When Pitchers Were Pitchers

[Pell Mell]

"You got guys that go five or six innings and everyone thinks it's great," said Parnell, who pitched 113 complete games and had 20 shutouts, including a no-hitter in 1956. "In 1949, I started 35 games and completed 27 of them. In the minors I pitched an 18-inning game and was thrown out at the plate in the 17th inning."

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/mycentraljersey/obituary.aspx?n=mel-parnell&pid=156614150

[cj's dad]

If you want to see some great #s regarding games started vs. games completed check out Jim Palmer's stats at this site:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/

[Marshall Bennett]

Ferguson Jenkins.

[cj's dad]

A few quick stats:

Jenkins:
'71 - 39 starts-30 CG's
'74 - 41 starts-29 CG's

Marichal:
'68 - 38 starts-30 CG's

Palmer:
'75 - 38 starts-25 CG's with 10 shutouts
'76 - 40 starts-23 CG's
'77 - 39 starts-22 CG's

Without looking this up, I would be surprised if the entire league, AL or NL, had these many CG's total, Palmer's being the lowest at 22 in 1977.

[lamboguy]

Jim Palmer was my favorite pitcher. whenever he came to Fenway i always went and cheered for him.

Mel Parnell was just slightly before my time, but i always heard the Red Sox broadcasters refer to him as a legend because he was a lefty and won all those games in a right hand hitters paradise.



RIP

[maddog42]

Ferguson Jenkins.

Ferguson Jenkins was inducted into the Oklahoma Sports Hall of Fame a couple of days ago. This was long overdue.

[Pell Mell]

Actually, I didn't start this thread because I wanted to compare the best of pitchers...it was only because he died yesterday and I wanted to mention his passing...

PS..I saw him pitch at Yankee stadium when I was a kid.

[PhantomOnTour]

Joe McGinnity pitched both ends of a double-header

[Canarsie]

This is just an opinion that is probably off the wall but here goes. Back in the day when pitches finished their games most had jobs waiting for them when the season was over. There was no weight lifting, off season training and so on. They showed up at spring training and said lets go. Also there weren't any dominant relievers through most of that period they would rather finish and take your chances winning the game.

You would the complete opposite now with the medical (not steroids!!!) and training advances to enhance ones physical condition. Its just the opposite for the life of me can't figure out why.

[Dave Schwartz]

The biggest difference is that the strategy of baseball changed. The trend really began with guys like Dick Radatz, Rollie Fingers and Goose Gossage.

The concept of "the closer" allowed the starter to change his expectation from "gotta go the distance so I better pace myself" to "I've only got to get 7 or 8 good innings."

This was quickly followed by the rise of the "middle man," and the bar was lowered again to "I've just got to get enough innings for the win."

As Canarsie said, the players are more fit yet pitching less innings.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Marshall Bennett]

Jenkins completed many of his games under the sun at Wrigley as well. While the afternoons may not be that bad in April and May in Chicago, they can be in July and August.

[Marshall Bennett]

Joe McGinnity pitched both ends of a double-header
Wilbur Wood pitched 5 innings of an extra inning game that had been suspended 2 days earlier and gained a victory. He then started another game the same day and pitched a 4 hit complete game for another victory.

[wisconsin]

Now you get the coveted "quality start" BS. The pitchers are clearly wussified, just listened the other day to Mike Marshall. If you can ever hear him speak on this, it's well worth it.

[Valuist]

Ferguson Jenkins was inducted into the Oklahoma Sports Hall of Fame a couple of days ago. This was long overdue.

Oklahoma? I could swear Jenkins was from Canada.

[Valuist]

The biggest difference is that the strategy of baseball changed. The trend really began with guys like Dick Radatz, Rollie Fingers and Goose Gossage.

The concept of "the closer" allowed the starter to change his expectation from "gotta go the distance so I better pace myself" to "I've only got to get 7 or 8 good innings."

This was quickly followed by the rise of the "middle man," and the bar was lowered again to "I've just got to get enough innings for the win."

