OT: Perhaps the Greatest Single Game Feat in the History of Baseball

[connie]

Again, much of what you say I agree with. Increasing the player pool in 1920 to black and Latino players you would have had commensurate numbers.

Yet, bigger, stronger, faster doesn't necessarily mean higher averages, and I disagree that today's players are smarter. Steroids make you bigger, stronger and faster, yet a no expert will tell you it increases averages. A great batting eye is a great batting eye. Great hand/eye coordination transcends eras. Bigger and stronger will make the ball go further, no doubt. Shorter fences increases the number of homers, no doubt, and averages are hurt by better fielders and gloves. But in the dead ball days you had to choke up and get the single, play the hit and run, steal bases, play a more cerebral game, because the ball didn't jump off the bat as today. With the larger parks of Sisler's era, yeah, you had no choice but to play the short game and spray the ball around the park. Players today don't even try to hit for average. Even the guy batting ninth swings from his heels. Are you saying that if a good young hitter took the attitude of a Sisler: Choke up, use the lines, use the gaps, step in front of pitches, chop the ball, bunt more, instead of overswinging, that he wouldn't approach the same numbers? For a guy like Sisler, it wouldn't matter how many different pitchers or pitching angles he'd see in one game. He's not going to try to beat you with the long ball, he's just going to make contact. Yes, I think with Sisler's approach and today's training techniques, if given a chance to play, he'd have a healthy average approaching his lifetime average.

Yes, today's pitchers have good velocity. I would argue about the variety of pitches. The use of grease and other additives I think was more prevalent back in those days, although the use of the slider has definitely increase during this era of ball. And yes, today's analytics and tracking has revolutionize sports. However, the strike zone shrinking has as much to do with today's HR's and good hitting as much as analytics and lowering the mound.

And I say that without a single exception in every single sport in which human achievement can be measured against some absolute (such as a stop watch or distance), whether it is the shot put, 400m, marathon, 100M backstroke, high jump, long jum, weightlifting, you name it, over time all athletes (men and women) are better today than they were 50 years ago. They skate faster, jump higher, run quicker, lift more, throw farther. Why wouldn't the same be true of hitting, pitching, fielding in major league baseball? In that event, you've got better pitchers and better fielders, with greater access to information, and with more developed techniques creating greater challenges when competing against better hitters. Under these circumstances, I am confident that while Sisler may be competitive in today's game, perhaps even an All-Star, it is highly doubtful that he would ever hit anywhere near .400, or that he would have anywhere near a .340 lifetime BA. Seriously, Williams, Musial and Gwynn are the only MLB players playing since the 1930s in the top 30 for career BA. And only Williams had a lifetime BA higher than Sisler's .340. Since Williams and Musial retired, there are only 3 other hitters (Gwynn, Boggs Carew) in nearly 60 years who have cracked the top 50 for players with the highest lifetime BA.

That isn't because the players of yesteryear had better hand-eye coordination, were smarter, played harder, and didn't swing from the heels. It is because their considerable talents shone more brightly when competing against lesser stars within a smaller constellation.

Fun discussion.

 

[JordyG]

And I say that without a single exception in every single sport in which human achievement can be measured against some absolute (such as a stop watch or distance), whether it is the shot put, 400m, marathon, 100M backstroke, high jump, long jum, weightlifting, you name it, over time all athletes (men and women) are better today than they were 50 years ago. They skate faster, jump higher, run quicker, lift more, throw farther. Why wouldn't the same be true of hitting, pitching, fielding in major league baseball? In that event, you've got better pitchers and better fielders, with greater access to information, and with more developed techniques creating greater challenges when competing against better hitters. Under these circumstances, I am confident that while Sisler may be competitive in today's game, perhaps even an All-Star, it is highly doubtful that he would ever hit anywhere near .400, or that he would have anywhere near a .340 lifetime BA. Seriously, Williams, Musial and Gwynn are the only MLB players playing since the 1930s in the top 30 for career BA. And only Williams had a lifetime BA higher than Sisler's .340. Since Williams and Musial retired, there are only 3 other hitters (Gwynn, Boggs Carew) in nearly 60 years who have cracked the top 50 for players with the highest lifetime BA.

