Sale needs 11 K's to set Sox single season record

[southsider2k5]

Chris Sale is currently sitting at 259 strike outs on the season. Sale has gotten those K's in 29 starts and 194 2/3 innings pitched.

 

Ed Walsh currently holds the franchise record with 269 strikeouts in 1908. The amazing thing is that it took Walsh 66 games, including 49 starts over 464 innings to get those 269 strike outs.

 

Walsh sported a 5.2 K/9 in that 1908 season, Sale is at 12.0.

 

The most impressive comparison is their control. Walsh put up a 4.8 K/BB ratio in his 1908 season. Sale is at 6.48.

 

 

[Eminor3rd]

This is one of the most interesting instances of rate stats vs counting stats, IMO.

 

It also should absolutely put to rest the idea that old-timey pitchers were as dominating as today's aces. The Hawks of the world can claim that these guys were throwing "as hard as anyone" and that they just didn't have radar guns, but there's just no way that's true.

 

Now, the old-timey aces very well may have been just as VALUABLE as today's ace because of the massive disparity in workload, but it seems too obvious to me that they made a clear tradeoff to prioritize innings over dominance. And there can't be much question who would would be superior on a per-batter basis.

 

That Sale is on the verge of overcoming an old-timey COUNTING stat record is, IMO, as indicative of how insanely dominant he is as well as it is indicative of how relatively weak the Sox history of high-end pitching is. After all, it SHOULD be impossible to break a counting record like that despite throwing less than HALF the innings.

[3GamesToLove]

Chris Sale is currently sitting at 259 strike outs on the season. Sale has gotten those K's in 29 starts and 194 2/3 innings pitched.

 

Ed Walsh currently holds the franchise record with 269 strikeouts in 1908. The amazing thing is that it took Walsh 66 games, including 49 starts over 464 innings to get those 269 strike outs.

 

Walsh sported a 5.2 K/9 in that 1908 season, Sale is at 12.0.

 

The most impressive comparison is their control. Walsh put up a 4.8 K/BB ratio in his 1908 season. Sale is at 6.48.

 

 

This is one of the most interesting instances of rate stats vs counting stats, IMO.

 

It also should absolutely put to rest the idea that old-timey pitchers were as dominating as today's aces. The Hawks of the world can claim that these guys were throwing "as hard as anyone" and that they just didn't have radar guns, but there's just no way that's true.

 

Now, the old-timey aces very well may have been just as VALUABLE as today's ace because of the massive disparity in workload, but it seems too obvious to me that they made a clear tradeoff to prioritize innings over dominance. And there can't be much question who would would be superior on a per-batter basis.

 

That Sale is on the verge of overcoming an old-timey COUNTING stat record is, IMO, as indicative of how insanely dominant he is as well as it is indicative of how relatively weak the Sox history of high-end pitching is. After all, it SHOULD be impossible to break a counting record like that despite throwing less than HALF the innings.

 

 

Most of this is accurate, but let's not pretend that the changing approaches by batters is a huge factor in rising strikeout rates. Similarly, note the team single season strikeout records...very few of them are deadball era guys, despite the fact that those were the guys who compiled crazy innings totals. This isn't an indictment on Sox pitching history in particular, just a reflection of the changing nature of the game.

 

If anything it's a reflection of the lack of Sox strikeout pitchers in the modern (let's say post-1970 era). Many of the all-time records for teams were set in the 50s-90s or so. Granted, workloads were still incredibly high back then--higher than today, but not as ridiculous as Walsh's era.

Edited September 24, 2015 by 3GamesToLove

[Eminor3rd]

Most of this is accurate, but let's not pretend that the changing approaches by batters is a huge factor in rising strikeout rates. Also, please note the team single season strikeout records...very few of them are deadball era guys, despite the fact that those were the guys who compiled crazy innings totals. This isn't an indictment on Sox pitching history in particular, just a reflection of the changing nature of the game.

 

It's a chicken and egg thing though: is it the hitters that have changed their approaches, or is it the pitchers that have improved? The answer is almost always "both," but I'd posit that it's more the pitchers than the hitters, or at least that much of the change in the hitters' approaches was DRIVEN by improved pitching; that it has become necessary to maximize impact upon contact at the cost of accepting more strikeouts,

[southsider2k5]

This is one of the most interesting instances of rate stats vs counting stats, IMO.

