Sunday's Orioles game got me to thinking about how (sometimes) quick managers are to yank a pitcher after so many pitches (91 in Guthrie's case Sunday).
I was doing a bit of homework and noticed a few interesting stats from the past. One of the first years I followed baseball was 1970-71. The Orioles had four 20-game winners and threw 71 complete games. The Cubbies that same year threw 75. San Diego - who lost 100 games - even tossed 47 CG.
Mickey Lolich (Det) that year threw 29 CG. Mike Cueller and Jim Palmer (who had identical 20-9) records threw 21 and 20, respectively.
You dont see those kinds of numbers anymore. Why?
How long would it take good teams nowadays to amass 70-something CGs?? Maybe 6-7 years??? Even the Braves of the 90s never had a season with more than 26 CGs (I think - 1992) and that staff was phenominal. I am sure it ranked right up there with Palmer, Cuellar, McNally and Dobson.
Arent athletes in general supposed to get stronger as the decades progress? Shouldnt pitchers today be stronger than pitchers of the 70s?
Those of you old enough to remember Earl Weaver remember how volatile of a personality he had. Could you see him sitting in the dugout - working on his 3rd pack of the game - with Palmer on the mound, looking over at his pitching coach, and saying "You know Bamby (at least I think Bamberger was their pitching coach).....Jim's up to 80 pitches and it's only the 6th inning. MIght wanna get someone warming". I doubt it.
I'd bet Palmer pitched into the 120s manymany times in his career.
I could see the conversation now.
Bamby: How about we get the set-up man warming?
Weaver: WTF is a set up man? You have starters, middle relievers and closers!! If it's past the 6 inning, get the closer ready for christ sake!!
When did this stat become so important that managers are willing to throw games away over it? Maybe I'll answer my own question here, but maybe it became important when clubs starting paying pitchers 500k per start?? Maybe it's money, I really dont know. But I sure would like to see more pitchers get a chance to finish a game.
I was doing a bit of homework and noticed a few interesting stats from the past. One of the first years I followed baseball was 1970-71. The Orioles had four 20-game winners and threw 71 complete games. The Cubbies that same year threw 75. San Diego - who lost 100 games - even tossed 47 CG.
Mickey Lolich (Det) that year threw 29 CG. Mike Cueller and Jim Palmer (who had identical 20-9) records threw 21 and 20, respectively.
You dont see those kinds of numbers anymore. Why?
How long would it take good teams nowadays to amass 70-something CGs?? Maybe 6-7 years??? Even the Braves of the 90s never had a season with more than 26 CGs (I think - 1992) and that staff was phenominal. I am sure it ranked right up there with Palmer, Cuellar, McNally and Dobson.
Arent athletes in general supposed to get stronger as the decades progress? Shouldnt pitchers today be stronger than pitchers of the 70s?
Those of you old enough to remember Earl Weaver remember how volatile of a personality he had. Could you see him sitting in the dugout - working on his 3rd pack of the game - with Palmer on the mound, looking over at his pitching coach, and saying "You know Bamby (at least I think Bamberger was their pitching coach).....Jim's up to 80 pitches and it's only the 6th inning. MIght wanna get someone warming". I doubt it.
I'd bet Palmer pitched into the 120s manymany times in his career.
I could see the conversation now.
Bamby: How about we get the set-up man warming?
Weaver: WTF is a set up man? You have starters, middle relievers and closers!! If it's past the 6 inning, get the closer ready for christ sake!!
When did this stat become so important that managers are willing to throw games away over it? Maybe I'll answer my own question here, but maybe it became important when clubs starting paying pitchers 500k per start?? Maybe it's money, I really dont know. But I sure would like to see more pitchers get a chance to finish a game.