As Canarsie said, the players are more fit yet pitching less innings.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

The closer concept is ridiculous. Before 1990 (give or take a year or two) you'd see the star reliever, or "fireman" as they were called, actually putting out fires. They'd come into the game in the 7th or 8th inning, if the game dictated it, and in the middle of an inning to work out of a jam. The Gossages, Fingers and Sutters of the world would often pitch two, and sometimes even 3 innings. Now the "closer" comes into the game w/a clean slate to start the 9th inning. Don't get me wrong: Rivera is a great reliever. But the circumstances that he pitches under are far, far easier than what Gossage, Fingers, Sutter, et all had to do.

[OTM Al]

The closer concept is ridiculous. Before 1990 (give or take a year or two) you'd see the star reliever, or "fireman" as they were called, actually putting out fires. They'd come into the game in the 7th or 8th inning, if the game dictated it, and in the middle of an inning to work out of a jam. The Gossages, Fingers and Sutters of the world would often pitch two, and sometimes even 3 innings. Now the "closer" comes into the game w/a clean slate to start the 9th inning. Don't get me wrong: Rivera is a great reliever. But the circumstances that he pitches under are far, far easier than what Gossage, Fingers, Sutter, et all had to do.

Not really, it's just a different way of doing things and possibly more efficient. Once upon a time cars were built by the same guy or group from the ground up. Then specialization was introduced with the assembly line that made the process more efficient.

Dave has legitimate points about it. I think it may have been Casey Stengel that first, or at least one of the first, saw the benefits of relievers used strategically rather than only by necessity. He was one of the smartest baseball guys of all time despite the goofiness attributed to him. A lot of guys that became managers learned from him.

Now in a day and age when even the shortstop is a threat to hit the ball out in a tight game, it puts a fresh arm into the game before the starter truly tires. It allows for advantageous matchups. Yes, I do believe that it would be even better if you didn't have a closer but rather a stopper who could come in at any point later in the game at a key point to have the best chance of winning, but people aren't machines and pschologically maybe it does work best if the player knows he's a 7th inning guy or an 8th inning guy.

Baseball has constantly evolved despite what "traditionalists" want to think. That's why I enjoy it so much I think.

[Valuist]

Not really, it's just a different way of doing things and possibly more efficient. Once upon a time cars were built by the same guy or group from the ground up. Then specialization was introduced with the assembly line that made the process more efficient.

Dave has legitimate points about it. I think it may have been Casey Stengel that first, or at least one of the first, saw the benefits of relievers used strategically rather than only by necessity. He was one of the smartest baseball guys of all time despite the goofiness attributed to him. A lot of guys that became managers learned from him.

Now in a day and age when even the shortstop is a threat to hit the ball out in a tight game, it puts a fresh arm into the game before the starter truly tires. It allows for advantageous matchups. Yes, I do believe that it would be even better if you didn't have a closer but rather a stopper who could come in at any point later in the game at a key point to have the best chance of winning, but people aren't machines and pschologically maybe it does work best if the player knows he's a 7th inning guy or an 8th inning guy.

Baseball has constantly evolved despite what "traditionalists" want to think. That's why I enjoy it so much I think.

If you were a manager, you're ahead 3-2 with 1 out in the 7th and runners on 2nd and 3rd and the #3 hitter is at the plate, would you rather bring in your best reliever at this point? Or some guy who may be the 3rd or 4th best reliever in your pen? I know my answer; that's the game situation right there. But most managers are too fearful to do that now. Take a chance and get second guessed. Follow the dotted line and the media can't get all over you.

FWIW, I wasn't trying to infer Dave Schwartz' comment was ridiculous. I meant the concept the pitcher A can only come in the 7th, pitcher B can only come in the 8th, and the so-called closer can only come in the 9th was ridiculous. So its a 4-2 game I enter to pitch the 9th. I come in at the start of the inning. I give up a leadoff double, as well as two walks but no runs score. I get my save. The fact there was no inherent trouble when I enter is irrelevant to baseball statisticians.

[OTM Al]

If you were a manager, you're ahead 3-2 with 1 out in the 7th and runners on 2nd and 3rd and the #3 hitter is at the plate, would you rather bring in your best reliever at this point? Or some guy who may be the 3rd or 4th best reliever in your pen? I know my answer; that's the game situation right there. But most managers are too fearful to do that now. Take a chance and get second guessed. Follow the dotted line and the media can't get all over you.