 

It also should absolutely put to rest the idea that old-timey pitchers were as dominating as today's aces. The Hawks of the world can claim that these guys were throwing "as hard as anyone" and that they just didn't have radar guns, but there's just no way that's true.

 

Now, the old-timey aces very well may have been just as VALUABLE as today's ace because of the massive disparity in workload, but it seems too obvious to me that they made a clear tradeoff to prioritize innings over dominance. And there can't be much question who would would be superior on a per-batter basis.

 

That Sale is on the verge of overcoming an old-timey COUNTING stat record is, IMO, as indicative of how insanely dominant he is as well as it is indicative of how relatively weak the Sox history of high-end pitching is. After all, it SHOULD be impossible to break a counting record like that despite throwing less than HALF the innings.

 

That is exactly why I posted this. I found it fascinating. The big difference is stats is that Walsh has a 6.7 H/9 rate, a 1.1 BB/9 rate, and a 0 HR rate. That's right, he gave up 0 homers is 464 innings of work in 1908. Sale checks in at 8.0 H/9, 1.8 BB/9 and 1.0 HR/9.

 

 

[lasttriptotulsa]

This is one of the most interesting instances of rate stats vs counting stats, IMO.

 

It also should absolutely put to rest the idea that old-timey pitchers were as dominating as today's aces. The Hawks of the world can claim that these guys were throwing "as hard as anyone" and that they just didn't have radar guns, but there's just no way that's true.

 

Now, the old-timey aces very well may have been just as VALUABLE as today's ace because of the massive disparity in workload, but it seems too obvious to me that they made a clear tradeoff to prioritize innings over dominance. And there can't be much question who would would be superior on a per-batter basis.

 

That Sale is on the verge of overcoming an old-timey COUNTING stat record is, IMO, as indicative of how insanely dominant he is as well as it is indicative of how relatively weak the Sox history of high-end pitching is. After all, it SHOULD be impossible to break a counting record like that despite throwing less than HALF the innings.

 

Yes the Sox history of high end pitching has been weak alright. The guy who's record Sale is about to break only has the lowest career ERA of all time while sporting a very comparable FIP- over his prime as Sale has. It was a completely different era with two completely different styles of baseball being played. Trying to compare the two is pretty absurd. Walsh pitched at a time when some batters might strikeout 15-20 times in a season. Now anything under 100 is considered pretty acceptable. This has as much to do with the batters and the style of play as it does your perceived lack of domination from the pitchers.

 

The fact that this record has stood so long has very little to do with a Sox lack of high end pitching. Walsh's record is the 65th highest single season total post 1900. Of the 64 ahead of him, 27 of those seasons are held by Randy Johnson, Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax, Steve Carlton and Roger Clemens. Bert Blyleven who is 5th all time in strikeouts had a career high of 258. 269 strikeouts is a high total and a pretty damn tough record to beat.

Edited September 24, 2015 by lasttriptotulsa

[Lip Man 1]

Nice individually of course if he gets it, but I'm sure he'd trade a bunch of those strike outs for more consistency or at the very least a team that could allow him to showcase his talents in the post season.

 

In two weeks Sale will have finished his fifth full major league season. He still hasn't pitched in a playoff game.

 

And don't think that thought hasn't crossed his mind.

 

Mark

[Thad Bosley]

Nice individually of course if he gets it, but I'm sure he'd trade a bunch of those strike outs for more consistency or at the very least a team that could allow him to showcase his talents in the post season.

 

In two weeks Sale will have finished his fifth full major league season. He still hasn't pitched in a playoff game.

 

And don't think that thought hasn't crossed his mind.

 

Mark

I don't know if you've heard or not, but KW and RH have a "three year plan" currently in place to get Messrs. Sale and Abreu to the playoffs in a Sox uni. And so as we have just about burned through Year One of that plan, Mr. Sale ought to be advised he can expect to be in the playoffs for the very first time no later than two years from this moment, if not sooner. At least that's how I understand the plan as communicated by KW and RH - you know, the two who together have gotten us to one playoff (and with only playoff win to show for it!) in the past decade. But hope springs eternal, as they say, and so let's hope for the best in these next two years!

[LittleHurt05]

Nice individually of course if he gets it, but I'm sure he'd trade a bunch of those strike outs for more consistency or at the very least a team that could allow him to showcase his talents in the post season.

