Master Index of Archived Threads


Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

TheOldMole Apr 28 2010 01:18 PM

Since I'm the oldest one here (possible exception MFS62), I wonder if we're the last generation to secretly think only pussies can't pitch complete games, or of that attitude persists at all.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 28 2010 01:36 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

I can respect that. But how do you feel about bunting?

G-Fafif Apr 28 2010 01:37 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Your conviction is shared by at least one member of the generation that came of age with Tom Seaver (IP 9).

Benjamin Grimm Apr 28 2010 01:43 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

I was born in 1963, and I'd also like to see more complete games. I think the pussies, though, are the managers who cling to pitch counts and save situations. I would suspect a lot of pitchers would like to be able to finish what they start. (Though some may be so young that the thought never occurs to them.)

Ashie62 Apr 28 2010 01:50 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

1959 here..I like 4 man rotations and complete games. I somehow think pitch counts are included in the collective bargaining agreement.

Edgy DC Apr 28 2010 01:55 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Yeah, the issue to me isn't anymore that guys can't pitch nine; it's that they can't pitch seven. And it's not so much that they can't pitch seven; it's that they aren't allowed to pitch seven. In the book I'm reading about the journeyman minor league pitcher, the guy is the mopup pitcher for an A-ball team. They are a juggernaut the first half, and he's happy to be along for the ride. But the second half of the season, the better players get promoted, and they become a punching bag. He's getting a little comfort that everybody is as bad as him. So, their first-half championship gets them in the playoffs, and they somehow get some heart and sweep the series. Their top starter, though, gets hurt in the third game, allowing our hero some of his patented mopup innings. When his team makes the championship series, they take games one and two. The manager takes him aside and tells him that, if the series goes five, he's the starter in the last game. He shrugs, but wouldn't you know it, they lose the next game and he craps his pants that it's all on him. But he shocks himself by pitching the game of his professional life. Giving up one hit through six, with a 1-0 lead, he's pulled. OF COURSE the bullpen coughs up the lead and they lose the championship. OF COURSE they do. The sad part for me is that he wasn't even cheesed off at being pulled. Six innings is all that was being asked of him, even though he was the inning-eating least valuable of prospects, even though it was the last game of the season, even though all the marbles were on the line. For his entire professional life --- for his entire life, perhaps --- six innings was all anybody asked of a starter.

Ceetar Apr 28 2010 02:07 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I was born in 1963, and I'd also like to see more complete games. I think the pussies, though, are the managers who cling to pitch counts and save situations. I would suspect a lot of pitchers would like to be able to finish what they start. (Though some may be so young that the thought never occurs to them.) They're taught that it's not up to them, that 100 pitches is okay, etc. And as a result only have the arm strength for 100 pitches, and every foul ball and full count is treated as a failure. Guess what? If it takes you 6 pitches to get Pujols out cause you had to tease him with some balls, that's fine. Pelfrey two starts ago said he wanted to pitch the 8th, but that it wasn't his decision. (This was the start after the save) He says his body bounces back really well. He kinda implied that he could pitch on short rest with no problem. To me, not letting this guy throw 130+ pitches is just asking to fail, especially if the bullpen ever stops being awesome. You gotta make use of the guys that can go long. More so than the pitch counts though, some guys get stronger/smarter as the game goes along. Get more comfortable. I hate when managers take out a guy the inning after a 9 pitching domination inning, just because he's got 98 or 103 pitches. (My 'generation' doesn't remember '86 very well, just as a bench mark here..)

attgig Apr 28 2010 02:13 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

so, then I guess everyone here likes what Nolan Ryan is doing with the texas pitching staff, huh? except, I think everyone here has talked about how much dusty baker screws up young arms ie Prior & Wood. So, which one is it? Was dusty baker right even though prior and wood are where they are now?

