Is 20 the new 30?

[suave1477]

I was listenting to the Radio a couple of nights ago ESPN or somethng. And they were going nuts over R A Dickey getting his 20th win. Which is the first time I met has done that in many many years since Frank Viola.

Yes I agree it is an accomplishment but I remember many years ago when hitting 30 wins was the big deal as most pitchers averaged around 20 wins or came close to it. Now a days it seems like 30 is almost an unobtainable number and 20 is the Elite number.

Dont get me wrong I am not saying hitting 20 isn't a really good season, but what happened to hitting the 30 mark?

Is it that much in the modern day of baseball with so many pitchers, relievers and closers in rotation that its harder for a pitcher to stay in the game long enough to pick up 30 wins?

[tigerdale]

I think one of the biggest reasons is the 5 man rotation compared to the 4 man rotation years ago..starting pitchers get fewer starts. Now your main workhorse throws 200-240 innings...back in the day they would throw over 300.....

[Jags Fan Dan]

Seeing as how it has been since 1968 that anyone got 30 wins, it is obviously just a symptom of fewer starts. Because there have been some GREAT pitchers since then.

[flaco1801]

You will never see a 30 game winner ever again....The reason you see very few 20 game winners is because pitchers go 6 or 7 innings...Catfish Hunter thru 30 complete games in one season and didnt win 30....Feel sorry for those of you that missed the golden age of baseball...Its almost a different game nowadays..

[joelsabi]

I think one of the biggest reasons is the 5 man rotation compared to the 4 man rotation years ago..starting pitchers get fewer starts. Now your main workhorse throws 200-240 innings...back in the day they would throw over 300.....

+1

pitchers are treated as an investment rather than a workhorses, protecting them from injury. longer rests between pitching starts and expectation to pitch 6 good innings, allow less control of wins by the starting pitcher.

Is it also because young baseball players do not have stronger arms as they used to because the young players nowadays do no throw as often?

Also was lowering the mound from 15 to 10 more taxing on the arm of today's pitchers?

[ironmanfan]

The Orioles for years would always seem to have a 20 game winner on their staff (heck in 1971, they had FOUR). Anyways, they haven't had a 20 game winner for 29 years (Mike Boddicker).

[tigerdale]

If I compared two tigers pitchers from different times....Mickey Lolich from 1971-1974 & Justin Verlander the past 4 years, who by the way has led the league in innings pitched 3 of the apst 4 years, here is what you get...Lolich averaged 42.25 starts & 329.8 innings pitched over that 4 years while Verlander has averaged 33.75 starts & 238.3 innings pitched!!

[coxfan]

When I started as a fan in 1957, complete games were far more common, even through extra-inning games. For a while in the years before 1957, a minimum number of complete games was required for a pitcher to win the ERA title! These days nobody would qualify under that rule!

The five-man rotation, and concepts of relief specialists and "quality starts" instead of complete games have evolved since the 1960's. So starters have fewer decisions from their starts and fewer starts.

[joelsabi]

If I compared two tigers pitchers from different times....Mickey Lolich from 1971-1974 & Justin Verlander the past 4 years, who by the way has led the league in innings pitched 3 of the apst 4 years, here is what you get...Lolich averaged 42.25 starts & 329.8 innings pitched over that 4 years while Verlander has averaged 33.75 starts & 238.3 innings pitched!!

thanks tigerdale

Lolich average lasting 7 2/3 innings and Verlander 7 inning

time between starts over course of season
Lolich 3.83 games and Verlander 4.8 games

[joelsabi]

When I started as a fan in 1957, complete games were far more common, even through extra-inning games. For a while in the years before 1957, a minimum number of complete games was required for a pitcher to win the ERA title! These days nobody would qualify under that rule!

The five-man rotation, and concepts of relief specialists and "quality starts" instead of complete games have evolved since the 1960's. So starters have fewer decisions from their starts and fewer starts.

back then was there even the idea of a pitch count?

[rufusandherschel]

I think one of the biggest reasons is the 5 man rotation compared to the 4 man rotation years ago..starting pitchers get fewer starts. Now your main workhorse throws 200-240 innings...back in the day they would throw over 300.....

Goods points/observations. What I find 'ironic' is that today's pitchers, although they have fewer starts, throw fewer innings per game, and throw fewer pitches per game (matter of pitch count), 'seem' to develop greater frequency of arm problems (although I do not the exact stats).

[Jags Fan Dan]

If I compared two tigers pitchers from different times....Mickey Lolich from 1971-1974 & Justin Verlander the past 4 years, who by the way has led the league in innings pitched 3 of the apst 4 years, here is what you get...Lolich averaged 42.25 starts & 329.8 innings pitched over that 4 years while Verlander has averaged 33.75 starts & 238.3 innings pitched!!
About 2/3 the amount of innings, about 2/3 the amount of wins.

[coxfan]

I don't recall pitch counts from the early 60's era. But I also don't recall references to circle changes, two-seamers, split-finger fast balls, etc. Maybe the emergence of legal new pitches, together with stricter enforcement against the illegal trick pitches of the past (spitballs, etc.) is putting more strain on modern pitchers' arms?

And maybe the shrinking strike zone and lowered mound are attampts to keep the batters from falling behind these new pitches? All just speculation, of course.