 

In two weeks Sale will have finished his fifth full major league season. He still hasn't pitched in a playoff game.

 

And don't think that thought hasn't crossed his mind.

 

Mark

 

Neither has Felix Hernandez after ten full major league seasons

[Eminor3rd]

Yes the Sox history of high end pitching has been weak alright. The guy who's record Sale is about to break only has the lowest career ERA of all time while sporting a very comparable FIP- over his prime as Sale has. It was a completely different era with two completely different styles of baseball being played. Trying to compare the two is pretty absurd. Walsh pitched at a time when some batters might strikeout 15-20 times in a season. Now anything under 100 is considered pretty acceptable. This has as much to do with the batters and the style of play as it does your perceived lack of domination from the pitchers.

 

The fact that this record has stood so long has very little to do with a Sox lack of high end pitching. Walsh's record is the 65th highest single season total post 1900. Of the 64 ahead of him, 27 of those seasons are held by Randy Johnson, Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax, Steve Carlton and Roger Clemens. Bert Blyleven who is 5th all time in strikeouts had a career high of 258. 269 strikeouts is a high total and a pretty damn tough record to beat.

 

Again, I'd reiterate -- were the batters striking out less because they felt like striking out less, or were the pitchers not throwing stuff that was hard to hit?

 

A little of both, sure, but what evidence is there to suggest one over the other? When it comes to the pitchers, I'd posit that merely the fact that they were throwing 400-500 innings is evidence that they were throwing lesser stuff. Sale couldn't do what he does and throw 400 innings, obviously. When it comes to the hitters, the best evidence for a contact-oriented approach would be fewer HRs hit overall, but at the same time, the SLG rates weren't nearly as far removed in say, 1917, than they are today. Guys were also running higher BABIPs consistently.

 

I said in my original post that the old guys were just as VALUABLE in context, but I stand by my original point that Chris Sale is way harder to hit.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Again, I'd reiterate -- were the batters striking out less because they felt like striking out less, or were the pitchers not throwing stuff that was hard to hit?

 

A little of both, sure, but what evidence is there to suggest one over the other? When it comes to the pitchers, I'd posit that merely the fact that they were throwing 400-500 innings is evidence that they were throwing lesser stuff. Sale couldn't do what he does and throw 400 innings, obviously. When it comes to the hitters, the best evidence for a contact-oriented approach would be fewer HRs hit overall, but at the same time, the SLG rates weren't nearly as far removed in say, 1917, than they are today. Guys were also running higher BABIPs consistently.

 

I said in my original post that the old guys were just as VALUABLE in context, but I stand by my original point that Chris Sale is way harder to hit.

 

And this is what I don't like. Sale is harder to hit by who? Players today or players in Walsh's era? If you say Walsh's era, well that's obvious. You can't give pitchers 100 years of science and technology to use to advance themselves but not hitters. This is why you can't compare eras. You can only compare a player in relation to his peers. And in Walsh's era, he was every bit as dominant as Chris Sale.

[southsider2k5]

And this is what I don't like. Sale is harder to hit by who? Players today or players in Walsh's era? If you say Walsh's era, well that's obvious. You can't give pitchers 100 years of science and technology to use to advance themselves but not hitters. This is why you can't compare eras. You can only compare a player in relation to his peers. And in Walsh's era, he was every bit as dominant as Chris Sale.

 

Bingo. This is exactly how I feel about it.

[OmarComing25]

And this is what I don't like. Sale is harder to hit by who? Players today or players in Walsh's era? If you say Walsh's era, well that's obvious. You can't give pitchers 100 years of science and technology to use to advance themselves but not hitters. This is why you can't compare eras. You can only compare a player in relation to his peers. And in Walsh's era, he was every bit as dominant as Chris Sale.

Walsh was also facing a much smaller pool of talent. No black, Latino, or Asian players. It was easier to be dominant in his era.

[southsider2k5]

Walsh was also facing a much smaller pool of talent. No black, Latino, or Asian players. It was easier to be dominant in his era.

 

100 years from now we might be saying the same thing about Chinese, Indian, etc. Most of the world doesn't play baseball. It doesn't diminish what they did in the moment.

[Balta1701]

100 years from now we might be saying the same thing about Chinese, Indian, etc. Most of the world doesn't play baseball. It doesn't diminish what they did in the moment.

There's something fundamentally different though about "rules stating that people who are great players already aren't allowed to play".