Ceetar Apr 28 2010 02:21 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

attgig wrote: so, then I guess everyone here likes what Nolan Ryan is doing with the texas pitching staff, huh? except, I think everyone here has talked about how much dusty baker screws up young arms ie Prior & Wood. So, which one is it? Was dusty baker right even though prior and wood are where they are now? Didn't Rick Peterson avoid drafting Prior because he had an arm angle that was prone to injury or something?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 28 2010 02:31 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

There's a reasonable deployment of pitch-count as a tool, and there's unreasonable, counterproductive fixation on it. Pitchers get hurt a lot, yes. They always have, and after two decades or so of drastically cut-back workloads, they continue to do so. Young pitchers? Fine, monitor them closely as they build the ability to handle a bigger workload. Pitchers recovering from injuries (especially joint or repetitive-strain injuries)? By all means, keep them on a strict count... as they rebuild strength. And-- this is where Baker comes in-- guys who've just gone out and shouldered a heavy workload the last time or two out... okay, I can see putting a demi-arbitrary cap on their workday. But the cart has kinda been leading this horse for a while.

A Boy Named Seo Apr 28 2010 02:33 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Ceetar wrote: attgig wrote: so, then I guess everyone here likes what Nolan Ryan is doing with the texas pitching staff, huh? except, I think everyone here has talked about how much dusty baker screws up young arms ie Prior & Wood. So, which one is it? Was dusty baker right even though prior and wood are where they are now? Didn't Rick Peterson avoid drafting Prior because he had an arm angle that was prone to injury or something? Not unless he was working for the Twins. They drafted Mauer #1 and the Cubs got Prior #2.

Edgy DC Apr 28 2010 02:48 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

attgig wrote: so, then I guess everyone here likes what Nolan Ryan is doing with the texas pitching staff, huh? except, I think everyone here has talked about how much dusty baker screws up young arms ie Prior & Wood. So, which one is it? Was dusty baker right even though prior and wood are where they are now? Somewhere in between and on a case-by-case basis. A few importantant variables: [list][*]Young pitchers should perhaps be on shorter leashes than veteran pitchers.[/*:m] [*]As a pitcher grows through his career, you note how his arm responds to small challenges and you grow the challenges in part based on that.[/*:m] [*]Pitches in high-leverage situations can punish a pitcher more than pitches in low-leverage ones.[/*:m][/list:u] These are things many good managers --- but not all --- knew intuitively, and acted on. Tom Seaver would be the first to tell you that Rube Walker had his pitchers on a pitch count but each pitcher would be on a different one. And Walker counted everything --- spring training pitches, warmup pitches, pickoff pitches. It's the one-size-fits-all thing that's so discouraging, as it doesn't help win games, but rather provides coverage for the manager if his guy does get hurt.

Gwreck Apr 28 2010 03:43 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Prior was in the draft out of high school but didn't sign (he was drafted by the MFYs) and instead went to USC. That being said, there's no reference that I can recall re: Peterson and the drafting of Prior.

RealityChuck Apr 28 2010 04:15 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Started watching baseball in 1961 (one year too early, alas -- though I did get to be at the ballpark to see Roger hit #61). I wish there were more complete games, but I know it's not going to happen. Pitchers used to be able to coast just a bit -- to throw easier stuff to the weaker batters. Now, you have to hit 90+ on your fastball with every pitch. Much more work, more stress, and ultimately tired arms. Also, having a fresh pitcher makes sense -- pitch count or not. The only thing that I'll miss is the end of the 300-game winner.

G-Fafif Apr 28 2010 04:29 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Mostly I am saddened TIm Lincecum did not pitch a complete game today.

TheOldMole Apr 28 2010 08:29 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

The real arm burner was Billy Martin with Oakland, pretty much wiping Lankford, Norris, McCatty and Keough in one season. The other was the 1947 Boston Red Sox, who pretty much wiped out their pitching staff, particularly Boo Ferriss and Tex Hughson. Still and all, that's two pitching staffs in 40 years.

Edgy DC Apr 28 2010 08:38 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Some degree of honorable mention has to go to Davey Johnson, though, for throwing Dwight Gooden 219 and 276 innings his first two season --- at 19 and 20. As wonderful as his 1985 was, I think Earl Weaver would have gotten him out of there a few more times.

dinosaur jesus Apr 28 2010 10:17 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

It's hard to say what Earl Weaver would have done with Doc. The only really obviously gifted young pitcher he ever had--the only one you could even compare to Gooden at that age--was Dennis Martinez, and he eased him into a starting role. But that was on a staff that was already loaded. And he had Palmer, just a couple years off arm surgery, pitching 300 innings.