FWIW, I wasn't trying to infer Dave Schwartz' comment was ridiculous. I meant the concept the pitcher A can only come in the 7th, pitcher B can only come in the 8th, and the so-called closer can only come in the 9th was ridiculous. So its a 4-2 game I enter to pitch the 9th. I come in at the start of the inning. I give up a leadoff double, as well as two walks but no runs score. I get my save. The fact there was no inherent trouble when I enter is irrelevant to baseball statisticians.

I agree with your logic on this one, but as I said the issue may be a psychological one. Athletes perform their best, for the most part, when they have a set routine, so while if you could get a group of guys that could do it, what you propose is certainly correct, the problem is getting a group of guys that actually can do that. On average, you might do better having certain guys for certain innings just because of the mental makeup of the players. It's just as possible in the situation you describe that putting the "lesser" pitcher later could lose the game then too even though the better one got you out of the first situation because he's pitching at a time in the game he isn't mentally best at. Hard to say from a viewer's side. Just hope you have a manager that knows his people and when to use them properly because that is one situation in which the manager can matter directly.

[Valuist]

I agree with your logic on this one, but as I said the issue may be a psychological one. Athletes perform their best, for the most part, when they have a set routine, so while if you could get a group of guys that could do it, what you propose is certainly correct, the problem is getting a group of guys that actually can do that. On average, you might do better having certain guys for certain innings just because of the mental makeup of the players. It's just as possible in the situation you describe that putting the "lesser" pitcher later could lose the game then too even though the better one got you out of the first situation because he's pitching at a time in the game he isn't mentally best at. Hard to say from a viewer's side. Just hope you have a manager that knows his people and when to use them properly because that is one situation in which the manager can matter directly.

Ok I understand what you are saying, but is it really in the best interest of the team and player to back themselves into a corner where they can only pitch the 7th, or the 9th etc? I know I've seen guys who, for whatever reason, couldn't close. They had/have the stuff to do it but they got it in their mind they had to be a setup guy. If we eliminated that thinking, it would force them all to be more versatile. I think there's times the setup guy/setup guy/closer makes sense. Just not all the time.

[OTM Al]

Ok I understand what you are saying, but is it really in the best interest of the team and player to back themselves into a corner where they can only pitch the 7th, or the 9th etc? I know I've seen guys who, for whatever reason, couldn't close. They had/have the stuff to do it but they got it in their mind they had to be a setup guy. If we eliminated that thinking, it would force them all to be more versatile. I think there's times the setup guy/setup guy/closer makes sense. Just not all the time.

That's the trick though and why I'm talking about the mental eleiment. If you could eliminate it, then it should work. If you can't, then the 7-8-9 setup will probably serve you best.

Also too remember guys take a little time to warm up and that will vary by the individual. Some guys could be ready to come in right away, but others will take some time. The 7-8-9 thing does let a guy know when he needs to get prepared without waiting for a call, And there is nothing worse for some of these guys than getting them warmed up, sitting them down, and then trying to warm them up again, which is what you'd need to be able to do in the situational placement you propose.

[NJ Stinks]

Oklahoma? I could swear Jenkins was from Canada.

Me too. :confused:

[Overlay]

Joe McGinnity pitched both ends of a double-header
In fact, he pitched both games of three doubleheaders within a month's time, and won all six games.

[Cardus]

Jim Palmer was my favorite pitcher. whenever he came to Fenway i always went and cheered for him.

Mel Parnell was just slightly before my time, but i always heard the Red Sox broadcasters refer to him as a legend because he was a lefty and won all those games in a right hand hitters paradise.



RIP

I guess that you got your head handed to you a bunch of times.

[PhantomOnTour]

In fact, he pitched both games of three doubleheaders within a month's time, and won all six games.
Not once
not twice
but thrice?

Wow...ironman

[Overlay]

In reading more about Joe McGinnity, I just now learned (to my surprise) that his final resting place is in McAlester, Oklahoma, where I lived from 2006 until last year. I don't believe I recall hearing any mention of his name while I was residing there.

[maddog42]

Oklahoma? I could swear Jenkins was from Canada.

You are quite right, but after he took up residence here, I guess we adopted him.

http://www.jimthorpeassoc.org/2012/03/20/oklahoma-sports-hall-of-fame-names-2012-inductees-2/