That isn't because the players of yesteryear had better hand-eye coordination, were smarter, played harder, and didn't swing from the heels. It is because their considerable talents shone more brightly when competing against lesser stars within a smaller constellation.

Fun discussion.

And Gywnn, Boggs, and Carew were not free swingers. During their careers many observed how "old school" their hitting techniques were.

Yes, and I acknowledge many of these improvements, especially where strength is involved (and a lot of those strength guys are and were on steroids). But where speed is involved, swimming, track, marathons, skating etc. much of the improvement can be put down to better training and equipment. In track alone the change from cinders to synthetic tracks improved times immeasurably. In marathons, well, that inclusion factor made the improvement leap more than quantum. In swimming the use of speedo's, training, heck what's even in the water made for vast improvements. Let us not forget that the use of steroids and PED's in T and F, swimming and many of these other sports contributed to many of these records; and still does. This doesn't mean that those athletes from yesteryear wouldn't benefit from these changes and excel.

I never said players from years ago had better eye/hand coordination. I said this factor doesn't change. Great coordination, be it eye/hand or body control, is the same across the ages. In these things Homo Sapien(sapiens) haven't changed at all.

Okay, I'm just going to shine your apple just a bit. Only you and some others (Scoop, UcMiami, MilfordHusky, CocoHusky, Kaizen, RSHERMVIKES, RockyMTblue, nwhoopfan, msf22b, bags27 and a few) have I been able to have fun in a discussion and in the Inbox, and learn some stuff without talking at each other. Like I said, 'preciate it like hell.

 

[mrmojack]

I can remember listening to that game on KDKA in Pittsburgh on my short wave radio.

 

[connie]

And Gywnn, Boggs, and Carew were not free swingers. During their careers many observed how "old school" their hitting techniques were.

Yes, and I acknowledge many of these improvements, especially where strength is involved (and a lot of those strength guys are and were on steroids). But where speed is involved, swimming, track, marathons, skating etc. much of the improvement can be put down to better training and equipment. In track alone the change from cinders to synthetic tracks improved times immeasurably. In marathons, well, that inclusion factor made the improvement leap more than quantum. In swimming the use of speedo's, training, heck what's even in the water made for vast improvements. Let us not forget that the use of steroids and PED's in T and F, swimming and many of these other sports contributed to many of these records; and still does. This doesn't mean that those athletes from yesteryear wouldn't benefit from these changes and excel.

I never said players from years ago had better eye/hand coordination. I said this factor doesn't change. Great coordination, be it eye/hand or body control, is the same across the ages. In these things Homo Sapien(sapiens) haven't changed at all.

Okay, I'm just going to shine your apple just a bit. Only you and some others (Scoop, UcMiami, MilfordHusky, CocoHusky, Kaizen, RSHERMVIKES, RockyMTblue, nwhoopfan, msf22b, bags27 and a few) have I been able to have fun in a discussion and in the Inbox, and learn some stuff without talking at each other. Like I said, 'preciate it like hell.

The athletes of yesteryear would certainly perform better, as a result of many of things you mentioned, had they played today. But in playing with and against today's contemporaries, their stats would suffer. Hornsby would be a better player. But he would not hit .424. Cobb would be a better player, but he would not hit .400 three times. Ruth would (probably) not hit 60 HRs. Pete Alexander would not pitch 16 shutouts in a season. But that is because all the other athletes one is playing against are generally better than those playing 80 years ago. One reason that competition is better now is because all the other players benefit from the things you mention. The other reason is because the pool of available talent is much larger. This is what I mean by referring to a decrease in the difference between best and worst, with an overall improvement in play. You see this in virtually every sport. It is an inevitable consequence of increasing competition, expanding pools of talent, and reaching the very limits of what flesh and bone can endure.