Edgy DC Apr 29 2010 07:04 AM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

That's well taken, but I think it's worth noting also that (a) that was Palmer's fourth MLB season, and (b) Palmer may have been the object lesson that led to him taking it easier on Martinez later on. Casey Stengel seems to have brough Whitey Ford along at a good pace.

Ceetar Apr 29 2010 07:30 AM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Gwreck wrote: Prior was in the draft out of high school but didn't sign (he was drafted by the MFYs) and instead went to USC. That being said, there's no reference that I can recall re: Peterson and the drafting of Prior. This is out of the recesses of my memory. (Maybe it was Wood, or some other similar guy) I remember Peterson being interviewed (by I think Ed Randall) and mentioned Prior/whoever and saying he was identified early as being a guy likely for an injury. (Just because he didn't draft him doesn't mean he didn't evaulate him as a potential guy should he drop to Oakland/wherever he was at the time)

Ceetar Apr 29 2010 07:36 AM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Looks like it wasn't specifically a draft thing. Peterson is a pretty smart guy and a pioneer in this injury evaluation stuff. I'd love for him to work for the Mets in a talent evaulation type role. This stuff is kinda interesting, breaking down which pitchers are at risk for injuries. (It's interesting how many pitching injuries the Mets had last year, the first full year without Peterson...hmm... ) [url]http://fullcountpitch.com/2010/01/25/arms-race-the-last-hope-for-small-market-teams/ Interesting article at least, and there is a whole bunch of artilces on that site with Peterson it seems. One only has to look at Mark Prior for the most recent example of a talented pitcher’s career getting extinguished because of injury. In fact, Prior’s injuries could’ve been avoided. It was known that Prior had a mechanical flaw in his delivery that put an inordinate amount of stress on his elbow and shoulder. Essentially, the talented Prior was a ticking time bomb to be injured. It wasn’t a matter of if, it was just when it would happen. Rick Peterson believes that Prior’s injuries could’ve been avoided. “The technology is there for a pitcher to get an analysis of 14 different risk factors in a delivery”, states Peterson, “If there is even one flaw in a delivery, you are essentially a car with a leak in the oil pan. Eventually, you will run out of oil.” If the technology and the supporting data are indeed available, why are organizations still paying close attention to pitch count and innings limits?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 29 2010 08:46 AM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

RealityChuck wrote: Started watching baseball in 1961 (one year too early, alas -- though I did get to be at the ballpark to see Roger hit #61). I wish there were more complete games, but I know it's not going to happen. Pitchers used to be able to coast just a bit -- to throw easier stuff to the weaker batters. Now, you have to hit 90+ on your fastball with every pitch. Much more work, more stress, and ultimately tired arms. Also, having a fresh pitcher makes sense -- pitch count or not. Chuck raises an intriguing point. Isn't it more than just possible-- hell, isn't it probable-- that hitters have gotten better at doing their jobs far faster than pitchers have at theirs, and that this relative increase in skill/power shifts the cost-benefit scale of having a fresh arm in considerably? (You could probably make a pretty good case that there's more of a ceiling for improvement among batters, as swing mechanics don't seem to have reached their apex, while the standard pitching motion remains as unnatural and straining to the human body as it ever has.) Me and my Google is looking for some evidents...

Edgy DC Apr 29 2010 08:52 AM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

That wouldn't address why pitchers are being pulled when they're not failing, not tiring, and not generally worse than the guy replacing them.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 29 2010 09:14 AM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 29 2010 12:07 PM

