Pitcher Velocity

[MLHFFYP]

Started a 1910 League and, when checking player ratings, saw that Walter Johnson had a velocity of 91-93 mph. Christy Mathewson had a velocity of 90-92 mph.

In all that I have read it has been estimated that Johnson's fastball was in the upper 90's, probably 97-99 mph. Mathewson did not have that speed but had a good fastball with other pitches, especially his famous fadeaway. He was likely in the lower 90's so his rating seems reasonable.

My question then is how velocity is determined. Does anyone know?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by MLHFFYP

Started a 1910 League and, when checking player ratings, saw that Walter Johnson had a velocity of 91-93 mph. Christy Mathewson had a velocity of 90-92 mph.

In all that I have read it has been estimated that Johnson's fastball was in the upper 90's, probably 97-99 mph. Mathewson did not have that speed but had a good fastball with other pitches, especially his famous fadeaway. He was likely in the lower 90's so his rating seems reasonable.

My question then is how velocity is determined. Does anyone know?

I don't know how velocity is determined in the game, but I'm quite sure that historical estimations of velocity by humans would be no closer than +- 5mph.

Humans are decidedly unreliable observers of physical phenomena.

[MLHFFYP]

Originally Posted by RchW

I don't know how velocity is determined in the game, but I'm quite sure that historical estimations of velocity by humans would be no closer than +- 5mph.

Humans are decidedly unreliable observers of physical phenomena.

RchW,

Your observation about the estimations of velocity is interesting but perhaps you could tell me what you base your statement on?

There has been some good discussion on whether "old time" pitchers could indeed throw as hard as modern ones. From those discussions I think it can be fairly stated that they could. Of course, in many (if not most) cases they did not due to the belief that throwing that hard would wear a pitcher out and waste energy. See Mathewson's "Pitching In A Pinch for his views on this.

So if the premise is accepted that old time pitchers could throw as hard as the modern ones, then it is logical to assume that the ones with the reputation of being the hardest throwers would equal or possibly exceed the speed of their modern counterparts.

Therefore, it can be assumed that Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax, Bob Feller, Lefty Grove, and Walter Johnson were exceptionally hard throwers with approximate speeds on their fastballs. Cobb's comments on Johnson is good evidence for his speed.

So it seems to me that a Walter Johnson, Amos Rusie, Rube Waddell and some others should be brought into the game as pitchers with fastball in the upper 90's.

Why this is not the case I don't know. But it would be great if someone who knew the game would be able to take the time to provide an answer. It is a subject which, I think, affects the credibility of the data used for the game.

By the way, if anyone is interested please check the following link Did Pitchers of Yesteryear Throw With "Much Less" Velocity Than They Do Today? [Archive] - Baseball Fever
This is a great discussion on the issue and goes a long way to support the premise that those old timers were not lacking in velocity.

[RonCo]

Every measurable sport has shown that the human body has grown physically better at doing that sport. Sprinters run considerably faster than they did 100 years ago. Football players hit harder (because they are bigger and faster). Weight Lifters lift more weight. It's clear the average baseball player is more skilled at the game than the average player was 100 years ago--they are better athletes in better shape and with better training and nutrition as a whole. All that suggests it would be surprising if baseball pitchers, as a whole did not throw faster than they did 100 years ago.

Could a few "older era" pitchers have thrown 100? Sure. But realize that if the average pitcher threw 86, a 95 MPH fastball would look pretty danged fast.

If I had to...was forced to...make an actual bet of cash-money, I would bet that the average pitcher today throws harder than the average pitcher of the past. But the difference is probably not as massive as some might thnk.

Just my .02.

[MLHFFYP]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Every measurable sport has shown that the human body has grown physically better at doing that sport. Sprinters run considerably faster than they did 100 years ago. Football players hit harder (because they are bigger and faster). Weight Lifters lift more weight. It's clear the average baseball player is more skilled at the game than the average player was 100 years ago--they are better athletes in better shape and with better training and nutrition as a whole. All that suggests it would be surprising if baseball pitchers, as a whole did not throw faster than they did 100 years ago.

Could a few "older era" pitchers have thrown 100? Sure. But realize that if the average pitcher threw 86, a 95 MPH fastball would look pretty danged fast.