And this is why there is nothing particularly magical about hitting .400. Just depends on how good you are and (critically) who else is playing. The decline in the appearance of the .400 hitter is evidence that batters today are actually better than they used to be.

Enjoyed the weekend. Thanks, Jordy.

 

[j66kicker]

The athletes of yesteryear would certainly perform better, as a result of many of things you mentioned, had they played today. But in playing with and against today's contemporaries, their stats would suffer. Hornsby would be a better player. But he would not hit .424. Cobb would be a better player, but he would not hit .400 three times. Ruth would (probably) not hit 60 HRs. Pete Alexander would not pitch 16 shutouts in a season. But that is because all the other athletes one is playing against are generally better than those playing 80 years ago. One reason that competition is better now is because all the other players benefit from the things you mention. The other reason is because the pool of available talent is much larger. This is what I mean by referring to a decrease in the difference between best and worst, with an overall improvement in play. You see this in virtually every sport. It is an inevitable consequence of increasing competition, expanding pools of talent, and reaching the very limits of what flesh and bone can endure.

And this is why there is nothing particularly magical about hitting .400. Just depends on how good you are and (critically) who else is playing. The decline in the appearance of the .400 hitter is evidence that batters today are actually better than they used to be.

Enjoyed the weekend. Thanks, Jordy.

With today’s live ball and short fences Ruth might hit 80 HRs. With PEDs maybe 95

 

[78AlwaysHappy]

How about Rick Wise June 23 1971? Pitched a no-hitter against Cincinnati’s Big Red Machine, and also hit two home runs, driving in three of the Phillies four runs in a 4-0 win. Cloninger gave up seven hits and three runs in his nine innings. I’d say that perfmance tops Cloninger, in that he (Cloninger) was lucky - not skilled - that the bases were loaded when he hit his two out of the park. Philadelphia Phillies at Cincinnati Reds Box Score, June 23, 1971 | Baseball-Reference.com

 

[stwainfan]

Steve Carlton won 27 games in 1972. The Phillies only won 59 games that year. One of the best season a pitcher ever had.

 

[stamfordhusky]

With today’s live ball and short fences Ruth might hit 80 HRs. With PEDs maybe 95

There is no way to compare the 1927 ball to the 2018 ball - but Ruth got to take advantage of a number of short fences. His home park, for example, was 295 feet down the right field line and about 350 feet to right center. It was, of course, very long to center and left center - but most of Ruth's home runs were to right field. His previous Yankee home, the Polo Grounds, was 258 feet down the right field line - but went out sharply to right center and an impossibly long center field. Fenway Park, his Boston home, had a very short RF line but was fairly long in right center.

Of the away parks where he hit his most home runs, a number had short dimensions - shorter than those of today's parks. For example:

Shibe Park (PHI) - 329 right field line, 355 right center.
Sportsman's Park (STL) - 310 right field line, 335 right center.
League Park (CLE) - 290 right field, 314 right center.


But a bigger issue is that the pitchers of Ruth's day didn't throw nearly as hard and didn't throw sliders until a few at the end of his career. Further, there was little use of relief pitchers so he often got to face tiring starters late in the game.

 

[JordyG]

There is no way to compare the 1927 ball to the 2018 ball - but Ruth got to take advantage of a number of short fences. His home park, for example, was 295 feet down the right field line and about 350 feet to right center. It was, of course, very long to center and left center - but most of Ruth's home runs were to right field. His previous Yankee home, the Polo Grounds, was 258 feet down the right field line - but went out sharply to right center and an impossibly long center field. Fenway Park, his Boston home, had a very short RF line but was fairly long in right center.

