The media rarely refer to the height of the mound. When comparing players from different eras, it might be mentioned in passing but its significance is passed over, which is one reason fans, especially younger fans, simply accept today's offensive numbers at face value. Fans want offense and want to believe that the results reflect the batter's skills, which they do, but if one compares Sandy Koufax to Randy Johnson, one must acknowledge that Koufax had the advantage of a higher mound. Pitchers facing Barry Bonds don't have the same mound height advantage as the pitchers who faced Ted Williams.
The top twenty five percent of today's pitchers are the greatest in the game's history. That is not to say that Randy Johnson is better than Sandy Koufax or that Roger Clemens is better than Bob Feller because they are not, but as a group, today's best pitchers have more ability than the top pitchers of any era. It is a conclusion based on the inference that if today's pitchers' accomplishments are achieved under conditions so favorable to the batter, they would do so much better under the conditions that existed fifty years ago if they were allowed to. But lowering the height of the pitching mound was just the beginning and it was not enough because the pitchers were still too good. In 1972, American League teams averaged only 3.47 runs a game, which was unacceptable. Offense had to be increased, which meant that once again, something had to be done and once again, it involved the pitcher, only this time, it didn't seem to involve the pitcher's pitching, but upon closer examination, it involved that and much more.
References:
Vecsey, George. (1968). Baseball rules committee makes 3 decisions to produce more hits and runs. New York Times. December 4, 1968. p. 57.
http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballl...
http://popularmechanics.com/science/spor...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/st...
http://nobelprize.org/medicine/education...