If I had to...was forced to...make an actual bet of cash-money, I would bet that the average pitcher today throws harder than the average pitcher of the past. But the difference is probably not as massive as some might thnk.

Just my .02.

Thanks for your views.

It's a hard issue to address because instinctively you would assume that everything today has to be better. However, in terms of the issue I first brought up I believe that Johnson threw in the high 90's but is brought into the game with much less velocity.

I think this is, again, a shortfall in the data and was wondering why he is brought in with such a reduced velocity.

Much has to be considered when comparing old time players with modern ones. Fields are better today by quantum leaps, equipment is much better certainly, and transportation is easier. Also, and I mentioned this before, pitchers weren't expected to throw hard all game as the emphasis was not on power pitching.

However, I am not sure about the baseline quality of the player. I believe that the skill set for baseball players is such that the difference is not very great.

In terms of physicality, there were bigger and smaller players then as now. Cobb and Shoeless Joe were over six feet and in tremendous shape. Cy Young was 6'2" and 210 pounds while Walter Johnson was 6'1" and 200 pounds. Perhaps there is a study around that can show the averages for a typical ball player back then but I haven't seen one.

My whole point, really, is that evidence strongly indicates that Walter Johnson threw in the high 90's. Yet, he is brought into the game with less velocity. Why?

Thanks for your thoughts. Interesting subject, isn't it?

[endgame]

. already posted . nevermind.

[statfreak]

Is pitcher velocity in the Lahman database or the modified database OOTP uses?

If not, then until it is entered OOTP has no way of knowing how fast any real life pitchers threw.

[RonCo]

Right. OOTP has no way to know it's importing Walter Johnson or Red Ruffing or Hoyt Wilhelm at any one time. I would guess it looks at strikeout rates and age and maybe a few other things to calculate velocity for historical players.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by MLHFFYP

Thanks for your views.

It's a hard issue to address because instinctively you would assume that everything today has to be better. However, in terms of the issue I first brought up I believe that Johnson threw in the high 90's but is brought into the game with much less velocity.

I think this is, again, a shortfall in the data and was wondering why he is brought in with such a reduced velocity.

Much has to be considered when comparing old time players with modern ones. Fields are better today by quantum leaps, equipment is much better certainly, and transportation is easier. Also, and I mentioned this before, pitchers weren't expected to throw hard all game as the emphasis was not on power pitching.

However, I am not sure about the baseline quality of the player. I believe that the skill set for baseball players is such that the difference is not very great.

In terms of physicality, there were bigger and smaller players then as now. Cobb and Shoeless Joe were over six feet and in tremendous shape. Cy Young was 6'2" and 210 pounds while Walter Johnson was 6'1" and 200 pounds. Perhaps there is a study around that can show the averages for a typical ball player back then but I haven't seen one.

My whole point, really, is that evidence strongly indicates that Walter Johnson threw in the high 90's. Yet, he is brought into the game with less velocity. Why?

Thanks for your thoughts. Interesting subject, isn't it?

Yes, it's an interesting subject.

You're right that you have to be careful comparing players from different eras. But to suggest players of 100 or 50 years ago are equal physically to today's players is fairly dubious. It's always _possible_, of course, because no one really _knows_ nuthin'. But the average human being is bigger today than they were 100 years ago. Athletes have always been bigger than the general population, and baseball players are clearly bigger today. There are many, many studies available...just do a Google on average baseball player size and you'll find a ton of them. Here's one - DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER? Today's major leaguers are bigger and stronger than those of earlier eras - physical size of baseball players | Baseball Digest | Find Articles at BNET . In addition, the absolute fact that measurable performance of athletes in other sports has clearly improved very strongly suggests that baseball players are also improved over the decades.

Anyway, that physical difference will certainly make a difference in at least several performance elements associated with baseball skills--especially since that size is coming with at least equal quickness and athleticism. If nothing else the genetic pool of baseball players is considerably increased over those who played in the first 50 years of baseball history. To ignore these things, or suggest they don't matter, is hard for me to agree with.