Of the away parks where he hit his most home runs, a number had short dimensions - shorter than those of today's parks. For example:

Shibe Park (PHI) - 329 right field line, 355 right center.
Sportsman's Park (STL) - 310 right field line, 335 right center.
League Park (CLE) - 290 right field, 314 right center.


But a bigger issue is that the pitchers of Ruth's day didn't throw nearly as hard and didn't throw sliders until a few at the end of his career. Further, there was little use of relief pitchers so he often got to face tiring starters late in the game.

But there was much more use of "illegal" pitches in Ruth's day, and pitchers threw a lot more "junk" pitches. Although hitters see more pitchers per game now, hitters then were contact hitters. Pitchers threw less pitches than today where hitters 1-9 swing for the fences, and strike out more. Strikeouts mean more pitches. But yes, even the 1927 ball was a dead ball, not to mention the corked bats and PED users of today, as compared to today's ball. Also umpires were tyrants in those days, and they enforced a very wide strike zone. Let's also consider how this conversation started. Haddix threw 115 pitches in 13 innings. That's preposterous with the number of pitches a pitcher needs to throw today in a mere 6 or innings of play. Yet, even today if a pitcher finishes the 8th with under 90 pitches and he's pitching well he's going to go in the 9th.

 

[temery]

This has to be on the list of greatest baseball feats:

 

[connie]

With today’s live ball and short fences Ruth might hit 80 HRs. With PEDs maybe 95

That is a tempting conjecture. And of course there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure. But I very seriously doubt it, for all the reasons I've stated in this thread. Ruth would be facing much tougher competition on a daily basis, including pitchers who regularly throw in the 90s and armed with an arsenal of cutters, 4-seamers, 2-seamers, circle-changes, splitters, you name it. He'd see at least 3 perhaps 4 different pitchers a game, each one coming in fresh. He'd likely face a lot more lefties (having hit only 30% of his HRs againts lefties, which is still incredible). Other teams would chart his preferences, strike-zone vulnerabilities, tendencies, etc.

One factor favoring the conjecture is the fact that Ruth did not strike out much for an HR hitter. Among those hitting at least 40 HRs in a season, Ruth appears 4 out of 8 times among those striking out the fewest times as against HRs hit. Playing today, he may change his approach, striking out more but hitting even more HRs per at bat.

But then, you never know. Maybe he could hit 70 a season even playing today.

 

[connie]

Steve Carlton won 27 games in 1972. The Phillies only won 59 games that year. One of the best season a pitcher ever had.

In June 1974 Nolan Ryan threw 235 pitches in a 13-inning game. (Re-read last sentence.) I think I read somewhere that based on either his preceding start (5 days earlier) or subsequent start (4 days later) he threw something like 360+ pitches within in 4-5 days.

 

[JordyG]

That is a tempting conjecture. And of course there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure. But I very seriously doubt it, for all the reasons I've stated in this thread. Ruth would be facing much tougher competition on a daily basis, including pitchers who regularly throw in the 90s and armed with an arsenal of cutters, 4-seamers, 2-seamers, circle-changes, splitters, you name it. He'd see at least 3 perhaps 4 different pitchers a game, each one coming in fresh. He'd likely face a lot more lefties (having hit only 30% of his HRs againts lefties, which is still incredible). Other teams would chart his preferences, strike-zone vulnerabilities, tendencies, etc.

One factor favoring the conjecture is the fact that Ruth did not strike out much for an HR hitter. Among those hitting at least 40 HRs in a season, Ruth appears 4 out of 8 times among those striking out the fewest times as against HRs hit. Playing today, he may change his approach, striking out more but hitting even more HRs per at bat.

But then, you never know. Maybe he could hit 70 a season even playing today.

