the big leagues. Fidrych, on the other hand, represents the pure joy of playing baseball; I loved him and related to him because he was so unabashedly STOKED to be out there on the mound, and I think a lot of baseball fans of the era felt the same about him.
Markusen: Final question for Dan Epstein. If you could take one aspect of 1970s baseball and inject it into today’s game, what would it be?
Epstein: Honestly, it’s more about what I’d like to see REMOVED from today’s game—including the DH, one-batter situational lefty relievers, baggy uniforms, dark “softball”-type pullover jerseys, choreographed home plate celebrations, umpires warning both dugouts after a batter gets hit, Bud Selig, etc. But I guess if I could inject one aspect of the 1970s into today’s game … I’d love to see the return of fat knuckleball pitchers like Wilbur Wood.
Repoz
Posted: July 30, 2010 at 12:13 PM |
54 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
books,
history
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. jwb Posted: July 30, 2010 at 12:57 PM (#3603403)Cute, but were there any other fat knuckleball pitchers in the 70's besides Wood? Wood was a marvel I'll grant. 49 games started in the strike shortened 1972 season. Higher WAR that year than Dick Allen, who is universally acclaimed for keeping the otherwise hapless Sox in the race, and was even better in 1971. But it's not like he was an archetype or anything, was he? The Neikros, Charlie Hough, etc, weren't fat, and Mickey Lolich wasn't a knuckler. Were there others?
This guy loves 70's baseball, and yet he wants to get rid of the DH, "softball"-type pullover jerseys, and choreographed home plate celebrations. Got it.
How guys like Mickey Lolich could pitch 300 or more innings ever year (**)-- most of them very effective innings -- and the well-conditioned, athletic pitchers of today seem to hit some imaginary wall, be it physical or mental, at 150 or so (see, e.g., Strasberg, Steven) remains one of life's great mysteries. Some will likely say that today's guys "put more effort" into each pitch or somesuch, but that's silly.
Is the book any good?
(**) Lolich pitched 232 and 243 more-than-effective innings at 23 and 24, and by 30 was at a mind-boggling 373 -- the first of four straight 300 plus years.
I don't think it's a complete mystery. Today's ballparks are more home run friendly, today's lineups are far more packed from top to bottom than they were BITD, and yes, they'd better concentrate on each pitch. Of course to that you have to add our current theories about pitch counts, but it's not like it's all in the pitchers' heads.
And Tiger Stadium was more of a bandbox than Comerica Park.
Most of the time, it takes more pitches to get through an inning today than BITD, which would encompass the impact of the tougher lineups. Other than that, I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference, or any real evidence that pitchers taxed themselves less per pitch BITD. That seems like an ex post facto explanation. Your point about concentration would go to mental, not physical, fatigue.
And yet he also wants to get rid of baggy uniforms? Does anyone really want to see some fat guy in a tight uniform?
I think you're adjusting for context here and Andy's point is all about context. The 1968 Cardinals OBP leader was Flood at .339. Their 4th-best OBP among starters was Maris at .307. They had two regulars who slugged over .400, Brock at .418 and Shannon at .401. Yeah, there was plenty of opportunity to take pitches off in the 1960s.
Fair enough, but the pitcher in 1968 had no way of knowing offense would explode a couple decades later. So how did he know he wasn't really facing a tough lineup? From Mickey Lolich's perspective in the 1968 World Series, he was facing an excellent lineup with a lot of really good hitters. Context matters here only if the pitcher is aware of it.
Tougher lineups and better offense would (and do) reveal themselves in pitch count data; nothing would really be hidden or mysterious. I'll leave the math to others, but adjusting innings by number of pitches likely leaves Lolich's 373 inning season well over 300. In any event, the question is empirical and has an obtainable answer.
