Poll
| 54 votes (69.23%) | ||
| 2 votes (2.56%) | ||
| 5 votes (6.41%) | ||
| 5 votes (6.41%) | ||
| 9 votes (11.53%) | ||
| 2 votes (2.56%) | ||
| 1 vote (1.28%) |
78 members have voted
Quote: lilredrooster.
Koufax threw 4 no hitters including a perfect game in only 12 seasons
Martinez never threw a no hitter in 18 seasons
Randy Johnson had 2 no hitters in 20 seasons
Ron Guidry never pitched a no hitter in 14 seasons
Koufax had 3 out 12 years with an era of under 2.00
Martinez did that in 2 out of 18 years
Johnson did that in 1 out of 20 years (and he only pitched in 11 games that year)
Guidry did that in 1 out of 14 years
of those other 3 pitchers Randy Johnson was the only one to win a World Series MVP
Koufax had two
Koufax had more strikeouts per year than Guidry or Martinez - Randy Johnson had more per year than Koufax
for whatever reason, I'm not sure what it is, Koufax was only mediocre or a little better than mediocre until the 1962 season
from 1962 to the end of his career he was spectacular (the 5 year run that you mentioned)
Koufax didn't retire for murky reasons
he had severe arthritis in his pitching elbow and clearly stated that he worried that if he continued to pitch his body would be degraded to a level unacceptable to him
your point about Koufax not facing designated hitters is a good one
link to original post
The early 1960s were a pitcher's game. The bottom of every lineup was usually a weak-hitting catcher, a weak-hitting shortstop, followed by a pitcher. Circular lineups were a generation away. Pedro and RJ faced better lineups, more Latino players, and certainly more performance-enhanced batters.
It's becoming harder to compare stats from different eras. Koufax was a great pitcher in his era, but his stats can't be compared to modern ones. Four-man rotations translated to more wins and strikeouts per season than modern pitching staffs. I never saw Koufax pitch, but watched Seaver and Koosman duel with Gibson, Marichal, and others.
Quote: lilredrooster.
so, the question is - can a fastball rise - ?
some say scientists say that is impossible; some say it's an optical illusion; and some say yes it can rise
take a look at these 2 vids -
stop the action when the ball is halfway there and you will see the ball is well below the top of the artificial batter's box
then watch the catcher catch the ball over the top of the batters box
my conclusion : a fastball can definitely rise
in the last vid a submariner throws a fastball that goes way up -
in fairness to the skeptics - they probably wouldn't consider a submariner to be relevant to the question
but his pitch is quite stunning
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lKzap91cxyc
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pLPq5o0PCgg
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6O4-zyESVpE
.
link to original post
Yes, it can rise. It just rarely does, because of exactly what you noted- most pitchers aren't submariners and the ball is going from a hand 8 feet off the ground to a target 2 feet off the ground. What it's usually doing is rising relative to the parabolic trajectory of a projectile in a gravitational field, which visual processing is very good at compensating for and is what makes it so hard to hit; we have to lose that visual instinct that has been developing in animals since the first bird. So the "illusion" camp is right in a way too. But being we're talking about Newtonian physics where all motion is relative and all directions arbitrary, it does indeed rise, from some reference frame.

