I think that the AL DH rule is partly to blame, too. AL pitchers can, and do, throw high and tight, knowing full well that they don't have to go stand in the box and and get a taste of their own medicine.
I am glad that others are making the arguments about the fallacy of the HBP ratio. If you look at the figures, the decades of the '30s and 40's (those when Auker was pitching and talking about Ps owning the plate) are when the ratio showed the LOWEST ratio for HBP to IP. I would argue that that means that hitters KNEW they didn't belong on top of the plate, DIDN'T dig in and ALWAYS made an attempt to avoid getting plunked. Was it better baseball? Guess that depends in what you like about the game. I would hypothosize that one of the reasons Ruth has stood for as long as he has a hitter non-pariel is that not only did he hit 60 HR, but did it in an era when NO ONE was hitting HRs. Personally, the HR has lost its luster simply because it has become so commonplace. Does a day go by without at least 4 or 5? Today's SB is the HR of the early 20th century, as far as scarcity. Unfortunately, SB does not always equal a run on the board, so it is not as "glamorous". To me, a 1-0 game, the one run having been manufactured, is a classic game. To others, the best game is a 13-11 HR fest. I am not in a position to judge who is right, but I think we all would agree the the managers in the latter are wrong, either for having left starting Ps in way to long, or not having a corps of relivers who could stop the hemmoraging.
Grum: here's another example where you can't tell the story with numbers alone. The HBP count hasn't gone up because pitchers today own the inside part of the plate as much as they used to. They've gone up because (a) pitching quality is thinner and more guys with absolutely no control are making it to the majors; (b) batters, knowing the pitchers can't come inside, are digging in and crowding the plate much more than they used to; and (c) today's players are wearing body armor that reduces their fear of being hit (and umps aren't following the rules about a player having to make a serious attempt to avoid being hit). a) the pitching "quality" may be thinner, but there are far more pitchers that can throw +95mph heat than ever before. Therefore, this "harder and wilder" is far more dangerous than in previous times, and the batters have got to know this. b) if the batters know the pitchers are "harder and wilder", they aren't digging in because they know they won't get hit. They are digging in because they accept they MIGHT get hit, which is still getting on base (see Biggio, Reed Johnson). If batters know that getting hit is part of the game, no amount of "Gibson intimidation" is going to work. If you weren't worried about a Seattle-era Randy Johnson throwing 99mph and only being SOMEWHAT sure that it MIGHT be across the plate on ANY pitch, then I don't see where Gibson's "threat" of knocking a batter down on a deliberate pitch is that fearful. c) You can wear all the elbow pads and wrist guards you want, but until they allow hockey face masks on the batting helmets, a runaway fastball is still going to be a dangerous thing. The reason I posted the stats was that I wanted to kill the idea that the 1940s/50s/60s were some sort of wild-west judgement time where pitchers extracted revenge on batters for leaning across the plate. It may have occassionally happened, but I think nostalgia and "it was different in my time"-ness tends to exaggerate that point. Unfortunately, SB does not always equal a run on the board, so it is not as "glamorous". Well, until they offer style points to teams for "glamourous" plays, there is no reason for baseball teams to waste opportunities to score runs by making low-percentage (and low-payout) plays.
grum, I meant in the minds of some fans, since an SB doesn't guarantee a run, and an HR guarantees at least 1, is it not as 'glamorous'. I know there are no style points, and with a large number of HR the SB loses even more value.
Grum: Your responses to my points all sound valid. I don't know how to respond to them except to say that I've been involved in conversations with just about every living Hall of Fame pitcher, and none of them have ever said that pitching inside is just as easy today as it was when they were pitching. They all seem to think it's a lost art, and for a wide variety of reasons. I think this is particularly poignant, since players are more inclined to tell you that their job was tougher when they were playing than it is today, not easier. Frank Robinson called pitching inside a lost art in 2000 when he was the "Dean of Discipline" for MLB, attributing it to the fact that hitters were more inclined to charge the mound than they used to be. (Ironically, Robinson's club leads the majors in HBP this season, due largely to high totals from Ramon Ortiz and Tony Armas, Jr. -- whatever that means. Livan Hernandez only had two when he was traded.) Mound charging doesn't seem to be that prevalent anymore, but I do still think it is more than nostalgia that is bringing people to comment on how much the hitters own the inside part of the plate now. Umpires are throwing warnings out at the drop of a hat, and hitters definitely crowd the plate a lot. And many batters ask for time from the ump as they approach the plate just so they can deliberately dig in. Gibson and Drysdale had very similar reputations, but Drysdale hit a lot more batters on average than Hoot. A lot more. I just don't think HBP tells enough of the story about how willing pitchers are to come inside or who owns that portion of the plate.