Nor does opportunity equal reality. Is there any evidence that pitchers took advantage of the opportunity -- other than the fact that they pitched more innings? We all have access to games from the 70s, and some of us have contemporaneous memories. If you can watch one of those games and conclude that pitchers were taking pitches off, or otherwise not giving as much effort per pitch as today's pitchers, you have better eyes than I.
i LIKEY all the colorful unis and do not like all the stupid red/brick red or pin effing stripes
i also think that fans these days do NOT like "colorful" players - i can't believe all the astros fans who have been saying for years that berkman should shut up (he sez outrageous and controversial stuff like baseball games shouldn't be played in the middle of a thunderstorm) and the ideal ballplayer is biggio (who has never had anything but bull durham stuff to say)
Why did he need to know that? He only needed to know what kind of hitters he was pitching to then, a lot that you could get away with less than your best pitch about. I'm not necessarily agreeing with Andy, only noting that your response to Kiko makes no sense.
i promise you that most texan baseball fans do NOT think that ballplayers were better BITGOD (you should hear my mama and her friends, who saw the rangers/astros in the 70s)
but the players should shutup and talk like biggio bit?
i've heard that from people all over the place
Why would he think he could get away with less than his best? Do you think Mickey Lolich didn't try his hardest against Yaz, Orlando Cepeda, Lou Brock, Roger Maris, etc. because those guys ended up not having as high an OPS+ as guys 20 or 30 years later? Is the thought process there, "All the writers call these guys great hitters, all the other players think they're great hitters, Maris broke the Babe's record, Yaz has always ripped me, but Brock's OBP is only .330, not .360, so I'm going to take it easy today?" That doesn't really add up.
And why wouldn't the pitchers conclude that the hitters weren't hitting well precisely because they, the pitchers, were going all out and keeping the hitters from hitting well? That's equally plausible, if not more so.
If the "effort was less" case was true, it also means the hitters from those eras need a downgrade totally separate from what OPS+ tells us, to account for pitchers not trying as hard against them. The hitting numbers from, say, 1968 are even more dreadful than commonly understood.
I don't think players were better in the 70s. I do know pitchers pitched more innings in the 70s, by a big margin. I don't find the generally proffered reasons for that change remotely convincing. The result on the field is more non-descript middle relievers throwing more innings, and bloated pitching staffs keeping bench flexibility down. I don't like that result; if that's seen as a "GET OFF MY LAWN" perspective, so be it.
I'm not sure of all the permutations, but the general idea is that innings are way down today because pitchers expend more effort, physical and mental, per pitch than they did 30-40 years ago. Since it's impossible to go more than "all out," pitchers in the big inning era, it follows, were doing something other than going "all out."
I think the idea is in the current era, a far greater percentage of players are at least somewhat legitimate HR threats and have to be pitched accordingly.... unlike (as a random example) the 1976 Rangers whose starting C, 2B, LF, and CF combined for 2099 PA and 4 HR. Add in the starting 1B and 3B and you get 3284 PA with 19 HR.... 2/3 of the regular lineup averaging 3 HR per spot. Pitchers could afford to not go all out to every batter but bear down extra on the good hitters or when in trouble.
It's not that strange of a concept. A famous pitcher even wrote a book about it.
It's not just pitchers in the big inning era, it's pitchers today. Starting pitchers today don't throw their absolute hardest on every fastball in the first inning - they must pace themselves to handle throwing 100-plus pitches that day. If there were fewer guys in the lineup who could really make you pay for making a mistake, it stands to reason that you could slow down your pace even further during a depressed offensive era.
I don't think it explains all of the decrease in IP totals, but it gets us some of the way there.
It doesn't add up because you're adding the wrong numbers. Nobody is suggesting that Lolich would take it easy on Yaz or the Baby Bull. It's about the bottom of lineups then compared to today.
one-batter situational lefty relievers
I think most folks will be able to place this fifty-six year-old play-by-play. Wertz batted lefty; Liddle was a LHP. Tony LaRussa did not invent the LOOGY.
Again, by talking about OPS+, you're adjusting for context, which misses the point entirely. Roger Maris in 1968 batted .255/.307/.374. If Lolich let him put the ball in play, the odds were very high that it would be fielded by one of his fielders and very low that Maris would end up in scoring position.