One thing that people fail to comment on or even notice about Ruth's style is how often he changed his swing and/or footwork in the box. Sometimes he'd stride, sometimes he'd shuffle step, and sometimes he'd vary off of both of these approaches. Things that are anathema in today's single stride approach to the plate by hitters. But Ruth's idea was because I have such excellent eye/hand coordination, good strength, quick hands and a great hip swivel I can just make contact and the ball jumps off my bat. He also believed in using a very heavy, dark wood bat. One person once said today's players hit homers using PED's. Ruth did it on hotdogs and beer. With a little better off season conditioning I think Ruth would have had great success today.

 

[JordyG]

In June 1974 Nolan Ryan threw 235 pitches in a 13-inning game. (Re-read last sentence.) I think I read somewhere that based on either his preceding start (5 days earlier) or subsequent start (4 days later) he threw something like 360+ pitches within in 4-5 days.

Again, just mind boggling.

And to think my Mets threw him away for the great Jim Fregosi.

 

[ncteacher]

Stark: Strange but true postseason feats

While maybe not as impressive as the game that started this threat, read about the incredible post season that Madison Bumgarner had a few years ago. The reason that I mention this is because I taught MadBum when he was in 8th grade.

Strangest But Truest October Dominator Of The Year
Isn't it amazing how much more we know about Madison Bumgarner now than we knew three months ago? That he comes from a little town in North Carolina (Granite Falls) where it seems as if everyone is named Bumgarner? That he once dated a girl named Madison Bumgarner? And, especially, that he just put on one of the greatest, Michael Jordan-esque postseason shows of any professional athlete who ever lived? It went kinda like this:

• The Giants won 12 games in this postseason. Six of them were games in which Madison Bumgarner pitched. All their other pitchers combined were responsible for winning the other six. Their other starters won exactly once -- and never after Game 1 of the NLDS. So ... good thing MadBum stopped by.

• Did this man really pitch 52⅔ innings in a single postseason? Sandy Koufax only pitched 57 postseason innings in his whole career. Warren Spahn pitched 56. Juan Marichal and Rube Marquard pitched just 50⅔ postseason innings in their careers as Giants combined. And Madison Bumgarner just went 52⅔ innings in ONE postseason. He was scored on in precisely four of those innings by the way.

• Bumgarner threw two shutouts in this postseason. No other starter on the other nine playoff teams pitched any shutouts -- or any complete games of any size or shape, come to think of it.

• In four different starts in this postseason, for that matter, this man was still out there when the eighth inning rolled around. Know how many times all the other starting pitchers on all those other teams combined to make it into the eighth during the entire month of October? That would be five.

• Then there was just the World Series portion of Bumgarner's festivities. The ace made two starts in that World Series and got 16 innings' worth of outs. The rest of his rotation made five starts in that same World Series -- and got 16⅓ innings' worth of outs.

• If it felt as if the Royals had no shot to score against this guy, here's why: Bumgarner faced 74 hitters in the World Series. Exactly one of them drove in a run. That was Salvador Perez, on a solo home run. In a game his team trailed by seven runs.

• And that brings us to our man's grand finale. In the seventh game of the World Series, Bumgarner pitched five shutout innings. In relief. On two days' rest. And got a save out of it. You know how many five-inning saves there had been in all the other World Series in history? Right you are. None. You know how many four-inning saves there had been? Also none.

• And you know how many other five-inning saves have been recorded by anybody else in any kind of game, regular season or postseason, over the last two decades? That would be one.

• And when Bumgarner was finished with all that, his ERA over this particular postseason stood at 1.01. His career World Series ERA was down to 0.25. And he'd won at least one game in three different World Series, all of which his team won, all before the age of 26. And you know how many pitchers who ever lived could say that? None, of course. Amazing.

 

[connie]

Mets threw him away for the great Jim Fregosi

Oy. Even then, I did not understand why. I know Ed Charles had retired at end of '69, and Wayne Garrett was quite young. (And let's not forget the other piece -- 3rd baseman Joy Foy for Amos Otis. Yikes!) Did the Mets really need a 3rd basemen that badly? I know Fregosi was a 4 or 5 time All-Star. But he was about 30, and his AL numbers had basically plateaued for years. And coming to a pitcher's park did not bode well. Still, would could've known? I remember hearing a joke in the mid-70s -- something like, "The Mets have the best team in baseball; it's just that all our best players are on other teams."

