Baseball has changed a lot over the years. There were more complete games thrown (way more) and tons of quality pitchers who could notch 20 wins or more, no problem. Looking at the stats here. In eleven years, between 1968 and 1979, pitchers had 20 win seasons 119 times. In the next 38 years, between 1980 and 2018 there were 123. What happened?! Any thoughts?
Sabermetrics happened. Smart people realized that using more relievers is a superior strategy for two reasons. 1) It allows pitchers to throw much harder as they are throwing fewer innings. 2) Batters tend to "figure out" a pitcher after a couple at-bats. Changing pitchers frequently mixes things up.
Unfortunately, sabermetrics has also made things really boring. Strikeouts, walks, fly outs, and home runs are all way up. Stolen bases, ground balls, and bunts are way down. It's better strategy but boring to watch. I still follow baseball, but I almost never watch a game anymore.
Sabermetrics are the impetus, true. But there is also the aspect of preserving your investment in starting pitchers, whether it be multi-year, 9-figure contracts or young, under-team-control prospects who will command massive trade packages. The powers that be have determined that long-term investment and high-level longevity is better served with 175-200 innings per year than 300+. I mean, you don't see guys with no hitters being pulled in the 8th inning due to pitch count because of effectiveness, that's purely health preservation/long term investment motivated.
Also, making the ball softer (and thereby reducing home runs and motivation to swing for the fences) is not going to get more people interested in baseball. Sure, die hards like to see small ball more than three true outcome (BB, K, HR) ball, but more casual or fringe fans (and chicks) dig the long ball. Don't get me wrong, I grew up on 80s STL Cards, so I'd be quite alright with that product.
Not only are there many fewer complete games, teams have gone to five and six pitcher starting rotations, which limit total starts. You are unlikely to see any 24-20 and 23-15 pitcher records in the near future.
Yeah, I noticed that in 29 seasons since Bob Welch's 27-win season in 1990, only four pitchers have eclipsed 22 wins, and those were four historically great seasons: Smoltz, Martinez, Verlander, and Randy Johnson in each of their best seasons. You're talking about the best years of four of the greatest pitchers of all-time. Jacob deGrom won the Cy Young (well-deserved) last year with ten wins, and might win it again (also well-deserved) this year with 11 wins. The nature of the game has changed so much. Tom Glavin will be the last 350-game winner of all-time, and might even be the last 300-game winner. Verlander is 36 and needs 75 more wins to hit 300 (so at least four more stellar seasons). He's the best pitcher of a generation, and he'll barely scrape 300 even if he gets there. We need to rethink how we evaluate stats.
True. And it isn't just wins due to reduced innings of SP that are changing and should change; it's how real value is measured and projected. Historically, batting average (poor predictor of value in relation to OPS which measures on base and slugging), RBI, Wins, and ERA (largely situational/luck based), have been grossly overvalued. Stats like ISO, OPS+, WAR, DRS, wRC, FIP, xwOBA have all rightfully claimed their places as better indices of value and stats like SwStr%, Exit Velocity, Launch Angle, BABIP, though showing nothing about actual past value, have rightfully claimed their place as better indices of future value/projection that traditional stats. In my opinion, someone should do a deep dive into pre-Sabermetric baseball and offer an opinion on the most overrated and underappreciated players of prior eras to the extent it could be done with more than highly unreliable conjecture.
Ditto on the Stottlemyre spelling. I must have tried ten different variations! It might be nice if the quiz maker could add in ten or fifteen more ways that that surname could be spelt!
And to think that I once talked on the phone for an hour with an insurance-company staffer named Stottlemyre, a relative of the pitcher!
Also, making the ball softer (and thereby reducing home runs and motivation to swing for the fences) is not going to get more people interested in baseball. Sure, die hards like to see small ball more than three true outcome (BB, K, HR) ball, but more casual or fringe fans (and chicks) dig the long ball. Don't get me wrong, I grew up on 80s STL Cards, so I'd be quite alright with that product.
And to think that I once talked on the phone for an hour with an insurance-company staffer named Stottlemyre, a relative of the pitcher!