Today's lowered mound and smaller strike zone have certainly made it more difficult for starters today. But this has not resulted in more walks or hits per game in the NL. What I think the lowered mound has done is put more stress on pitchers' arms. Tim McCarver believes that if they raised it back up, arm injuries and TJ surgeries would go down. I think he's right. At any rate, perhaps the added stress tires out pitchers earlier in games today and this is one reason why they don't pitch more innings.

Also, I happened to download and listen to Bill Simmons' BS Report and he interviewed Joe Sheehan from BP. They actually sort of discussed this topic and Sheehan brought up another great point. The mounds were higher and the strike zones were bigger.

"Throwing the helmet was not good. I know that's not the right way to do it, but at that time I lost it."

Heat of the moment decisions stink sometimes…

The increased power of some of today's hitters and the smaller parks have resulted in more runs per game, but apparently not in more batters faced as walk and hit rates have remained constant. Therefore I don't think the pitch counts have been adversely effected by this, unless the starters are throwing more pitches per batters faced as a result. But I don't know what that number is.

Randolph came from the Yankees, where the championship teams of the late '70s and the late '90s were packed with hard-nosed winners. He believes he shouldn't need to motivate or fire up big-league players, because his teams never needed that.

In principle, he's right. He shouldn't need to remind major-league players that it's important to raise their games in big spots, or not to take games or at-bats off.

But unfortunately for Randolph, his players are soft. His players are the types who don't raise their games in big spots, who do take at-bats off. His players coast through long stretches of the season, assuming their talent will carry them through without any extra effort or emotion on their part. His players are not self-motivators, and they are a group that might respond well to being scared every now and then.

By now—after the playoff flop of 2006, the historic meltdown of '07 and the sleepy start to '08—Randolph should understand this, and he should be doing something about it. He is not.

The players in the Mets' clubhouse remain happy and comfortable. For 11 months now, they've been perfectly comfortable playing .500 baseball. Something needs to change that, and it's the manager's job to figure out what.

If he doesn't, Willie Randolph could find himself out of a job with himself to blame.

This is just shooting off the cuff, but I would imagine Seaver could take things down a notch against the 7,8,9 hitters in his day and not get burned. As tomg mentioned, you lose focus for a batter and it could be trouble.

I also agree with JK that comparing pitchers to Seaver is absurd. Seaver was probably the greatest pitcher of the modern era, especially considering the taint on Clemens' career.

I'm sure Seaver pitched many complete games without going much over the 100 pitch count. After all, Webb's latest complete game took him only 104 pitches. But I'd bet Seaver also had a ton of outings where he threw 130-140 pitches. Maybe even more.

The walk and hit rates have remained extremely consistent in the NL from Seaver's time up to now. So I don't think it's the lineups (at least not in the NL) running up the pitch counts early … nor is it that pitchers walked fewer in Seaver's days. Today's pitchers are striking out batters at a slightly higher rate. So this is perhaps one reason for the higher pitch counts earlier in games.

But I think the biggest reasons for the stricter pitch count limits today are the ones everyone else has already mentioned—a different mentality due to free agency and big contracts, the specialization of the bullpen, and simply a more cautious approach to pitchers' health. Which is good. I don't agree with the Dusty Baker scorched earth approach to pitching.

Oh and by the way the innings by relief is about the same so let us have the same season as last but worst.

So what does this mean? Alou was playing so I think that has a lot to do with the hitting. Also Jose was better.

As for the pitching I guess it boils down to Johan vs Tom/El Duque.

So boys and girls the numbers so far are against us.

I've been following baseball since the late 60's and I do agree with you that baseball has changed to have more offense. Whether it's the baseball itself or how baseball has made the newer stadiums to be more hitter friendly or how they changed the mound to benefit the hitters and how all positions in the field have better hitters over all. The power back in the day was either first, third or the corner outfield. Today any position in the game can hit for power.

And it could throw the rest of his contract down the drain. Wasting tens of millions. That's how free agency has made today's circumstances different. So owners need to protect their investment.

Besides, today's pitchers are likely to push back. To revolt. If you have a pitcher you value and want to keep when he's eligible for free agency, you have to keep him happy. The players union has been pretty powerful in modern times and will also back players on many labor-management issues.

I like to go by homestands and road trips. And despite the poor play at times of the team, I had them at 19-15 at this point (2 rain outs that they would need to win to be at the record I expected).

Mets have had the better of Nats this yr and they were 5-2 against the Reds last yr. They need to keep beating up the bad teams (8-3 against Nats, Marlins, Bucs) but do just a little better against the better ones (9-12 against Cubs, Brewers, Az, LAD, Atl, and Phils; but 6-5 against Atl, Phils).

I watched those games. and burning out a player? Thats the player's choice. Back then a Pitcher knew if he was out of steam. These guys get paid a ton to do what they do. Its as i said earlier. There's only one Quaterback used in anyone game unless the QB gets injured. Otherwise he is in it for the long haul. And where his "pitch" count maybe slightly lower. he's also needs to run and not get sacked.

With that.. I think its important that a pitcher pitch as much of the game as possible until they are unable to get it over the plate. or they are taken out for a tactic. not a necessity.

But i am just a dinosaur when it comes to the game ;-)

if you are an owner who wants to make money it doesnt matter much if they are free agents or not. yes your costs go up but a star is a star. stars bring in the fans who bring in the money.

you dont destroy your product.

its as simple as that.

I also disagree on the basic premise of the pitchers. I keep talking about how they are treated by the organization and trained. no one responds to that. just keeps the refrain about 100 pitch count and all that nonsense.

so i am done with this topic

Yeah, because who cares if you burn a player out since they were essentially indentured servants. Pre-FA salaries were much lower and teams treated these guys like race horses. Mickey Mantle got a pay cut after winning the Triple Crown because his numbers were actually worse than the year before.

It's also a lot easier to throw complete games when teams had punch & judy hitters at SS, C, 2B, and CF. These days even the 2B can take you downtown. There are no easy outs anymore. Tom Terrific could probably blow through the bottom of an order on 9 pitches or less. That stuff doesn't happen anymore.