are pitchers now better than you might think than the pitchers of the past because of smaller ballparks? could you find me some good article on this .

also, could i get a list of hitters ball parks in order 1 to 30 (or however many teams). colorado - ? - arizona - ... - san diego.


you ask the impossible of us. there's way too much "noise" to ever make such a comparision. since you mentioned park size, i'm going to try and list all the variations that exists in just the physics of the game (or at least things that involve stuff OTHER than the actual pitcher) first:

- the raising and the lowering of the mound in different eras
- defenses are better b/c of better gloves and more athletic players
- night games depress hitting if i remember correctly (or it increases hitting, either way it's noise)
- more teams = more stadium = less familarity with ballparks
- dh vs. non dh
- juiced balls?
- more hitters studying film
- more hitters being bigger
- more specialization of pitchers. including but not limited to more relief usage, LOOGY's, closers, etc.
- more pitchers getting better scouting reports on hitters
- pitchers have more pitches now than they did.
- pitchers have to face lineups that are solid 1-8. back in the day, there were defensive specialists who were easy outs
- (btw, that's why pitch counts are more important now...back in the day, pitchers could take it easy in the bottom of the lineup)
- mechanics of pitchers are much more analyzed. flaws are easier to find and correct.
- injuries are more preventable, and easier to treat.
- strikezone has probably shrunk
- astroturf has affected defense
- same with domes
- influx of foreign players has expanded the talent pool
(see my past email for all the arguments already addressed for the "expansion has hurt baseball")
- all the call in radio shows and media has made it tougher for pitchers not to choke more (that's for you steve)
- managers are less likely to implement small ball, which was unnaturally depressing offense (that's for me and pj)
- all stadiums now have a hitter's eye that's completely black / noiseless to let a hitter concentrate
- bats are more dangerous....physically. bigger barrel, narrower (word?) handle
- more hitters on steroids, less hitters on coke, less pitchers on greenies
- more pitchers on steroids, less pitchers on coke, less hitters on greenies
- 4 man vs. 5 man vs. 5 day rotations
- less double headers tiring players out
- expanding rosters to 40 in the month of september

So what exactly are you asking? are "average" pitchers today better or worse than "average" pitchers of yesteryear? I think that's as close to impossible as you can get. There can be no way to measure the "average" pitcher w/o using circular logic. By definition they are average to the era that they play in, and since their era is unique, it's impossible to judge.

If you are asking us to compare a Pedro Martinez vs. a Walter Johnson, that's only slightly less impossible. Clearly, it's easy to measure pedro vs. the era in which he plays. First, you adjust his performance by the park he plays in, the defense behind him, the offenses he faces, etc etc etc. Then, you measure that number as to the rest of the league. "he's x percentage better than an average pitcher, y percentage better than the top 25% pitchers in the league" etc etc.

then you do the same for walter johnson.

but after you get there, you have to ask yourself if you are judging more than just domination....do you want to know what pitcher you'd want to start an imaginary franchise with? Could Walter Johnson's 2 pitches (that could be factually wrong) survive in today's era? Would Pedro's lack of stamina kill him in an era where pitchers were expected to finish games? Are we talking their peak years or longevity of their career? VORP for their best year? or total winshares in their career? total winshares vs. the winshares that a league average pitcher (or combination of pitchers) would have gotten over the same span of years?

If you general question "are pitchers of today better than pitchers of yesterday", the only thing I can go wtih is my gut. Removing everything else, and putting up a robotic "average" hitter, I have to assume that today's pitchers would be able to get him out more consistently than older pitchers. Physically, today's athletes are superior. THey have more pitches. They are more specialized in their craft. And generally, in any athletic endeaver that's isolated and based on skill and/or athleticism, i HAVE to assume that today's athlete dominates. Sports are like natural selection, but sped up. Things get cloudier when you talk about team sports like basketball, b/c then factors such as ego and knowledge of the game come into play. But baseball is just a guy throwing a ball and a guy trying ot hit it with a stick. Both ends of that equation has to be increasing as T (for time) increases.

how's that for a non answer?

[oh, and ballparks aren't that easy to judge either. a park can increase homers but be pitcher friendly while keeping extra base hits neutral. and it can change from year to year. and month to month. there was always the theory that the new park in san diego would be more hitter friendly in the later months b/c the warmer air would come in off the coast or something. and some parks can probably differ drastically from day to night]