Of course, pitching velocity is not really one of the elements that is tied strongly to size. Small guys can manage to throw really hard, just as big guys can. Velocity is about a lot of things, not the least is mechanics.

Could Walter Johnson have thrown 97-100 MPH? Sure, it's possible. But it's also possible, and at least as likely that he threw 93 and that 93 was 8 MPH faster than the fastball of the average pitcher of the era and that he had a big enough size advantage for his era that he could throw at that rate for longer than the average starter...hence his rep was (rightly) deserved.

Bottom line: I have no idea how fast Walter Johnson threw. The probem, of course is that neither do you, and neither does anyone else, hence neither does OOTP. The beauty of the sim is that you can make this happen yourself, though. So, if you want Johnson or Feller or whoever to throw 100, then edit him up. It's all good.

[robc]

I believe velocity is just a gameplay device. Velocity is used to determine a pitcher's stuff rating. So, I think pitchers are assigned a velocity based on their strikeouts, like a previous poster suggested. It doesn't have any connection to their velocity in real life.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by MLHFFYP

RchW,

Your observation about the estimations of velocity is interesting but perhaps you could tell me what you base your statement on?

A fairly well established documentation in science and law enforcement that indicates that observational references of velocity by individuals is deeply flawed. I have no doubt that Walter Johnson and any other elite pitcher in antiquity that you mention were faster than the norm. What I question is the evidence that shows that the average pitcher of 80-90-100 years ago was better than the average pitcher of today. Unless they were, there is no evidence that the best pitchers of those eras were, if one accepts that talent distributions are similar, equivalent to the best pitchers of today. Anecdotal testimony about not being able to see the ball etc. mean nothing as any pitcher significantly better than norm would be perceived as being super fast.

OTOH there is definitive evidence from every sport that can be measured that athletic performance is better across the board. I can't think of any reason why in non-measurable sports that this would not occur as well. Based on that I feel that the burden of proof should be on those who feel that anecdotal references carry more weight than recorded observation and measurement.

Take note that peripheral issues like playing conditions, athlete equipment, ball condition, heavy bats resulting in slower swings etc. all play a part. It's well known that baseballs used in games back in Johnson's era were rarely changed. I agree it's conjecture, but I have a hard time thinking that he could throw a wet, mud caked, possibly split ball consistently better than 90-93mph never mind 97-99mph or over 100mph which is still very rare today.

Originally Posted by MLHFFYP

It's a hard issue to address because instinctively you would assume that everything today has to be better. However, in terms of the issue I first brought up I believe that Johnson threw in the high 90's but is brought into the game with much less velocity.

I don't accept that things (athletically) today being better is an assumption. It's backed by a huge pile of evidence.

[Charlie Hough]

Whether past pitchers threw any faster or slower than contemporary pitchers is irrelevant to the original question.

The simple answer is this: OOTP does not know player reputations. It works with a database that is comprised largely of statistics, and the game uses those numbers to calculate ratings according to proprietary formulas.

OOTP does not know that Walter Johnson is considered one of the hardest throwers in the early 20th century. It does not know Ty Cobb's famous comments or that it is widely believed that Johnson threw a fastball in the high 90's.

None of this information is captured in the database that OOTP uses. So it can only base theoretical velocity on statistical totals like strikeouts. Fortunately, most pitchers throughout history with high strikeout ratios have generally been hard throwers, so the correlation works well and is generally accurate in OOTP.

[golander40]

I simply change the velocity for pitchers,from days gone by,whose reputations--quotes--etc.in my opinion (only my opinion).The Grove's-Feller-Waddell--Johnson's,warrant an increase.
Not sure if this is being considered,when you increase velocity-the expected ERA,OBP-K's-etc. are also effected.(improves) (as seen in the edit player stats)
Gil The Ancient One

[Curtis]

I think you also need to remember that after Johnson's sixth full season his velocity dropped sharply, so 93 might be considered what he did for the majority of his career, but not while he was at his best.

I absolutely agree that the average baseball player of today is physically superior to the average player of a century ago, but that doesn't seem to me to be relevant to the issue at hand. Johnson was a 'sport', like Ruth, who stood head and shoulders above the average. Lower K rates from that era at least partially derive from the attitudes of the hitters, who felt striking out was a personal failure and went to great lengths to avoid doing so.