 

[connie]

Stark: Strange but true postseason feats

While maybe not as impressive as the game that started this threat, read about the incredible post season that Madison Bumgarner had a few years ago. The reason that I mention this is because I taught MadBum when he was in 8th grade.

Strangest But Truest October Dominator Of The Year
Isn't it amazing how much more we know about Madison Bumgarner now than we knew three months ago? That he comes from a little town in North Carolina (Granite Falls) where it seems as if everyone is named Bumgarner? That he once dated a girl named Madison Bumgarner? And, especially, that he just put on one of the greatest, Michael Jordan-esque postseason shows of any professional athlete who ever lived? It went kinda like this:

• The Giants won 12 games in this postseason. Six of them were games in which Madison Bumgarner pitched. All their other pitchers combined were responsible for winning the other six. Their other starters won exactly once -- and never after Game 1 of the NLDS. So ... good thing MadBum stopped by.

• Did this man really pitch 52⅔ innings in a single postseason? Sandy Koufax only pitched 57 postseason innings in his whole career. Warren Spahn pitched 56. Juan Marichal and Rube Marquard pitched just 50⅔ postseason innings in their careers as Giants combined. And Madison Bumgarner just went 52⅔ innings in ONE postseason. He was scored on in precisely four of those innings by the way.

• Bumgarner threw two shutouts in this postseason. No other starter on the other nine playoff teams pitched any shutouts -- or any complete games of any size or shape, come to think of it.

• In four different starts in this postseason, for that matter, this man was still out there when the eighth inning rolled around. Know how many times all the other starting pitchers on all those other teams combined to make it into the eighth during the entire month of October? That would be five.

• Then there was just the World Series portion of Bumgarner's festivities. The ace made two starts in that World Series and got 16 innings' worth of outs. The rest of his rotation made five starts in that same World Series -- and got 16⅓ innings' worth of outs.

• If it felt as if the Royals had no shot to score against this guy, here's why: Bumgarner faced 74 hitters in the World Series. Exactly one of them drove in a run. That was Salvador Perez, on a solo home run. In a game his team trailed by seven runs.

• And that brings us to our man's grand finale. In the seventh game of the World Series, Bumgarner pitched five shutout innings. In relief. On two days' rest. And got a save out of it. You know how many five-inning saves there had been in all the other World Series in history? Right you are. None. You know how many four-inning saves there had been? Also none.

• And you know how many other five-inning saves have been recorded by anybody else in any kind of game, regular season or postseason, over the last two decades? That would be one.

• And when Bumgarner was finished with all that, his ERA over this particular postseason stood at 1.01. His career World Series ERA was down to 0.25. And he'd won at least one game in three different World Series, all of which his team won, all before the age of 26. And you know how many pitchers who ever lived could say that? None, of course. Amazing.

Uh . . . holy crap. The statistical performance relative to others is what really impresses.

 

[JordyG]

Oy. Even then, I did not understand why. I know Ed Charles had retired at end of '69, and Wayne Garrett was quite young. (And let's not forget the other piece -- 3rd baseman Joy Foy for Amos Otis. Yikes!) Did the Mets really need a 3rd basemen that badly? I know Fregosi was a 4 or 5 time All-Star. But he was about 30, and his AL numbers had basically plateaued for years. And coming to a pitcher's park did not bode well. Still, would could've known? I remember hearing a joke in the mid-70s -- something like, "The Mets have the best team in baseball; it's just that all our best players are on other teams."

So true. Even trading Gentry, a starter that year, would have made more sense. But from their organizational start the Mets have been able to recognize pitchers at a young age, but have no clue what a young future hitter looks like.