Underrated? I say Overrated.

This is kind of a chicken and egg question - did guys pitch 300 innings because it was a pitchers era, or was it a pitchers era because guys pitched 300 innings? The main reason the 60's was a pitchers era is because, well, there were great pitchers in that era. You had Koufax, Gibson, Marichal, etc. The higher mound may have been one factor to consider, but that does not account for everything. Also, pitchers were throwing 300+ innings prior to the 60's, so that fact is not peculiar to the time.

I agree the game has changed. It's not Pedro's fault that he plays now, and it's not Koufax's fault that he played in the 60's. But you have to account for all the factors, and one of those is that Koufax pitched a lot more innings in his great seasons. More innings means more value.

And I agree that Koufax would be treated differently today and rightly so. In some respects, they were pretty short-sighted with how they pitched him so much. On the other hand, I think some pitchers can handle more innings than others. It seems like the smaller and skinnier guys (like Pedro and Koufax) have more arm troubles. But I think there are other pitchers today who could be pitching alot more innings. But what team is going to take that chance with the millions of dollars at stake? Personally, I miss the days of complete games and shutouts.

 

You're right, just throwing an inning isn't impressive. But to throw 300 innings effectively is impressive. Think of this wild contrast - if you could choose between a pitcher who could throw 7 good innings every 5th day vs. a pitcher who could throw 7 good innings every day (and not hurt his arm), who would you take? Of course you would take the latter.

All I'm saying is that more innings of effective pitching means more value. And that's what you have to factor in, when comparing guys from different eras. I don't think it's as simple as you initially laid out - i.e., Pedro's ERA was better relative to the league average, ergo he was better.