I was just reading The Bill James Gold Mine (2010), and came across a bit on Derek Lowe where James says his 21 wins in 2002 was "unsustainable" because he only had 127 strikeouts. Out of curiosity I checked to see which 20-win pitcher in history had the fewest K's:

In 1919 Slim Sallee pitched 227.2 innings, went 21-7, and struck out a grand total of 24 batters.

I guess it helped that Slim had great control (only 20 walks), but man. I never would have thought a stat like that -- 21 wins vs. 24 K's -- was possible.

Baseball has changed a lot over the years.

Al Spalding has 252 career wins and 248 career strikeouts.

In 1874, he had 52 wins and 31 Ks.

True enough. In 1919 Walter Johnson led the majors in K's with 147, and he needed 290 innings to do it. Lowe would have been considered a strikeout king in that era.

In the book James discusses K rates going higher and higher, because K's are viewed as positives for pitchers, and (since the modern era) neutral for batters; i.e., K's are an accepted "side effect" for batters who hit for power.

James has no explanation, however, for Michael Bourn (3 home runs, 140K in 2009).

In contrast, Carlos Marmol has 49 K's in just 24 2/3 IP this year...

I remember a hiiter on the White Sox, dave nicholson, who actually had some pretty decent seasons, but who was frowned upon because he "struck out too much." It is rare in today's game that any situational ball is played, with the exception of the pitcher bunting with runners on base. everyone is swinging for the fences, and the K's are simply accepted. If you look at the teams prior to (especially the latest) expansion, there is no question that the worst teams of the pre expansion years would be contending teams today. Finesse pitchers are not in high demand either, most of todays' pitchers throw hard. The slider, split fingered and two seam fast balls weren't thrown way back when. I love baseball, and I hate to live in the past, but I really resent expansion, and I really miss the strategy that used to punctuate baseball games. I remember a game when the Yankees were really bad, and they had a terrible 3bman, maybe Charlie Smith, and the White Sox layed bunt after bunt down the 3b line, beating most of them out. I miss that kind of strategy. Oh well. Just the lamentations of an old man.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and this is the kind of debate where no one ever convinces anyone else, but I completely disagree that the "worst teams of the pre-expansion years" would be contending teams today.

If anything, I think it's likely that the opposite is true.

Quote: Originally Posted By pfattkatt on 5/29/2010I remember a hiiter on the White Sox, dave nicholson, who actually had some pretty decent seasons, but who was frowned upon because he "struck out too much." It is rare in today's game that any situational ball is played, with the exception of the pitcher bunting with runners on base. everyone is swinging for the fences, and the K's are simply accepted. If you look at the teams prior to (especially the latest) expansion, there is no question that the worst teams of the pre expansion years would be contending teams today. Finesse pitchers are not in high demand either, most of todays' pitchers throw hard. The slider, split fingered and two seam fast balls weren't thrown way back when. I love baseball, and I hate to live in the past, but I really resent expansion, and I really miss the strategy that used to punctuate baseball games. I remember a game when the Yankees were really bad, and they had a terrible 3bman, maybe Charlie Smith, and the White Sox layed bunt after bunt down the 3b line, beating most of them out. I miss that kind of strategy. Oh well. Just the lamentations of an old man

Agreed. The modern dependance on steroids and home runs has made the game much more boring than it usedto be. Push back the fences, deaden the ball and let the rabbits run again.

Quote: Originally Posted By contrarian23 on 5/29/2010
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and this is the kind of debate where no one ever convinces anyone else, but I completely disagree that the "worst teams of the pre-expansion years" would be contending teams today.

If anything, I think it's likely that the opposite is true.

Depends on what you mean (IMHO). In terms of absolute talent, bad modern teams are way better than old-time champs. Players are bigger faster and better trained. In terms of tactics or strategy and relative talent oldtime team may have been better.