And frankly, even adjusting for context, the 1968 Cardinals were NOT "an excellent lineup with a lot of really good hitters". You mention, for example, that the team had two Hall-of-Fame hitters. But neither Cepeda nor Brock are in the Hall of Merit; they're both viewed as pretty weak Hall-of-Famers statistically. And Cepeda had a pretty mediocre season in 1968 anyway, even in context (OPS+ of 106; unadjusted line of .248/.306/.378). The Cardinals, as a team, finished 4th in runs scored in a 10-team NL, 5th in OBP (with a TEAM OBP below .300), 3rd in SLG, and 6th in OPS. The Cardinals won the NL pennant in 1968 on the strength of the best pitching staff in the league; heck, Bob Gibson managed to lose 9 games while putting up a 1.12 ERA.
For whatever reason, the 1960s, at least from about 1963 - 1968, were the easiest time to be a major-league pitcher since the Deadball Era: high mounds, big strike zones, plenty of room for error. My theory is that what this meant was that pitchers who came up during this time period (Lolich debuted in 1963) had the most favorable conditions for breaking into Major-League Baseball probably of all time. So these pitchers were able to control their workload in their early 20's which are the years when MLB pitchers are most vulnerable to injury. In turn, then, these pitchers were able to increase their workloads in the 1970s when they hit their 30s (Lolich turned 31 near the end of his 376-IP 1971 season).
Moreover, Mickey Lolich's 376 IP in 1971 is hardly typical of the great workhorses of the 1970s. In fact, it's the 2nd-highest IP total since 1920, being surpassed only by Wilbur Wood's 376.2 IP in 1972. The only other non-knuckleballers to throw 330 IP in a season since 1947 are Robin Roberts (1952-54), Sandy Koufax (1965), Denny McLain (1968), Nolan Ryan (1974), Steve Carlton (1972), and Gaylord Perry (1972-73). And the first three of those are hardly poster boys for the ability to pitch those kinds of workloads without ruining your career.
I agree, but that still doesn't address the mental calculus Lolich would have gone through to convince himself to ignore reputation and take it easy on pitches here and there. I'd concede that pitchers likely have an innate sense of how much damage a hitter can do that takes into account actual performance, but it's a long way from that to the reality of taking it easy on pitches.
I'm sensing from your comment about Maris being allowed to put the ball in play that the theory reduces to something along the lines of "if hitters are so much better, I have to strike more of them out, and I have to try harder." Maybe there's something to that. The counter would be that Lolich struck out 308 in his 376 IP year, leading the AL (5th in K/9), so there isn't really any basis to conclude that he was just letting guys put the ball in play. (Yes, he could have divvied up his strikeouts among the "better" hitters and let the weak hitters put the ball in play.) As well as the question of whether "trying for strikeouts" really impacts anything pitchers do and whether that impact includes expending more effort.
Moreover, Mickey Lolich's 376 IP in 1970 is hardly typical of the great workhorses of the 1970s. In fact, it's the 2nd-highest IP total since 1920, being surpassed only by Wilbur Wood's 376.2 IP in 1972. The only other non-knuckleballers to throw 330 IP in a season since 1947 are Robin Roberts (1952-54), Sandy Koufax (1965), Denny McLain (1968), Nolan Ryan (1974), Steve Carlton (1972), and Gaylord Perry (1972-73). And the first three of those are hardly poster boys for the ability to pitch those kinds of workloads without ruining your career.
That's true. I picked Lolich more for his portliness, for a better contrast with today's athletic, well-conditioned pitchers who nonetheless haven't exhibited anything approaching Lolich's durability.
Doesn't a quick glance at history suggest that "portliness" is positively correlated with "durability" for pitchers? Even today, the most durable starter in MLB is probably Sabathia (779.1 IP regular+postseason from 2007-09) who's generously listed at a mere 290 lbs on BB-Ref.
No, it comes down to if hitters are so much better today I have to be more careful what I throw.
To be clear, are you arguing that Lolich was working as hard against Maxvill or Maris (.255 BA 307 OBP in 1968) as he would against the era's better hitters?
Was he not letting up against the opposing pitcher because he "couldn't go less than all out"?
Excellent point. Maybe it's better for a pitcher to be a little tubby and not too lean muscle-bound, which is kind of where I was leaning with the Lolich example.
Ok, but how does "care" relate to "effort"?