Also, I'm not certain that pitching velocity is affected as strongly by training as, say baserunning speed or mighty thews. The fastest pitcher in history was that minor leaguer back in the 50s who threw 106, and he probably had no better training than Walter Johnson, and nowhere near as good as Randy Johnson.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Lower K rates from that era at least partially derive from the attitudes of the hitters, who felt striking out was a personal failure and went to great lengths to avoid doing so.

That is 100% correct. Combine that with pitchers who were trying to limit the number of pitches they threw by pitching to contact because they were expected to go the full nine, and you have low strike out totals.

Had Lefty Grove been expected to go only six innings while facing a lineup full of guys swinging from their heels with two strikes, who knows what his k/9 totals would have been.

BTW, for the record, put me in the camp that believes the pitchers from 100 years ago could throw just as hard as pitchers today. But let's say they didn't. It wouldn't make them any less effective. If a pitcher from a 100 years ago could hit his spots and change speeds, which is what pitching is all about in the first place, he'll still win games. A left handed batter in 2011 will have just as hard of a time with Eddie Plank's side arm curve, if he can get it over the plate, as a hitter did in 1911.

[MLHFFYP]

Thanks for the great input from everyone. Upon reflection it does seems logical regarding what the game does in that it does not know that a Walter Johnson is, well, Walter Johnson. And yes I have edited his mph so it really is all good.

Regarding the issue of the bigger, stronger player of today I agree to disagree with many. I believe, based on what I have read, that in regards to pitchers of that era they could throw as hard as anyone if necessary.

Do I know if Johnson threw in the high 90's? No, of course not because I was not there but based on what I read I believe it to be so. If anyone has a minute please go to the baseball-fever link in my first post and you might come away with a different view. Or not.

Frankly, I never thought that a Rube Waddell was as fast as a Roger Clemens but I do now. What is true also, I think, is that pitchers today throw harder longer into the game than those of yesteryear.

As far as the mph having an affect on the game I think it does. The online manual says that:
Velocity

Velocity is a measure of how fast a pitcher throws. Velocity is not measured according to the standard rating system, but rather is measured in miles per hour. Velocity can change over time, with younger players typically gaining velocity as they fill out, and losing velocity due to age or injury. Velocity is important for certain pitches that are heavily dependent upon velocity. For example, a fastball relies heavily upon velocity, while a knuckleball does not. Velocity is factored into the overall Stuff rating, as well as the ratings of individual pitches.


I play a random debut database so this is important to my league so what I do is go through each new pitcher every year and then try to research how and what they threw back then.



Interesting is that I found that the New York Giants pitcher Red Ames had a rep as a hard thrower. This is something that I really like about OOTP. When you start a league with players from many years ago you not only play the great game but you learn about it as well. Just another benefit to being a OOTP'er.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

BTW, for the record, put me in the camp that believes the pitchers from 100 years ago could throw just as hard as pitchers today. But let's say they didn't. It wouldn't make them any less effective. If a pitcher from a 100 years ago could hit his spots and change speeds, which is what pitching is all about in the first place, he'll still win games. A left handed batter in 2011 will have just as hard of a time with Eddie Plank's side arm curve, if he can get it over the plate, as a hitter did in 1911.

Part of what I perceive the problems are in these discussions are the perceptions on one side or the other of the existence of disrespect. For example, when I suggest that it's likely that the population of pitchers as a whole threw with less velocity 100 years ago than the population as a whole does today I do not mean any disrespect to pitchers of 100 years ago. They pitched in their environment, which did not include the advantages of current day medicine and training techniques, but did include heavier/wetter baseballs and darkinging late innings and higher mounds and different aspects of sportsmanship and, yes, attitude. Pitchers _100 years from now_ may well throw faster on the whole than those of _today_ for some of the exact same reasons. Or not. But, no, it won't make pitchers today any less effective than they are/were, primarily because they are facing hitters of their own era--who maybe are a shade less strong (as a group), or have a little less batspeed due to poor swing mechanics and heavier bats, or get more tired out toward the end of the year due to less rigerous training programs. Both sides of the game grow at their own rates.

