The Mound

[CH David]

For most baseball fans that have a sense of history, you know that 1968 was the "Year of the Pitcher". Pitchers dominated hitters, notably Bob Gibson and Denny McClain. The numbers these guys put up was insane. McClain had 31 wins and only 6 losses all season. Gibson was 22-9, five of his losses were 1-0 losses and one was a no-hitter, which pretty much wins the Cy Young now. However, he also had a 1.12 ERA, and 13 shutouts. These numbers are unfathomable in current times. I suppose it also helped after the '61 season that the strike zone expanded from the shoulders to the bottom of the knees instead of just the letters.

Anyway, after the '68 season the MLB decided to lower the mound from 15 inches to 10, and to close the strike zone back to the letters. The '69 season led to more normal batting numbers and we have been at the 10 inch mark ever since. A couple questions to ponder.

With pitchers being as good as they are, we saw Verlander win the Cy Young and MVP awards in the AL, is it possible in the next 50 or so years that pitchers could be so dominant over hitters that the mound would have to be lowered another few inches?

Is it possible in the next 50 or so years that hitters are dominant over pitchers and the mound needs to be raised again?

 

[Davi323]

No, to both questions. Pitchers like Justin Verlander and batters like Prince Fielder and Miguel Cabrera are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. There are always a couple of guys in the league that make everyone else look like chumps. Even in 1968, Gibson and McClain had exceptional years, it wasn't like half of the league was close behind. Most MLB pitchers are closer in talent to Rick Porcello than they are to Justin Verlander. I think they tend to balance each other out. Some years you may have more dominant pitching, and some years the pitching might not be up to par, and see an uptick in hitting. But overall, it's balanced.

 

[CH David]

No, to both questions. Pitchers like Justin Verlander and batters like Prince Fielder and Miguel Cabrera are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. There are always a couple of guys in the league that make everyone else look like chumps. Even in 1968, Gibson and McClain had exceptional years, it wasn't like half of the league was close behind. Most MLB pitchers are closer in talent to Rick Porcello than they are to Justin Verlander. I think they tend to balance each other out. Some years you may have more dominant pitching, and some years the pitching might not be up to par, and see an uptick in hitting. But overall, it's balanced.

Sure, most of the league wasn't dominating with the lowest ERA or batting average against or wins, but the AL and NL combined for 339 shutouts! That number is astounding. Pitchers were beating teams by only a few runs. Hitting was bad in 1968. The AL only had Yastremski hit over .300, and he was at .301. Sure Pete Rose hit .335 and there were more in the NL that hit over that mark, but pitching was dominant, and it wasn't just McClain and Gibson. They were certainly at the forefront, but the whole league was pitching pretty damn impressively.

Now it is most likely a no to both questions. The league doesn't have a portion of dominant pitchers that will have an ERA under 2.00 or get 30+ wins. But that's right now. We don't know what the future entails. Again, likely not. The league can and will change again if, and it is a big if, one or the other can dominate. It's certainly easier for a pitcher to dominate because they control the ball, but if hitters progress to the point that they are hitting on the higher end of .300, there could be something said to try and even it out for the pitchers. I'd say it is possible. Likely? Probably not. But possible.

 

[Megatron]

No, to both questions. Pitchers like Justin Verlander and batters like Prince Fielder and Miguel Cabrera are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. There are always a couple of guys in the league that make everyone else look like chumps. Even in 1968, Gibson and McClain had exceptional years, it wasn't like half of the league was close behind.

Actually, every one of the teams ERA that year was between 2.49 and 3.64 (which was held by the worst team in the league in Washington). The league average for ERA was 2.98. Last season was 3.94, almost a whole run higher. The pitching around the league was dominant that year, not just a handful of guys. If that was the case the mound would've been raised in 99-2000 when Pedro was having some of the greatest single seasons of all time.

Most MLB pitchers are closer in talent to Rick Porcello than they are to Justin Verlander. I think they tend to balance each other out. Some years you may have more dominant pitching, and some years the pitching might not be up to par, and see an uptick in hitting. But overall, it's balanced.

This, however, I agree with. Hitting and pitching is cyclical. While this year the pitching was up, it was less then a decade ago that it seemed like every team had a 40 HR guy (whether he was clean or not is another question). When hitters start to get an advantage pitchers will try to develop new pitches. When pitchers start to be more dominant offenses will try to create runs with more steals, hit and runs, bunts, etc. We'd need a few dominant seasons in a row where the league ERA is close to 68 (which isn't gonna happen) for any thought in the mound changing.