To be clear, are you arguing that Lolich was working as hard against Maxvill or Maris (.255 BA 307 OBP in 1968) as he would against the era's better hitters?
More that I'm unconvinced that that pattern would change across eras. Every era has hitters that are better than other hitters.
When we count pitches, do we total the number of pitches thrown in-between innings? Or before games in the bullpen (which may vary widely from pitcher to pitcher)? No, because we know that not every pitch carries the same amount of stresses.
If you're facing a .250 hitting shortstop with no power, which there were an abundance of in 1968, you may throw a lot of get-me-over fastballs. If he hits it, fine, the worst-case scenario is usually a single. More likely, he hits it weakly and you've got an out.
Today, you're less likely to be able to do that, because there aren't a lot of no-power guys playing. You've got to pitch to him, because a mistake can be genuinely costly.
The first type of pitch, I think, is far less taxing on a pitcher both physically and mentally than when a guy is trying to hit his spot. Add up enough of them, and you can work longer in games and in seasons.
You could still do that throughout most of the eighties as well, as long as you went to a weekday game against some "lesser" opponent, that is, not the Cardinals or not the Mets, etc. I don't live in Chicago but do live within what I consider reasonable driving distance for a quick mini-vacation. There were one or two occasions that we ended up sitting behind a pole but we usually had good seats. Later of course Wrigley Field morphed into a giant outdoor cocktail lounge and now it is virtually impossible for the hoi polloi to obtain a seat. Unless of course you want to buy one at a scalper's price.
I don't think players were better in the 70s. I do know pitchers pitched more innings in the 70s, by a big margin. I don't find the generally proffered reasons for that change remotely convincing.
ok, then what is YOUR reason?
what would be the reason to have more, crappier pitchers throwing innings previously thrown by fewer, better pitchers?
The result on the field is more non-descript middle relievers throwing more innings, and bloated pitching staffs keeping bench flexibility down. I don't like that result; if that's seen as a "GET OFF MY LAWN" perspective, so be it.
- then what would you do?
who are all these guys who are gonna pitch all these innings?
and if you are saying that every single pitcher BITGOD pitched a lot more innings, pitched better and lasted just as long/longer in their careers, please show some numbers.
because you pointing to robin roberts/mike marshall/mickey lolich as the example of how the average pitcher pitched BITGOD is like me pointing to albert pujols as the example of the average modern batter
One of my favorite baseball quips ever.
But I don't usually see pickoff attempts counted and maybe they should be.
That question is very popular with my worst students.
Correct. The real easy outs were eliminated by around 1977, give or take a year or two. The period 1977 to 1993, the inception of the Steroid Era, was baseball's true Golden Age.
ok, then what is YOUR reason?
what would be the reason to have more, crappier pitchers throwing innings previously thrown by fewer, better pitchers?
I'm honestly not sure what the reason is. There are pitchers today capable of Lolichian durability, but they'll never be allowed to display it. Baseball's a game/industry of conventional wisdom and herd mentality; it'll take a major iconoclast to ever let pitchers throw 300 innings. There's a Moneyball opportunity there, though, no question about it. As Bill James wrote as the trend toward 5-man rotations was completing, (paraphrasing), "These teams should have a real good reason for turning over 34 starts a year to their worst starter." Some team will, someday, realize they should be extending AJ Burnett and Phil Hughes -- and Mariano Rivera, for that matter -- in lieu of turning to the likes of David Robertson and Chan Ho Park.
Robertson 2010, 8 May - Present: 28.1 IP, 2.22 ERA, opponents hitting .243/.345/.272/.617
Robertson 2009, Season: 43.2 IP 3.32 ERA, opponents hit .216/.314/.371/.685
Yes, just what the #### are they thinking. they could be cranking Bob Feller out there every fourth day. So what if he was 32 the last time he pitched 200 innings!
Mariano's in his age 40 year, so from 34 to so far in his age 40 year, he's got a 1.83 era in 478 innings -- 87 MORE innings in 2+ FEWER years at less than half the ERA in a higher run-scoring environment.
Oh, the misuse!
you mean the guy who got hurt a couple years back and hasn't never been the same?
(**) Or closer-caliber relievers capable of pitching 140 innings and pitching them 140 innings.