Regardless, some of the more interesting aspects of both Sabermetrics and basic round-the-campfire fantalk are all about transforming equivalent performances between eras. Numbers are just one way of doing it--albeit, in my mind, they are considerably powerful.

But if you're hearing any statistically minded baseball fan (and I mean those last two words) say something using numbers that you think is disrespecting historical baseball players, you're probably missing their point. Walter Johnson earned and deserves his place in the pantheon of baseball history regardless of whether he threw 91 or 93 or 98 or 112. Rapid Robert clearly deserves his place in history as one of the hardest throwers in the game regardless of how hard he threw because he was clearly a among the fastest pitchers of his time. He and Tom Seaver are, for whatever reason, two of my most favorite pitchers of all-time, with Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax barely behind. Did he throw 100? 102? 104? Dunno. Don't care. His legend is firm with me, though my science-inclinded guess is that he was a little slower than that, but seemed so much faster because the relative population of major league fastballs was considerably slower. Am I right? Impossible to tell. But my argument is backed up by a lot of circumstantial evidence from other sporting environments and other evolutionary evidence in other fields. Still, I have a small element inside me that HOPES my scientific-inclinded mind is wrong, because I would absolutely love to believe that the historical giants literally threw so hard that hitters "couldn't see it" despite the fact that this is kinda literally impossible until maybe you get into some Einsteinian speeds, anyway.

Bottom line: If Feller and Johnson threw 100, outstanding. But if Feller or Johnson threw "only" 94, but threw 94 consistently while everyone else threw 87, then that is just as an outstanding achievement as throwing 102 today is everyone else is throwing 95.

[RchW]

Thanks for putting my thoughts on this into better prose than I could.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Always keep in mind that velocity, in and of itself, is of no value if a pitcher has no other pitch to keep hitters off balance. The benefit of velocity is only realized when a pitcher can throw something else to throw off the timing of the hitter. A faster pitcher will tend to have a greater disparity in speed between his fastball and secondary pitch, be it a curve ball, slider, or straight change. A hitter that guesses wrong has a much harder time catching up to a 97 mph fastball than he will an 87 mph fastball.

Remember it's not about how fast the pitch is, but how fast it looks. To give just one example, Doug Drabek had great breaking stuff. Those who saw him pitch know that at his best he could get any variation of his breaking pitches over any time he wished. Hitters went to the plate knowing this. After Drabek threw a hitter three or four curves and sliders, when he came in with his 89 mph fastball it might as well have been 189 mph. The hitters would be swinging when the ball was in the catcher's mitt because they were so far behind the pitch.

Read about any HOF pitcher and a common trait they all share is they had excellent secondary pitches and (with a few noteworthy exceptions) control. If being a great pitcher was all about velocity, then Kyle Farnsworth would be a first ballot HOFer instead of the punch line to jokes.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Always keep in mind that velocity, in and of itself, is of no value if a pitcher has no other pitch to keep hitters off balance. The benefit of velocity is only realized when a pitcher can throw something else to throw off the timing of the hitter. A faster pitcher will tend to have a greater disparity in speed between his fastball and secondary pitch, be it a curve ball, slider, or straight change. A hitter that guesses wrong has a much harder time catching up to a 97 mph fastball than he will an 87 mph fastball.

Remember it's not about how fast the pitch is, but how fast it looks. To give just one example, Doug Drabek had great breaking stuff. Those who saw him pitch know that at his best he could get any variation of his breaking pitches over any time he wished. Hitters went to the plate knowing this. After Drabek threw a hitter three or four curves and sliders, when he came in with his 89 mph fastball it might as well have been 189 mph. The hitters would be swinging when the ball was in the catcher's mitt because they were so far behind the pitch.

Read about any HOF pitcher and a common trait they all share is they had excellent secondary pitches and (with a few noteworthy exceptions) control. If being a great pitcher was all about velocity, then Kyle Farnsworth would be a first ballot HOFer instead of the punch line to jokes.

Another good example was mentioned earlier in the thread, that minor league guy who threw 106. The reason he was a minor leaguer most people have only vaguely heard of is that he might have thrown 106 mph, but he could barely hit a barn door with it.