[southsider2k5]

There's something fundamentally different though about "rules stating that people who are great players already aren't allowed to play".

 

The end result is the same, no matter the social statement. A large portion of the population isn't a part of the talent pool.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Walsh was also facing a much smaller pool of talent. No black, Latino, or Asian players. It was easier to be dominant in his era.

 

Yes there was a much smaller pool of talent but there were also far less spots available. 16 teams as opposed to 30.

[hogan873]

That is exactly why I posted this. I found it fascinating. The big difference is stats is that Walsh has a 6.7 H/9 rate, a 1.1 BB/9 rate, and a 0 HR rate. That's right, he gave up 0 homers is 464 innings of work in 1908. Sale checks in at 8.0 H/9, 1.8 BB/9 and 1.0 HR/9.

The fact that Walsh threw 464 innings in a season is staggering. I'm sure, however, that the way pitchers pitch today is quite different than they way they pitched 100 years ago. I imagine that there is much more wear and tear on pitchers today.

 

The zero homeruns in 464 innings is interesting. I thought maybe field dimensions would have been one of the factors, but South Side Park (where the Sox played) didn't have wild dimensions. Center field was 420, and the corners were 325/330...although there was a 20 foot wall in right-center field. Throughout the entire 1908 season, the league hit 116 home runs. That's not a lot, obviously, but you might have expected Walsh to give up one or two in 464 innings. Another interesting tidbit about that season was that the league batting average was .239.

[Quin]

If Walsh didn't throw his arm out placing the team on his back, I have no doubt he'd have gone down as a GOAT pitcher.

 

Let's not pretend like he wasn't sheer dominance for a few seasons.

[Eminor3rd]

And this is what I don't like. Sale is harder to hit by who? Players today or players in Walsh's era? If you say Walsh's era, well that's obvious. You can't give pitchers 100 years of science and technology to use to advance themselves but not hitters. This is why you can't compare eras. You can only compare a player in relation to his peers. And in Walsh's era, he was every bit as dominant as Chris Sale.

 

I understand the difficulties with it, but that's exactly what I'm trying to do -- it's AN age-old question: are the athletes today better than the athletes of yesterday. I contend yes, but there are many that disagree.

[Eminor3rd]

If Walsh didn't throw his arm out placing the team on his back, I have no doubt he'd have gone down as a GOAT pitcher.

 

Let's not pretend like he wasn't sheer dominance for a few seasons.

 

Yeah, I didn't mean to make it sound like Walsh sucked (though I know I did with the "Sox weak history of dominant players" line), I was really trying to bring up the era difference more than anything.

[southsider2k5]

I understand the difficulties with it, but that's exactly what I'm trying to do -- it's AN age-old question: are the athletes today better than the athletes of yesterday. I contend yes, but there are many that disagree.

 

I have no doubt that the athlete's are bigger strong and faster than the good old days. I have no doubt that the players of past eras would absolutely suck in this modern age. Between conditioning, equipment, and game innovations, etc, almost every advantage belongs to the modern player. Babe Ruth would eat himself out of the game in rookie ball if he were simply dropped into the 21st century as is. A complete suck like John Danks would be the best pitcher ever if he were dropped into 1908.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I understand the difficulties with it, but that's exactly what I'm trying to do -- it's AN age-old question: are the athletes today better than the athletes of yesterday. I contend yes, but there are many that disagree.

 

Yeah if you look at it that way of course athletes today are better. I think the progression of every Olympic record proves that point.

[southsider2k5]

Dan Hayes ‏@CSNHayes 2m2 minutes ago

 

Also, Chris Sale's last start for 2015 #WhiteSox is likely on Friday, could be Thursday.

[LDF]

I have no doubt that the athlete's are bigger strong and faster than the good old days. I have no doubt that the players of past eras would absolutely suck in this modern age. Between conditioning, equipment, and game innovations, etc, almost every advantage belongs to the modern player. Babe Ruth would eat himself out of the game in rookie ball if he were simply dropped into the 21st century as is. A complete suck like John Danks would be the best pitcher ever if he were dropped into 1908.

 

you bring up a great point.

 

but i want to ask this. yesteryear althlete, would they also have the same equipment to train as well???

 

they put up and were the best at the time.... so talent wise they have it.

 

for me, there is no right or wrong answer, i am just confuse or wondering .