Incidentally, that is the period during which Jack Morris lead the Majors in wins. Ergo, Jack Morris is a HoF pitcher, since he was the winningest pitcher during baseball's true Golden Age.
By which you mean throwing hem out there until they break down?
Or do you have some battery of tests to distinguish the 300 inning pitchers from the 225 inning pitchers?
OK, but I can't see how you think I'm claiming anything of the sort if this is addressed to me. I've said exactly the opposite -- there are pitchers today who could pitch 300+ innings and there's a Moneyball opportunity in identifying them.
I guess I'm just not seeing that. Take a couple years at random, 1973 and 1998 (25 years later, both AL). IP top ten:
1973:
1. Wood (CHW) 359.1 -- pitched to 36, was never all that great
2. Perry (CLE) 344.0 -- pitched forever, HOF
3. Ryan (CAL) 326.0 -- pitched beyond forever, HOF
4. Blyleven (MIN) 325.0 -- pitched forever, soon to be HOF
5. Singer (CAL) 315.2 -- petered out a bit, maybe arm
6. Colborn (MIL) 314.1 -- wasn't very good anyway
7. Lolich (DET) 308.2 -- pitched to 36
8. Holtzman (OAK) 297.1 -- overworked
9. Palmer (BAL) 296.1 -- pitched forever, HOF
10. Coleman (DET) 288.1 -- probably overworked, maybe arm
1998:
1. Erickson (BAL) 251.1 -- TJ surgery three years later, shoulder surgery a couple years after that
2. Rogers (OAK) 238.2 -- pitched forever
3. Clemens (TOR) 234.2 -- pitched forever, HOF
4. Moyer (SEA) 234.1 -- pitched beyond forever
5. Belcher (KCR) 234.0 -- already had arm surgery out of the way
6. Martinez (BOS) 233.2 -- fragile, regularly missed starts shortly after
7. Fassero (SEA) 224.2 -- Jim Colbornesque
8. Finley (ANA) 223.1 -- pitched forever
9. Thompson (DET) 222.0 -- arm practically fell off his body within 2 years
10. Moehler (DET) 221.1 -- TJ surgery a few years later.
IP shrank by 60-100 in those 25 years, with no discernible impact on the future of the pitchers. Pitching is an unnatural motion; some guys are lucky some aren't. I see no proof that a pitcher durable enough to go 250 innings isn't durable enough to go 300+. Somebody like Justin Thompson's arm probably would have fallen off if he'd worked 160 innings in 1998. I'm happy submitting Nolan Ryan, Bert Blyleven, Gaylord Perry, and Jim Palmer as my evidence. For good measure, I'll cite the following members of the IP leaders Class of 73, NL Division -- Steve Carlton (1, 293 IP), Tom Seaver (3, 290), Jerry Reuss (4, 279), Fergie Jenkins (5, 271), Jerry Koosman (7, 263), Don Sutton (9, 256), all terrific pitchers who pitched forever. Rick Wise, also in the top ten, had a perfectly normal career after 1973. Others can research and report whether Jack Billingham, Ron Bryant, or Carl Morton had arm issues.
Never all that great? From 1968-1970 he pitched 400 relief innings at an ERA+ of 144 and 7.5 WAR. How many relievers compile 2.5 WAR/ year today?
Then he became a starter and immediately led the league in ERA+ (189) in 334 innings, compiling 10.7 WAR, a level Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, nor Randy Johnson never reached. His 9.7 WAR the following year was exceeded by the afore mention quartet a total of twice. In 1972 he started nearly 1/3 of his team's games (49/154)
From 1967-1974 he pitched nearly 1900 innings with an ERA+ of 130, twice leading the league in Wins, twice in IP, 3 times in starts, and once in ERA+. He wasn't great for long, but he was great for a while.
Ummm, no.
Palmer ages 30-32 pitched 315, 319, 292 innings
Palmer ages 33-38 pitched 155, 224, 127, 227, 76, 17
So your idea of great longevity is two years above 20 IP after age 32.
And let's talk about the increased value to be had by pitching Pedro 300+ innings/year
You're not even ####### serious.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main