Fair enough. But it is a reason why it might make more sense in more situations these days to get your Sparky Anderson on. (A legit reason, unlike injury prevention, pitch counts' aid of which seems to be largely hokum.) OE: It's a good thing we don't believe in the Geneva Conventions anymore-- that's one tortured sentence.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2010 09:42 AM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: RealityChuck wrote: Started watching baseball in 1961 (one year too early, alas -- though I did get to be at the ballpark to see Roger hit #61). I wish there were more complete games, but I know it's not going to happen. Pitchers used to be able to coast just a bit -- to throw easier stuff to the weaker batters. Now, you have to hit 90+ on your fastball with every pitch. Much more work, more stress, and ultimately tired arms. Also, having a fresh pitcher makes sense -- pitch count or not. Chuck raises an intriguing point. Isn't it more than just possible-- hell, isn't it probable-- that hitters have gotten better at doing their jobs far faster than pitchers have at theirs, and that this relative increase in skill/power shifts the cost-benefit scale of having a fresh arm in considerably? (You could probably make a pretty good case that there's more of a ceiling for improvement among batters, as swing mechanics don't seem to have reached their apex, while the standard pitching motion remains as unnatural and straining to the human body as it ever has.) Me and my Google is looking for some evidents... I've always thought that this is exactly the reason why pitchers pitch less innings today. Pitching is demanding enough, both mentally and physically, that a pitcher simply cannot go all out on every single pitch. Pitchers pace themselves much like a basketball team that can't full court press all game long because if it tried to, its players would have to be lifted and then carted off of the hardwood before a third of the game is over. Stadiums were more forgiving, and there were more Ed Brinkmans, Roger Metzgers and Bud Harrelsons to go around on every team; this gave pitchers more soft spots. Pitching used to be less demanding. Today's athlete is superior to the one of 25 or 30 years ago; improved muscle conditioning has aided hitting more than pitching as the correlation between strength and the ability to pitch, or even to throw harder is weak to non-existent. Bud Harrelson might not make it as a major leaguer today and if he did, there's no way he'd be allowed to accumulate anywhere nearly as many plate appearances as he did in his day. Today's pitcher has to bear down harder and more often than his counterpart of 30 or 40 years ago. This reduces their lasting power.

MFS62 Apr 30 2010 10:07 AM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Just saw this thread. A few comments: Mole, the first major league game I attended was in 1949. I was six. I like the four man rotation, too. Why are managers pulling pitchers who are pitching a good game? That's the key. One reason I haven't noticed in the thread is the development of the "relief specialist". When Jim Konstanty pitched in 70 or so games in 1950, it was unheard of at the time. Up to that time, starters were supposed to pitch complete games. They were relieved only if they weren't pitching well, or if the manager needed to pinch hit for them. (That many pitchers were very good hitters in those days is maybe the subject of another thread.) Relief pitchers were guys (according to Jim Brosnan and other writers of the time) who couldn't make it as a starter, coming back from injury or were at the ends of their careers. But the complete game vs relievers arguement since then is to me a chicken/egg problem. Are the managers using relievers because the pitchers aren't being given the chance to pitch more innings? Players used to spend up to 7 years before they became major league regulars (4 in the minors before having to be added to the major league rosters, then three option years). They were more mature when finally being asked to become major league starters, and probably stronger. able to carry the work load. Now, pitchers may be younger and not as developed. There were relievers used in the past as closers. One writer made a comment that Whitey Ford should pay Luis Arroyo 2/9 of his salary, since Whitey only pitched seven innings, and Luis pitched the final two. But it was, IIRC, Tony LaRussa who was the first manager to use "situational relievers". That was really the beginning of what we see today. Are the current starters "pussies"? The game has changed. Being "strong up the middle" meant defensively. Teams carried catchers, second basemen, shortstops, and in some cases centerfielders (Bobby del Greco, Bill Virdon, Bill Tuttle - type players) for their gloves and any offense they provided was considered a plus. Nowadays, those positions also provide offensive skills. Add in that silly AL rule, and pitchers have to work harder through the lineup. Its not just that hitters may or may not be better. Its just that there are more of them in the lineups. Its tougher. But, to agree with Edgy, if a pitcher is doing OK, there should be no reason to pull him out of the game. I find it interesting that the managers who say they are doing that to protect the starter's arms fail to mention the effect on the arms in the bullpen. Sorry if I rambled. After all, I AM an old man. :) Later

seawolf17 Apr 30 2010 10:12 AM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

I think there's also the fear of failure. Remember Boston's "closer by committee" a few years back? You can't think outside the box here, because if you're wrong, you're going to get killed by the media and the fans, right or wrong. You need to have a closer, an 8th inning guy, a LOOGY, etc. Feckin' drives me crazy that a closer (I'm talking about you, Billy Effin Wagner) can't get three outs with a four-run lead because he "needs that adrenaline." Really, Bill? Just fecking pretend it's a three run lead, okay, jackass? Take your eyes off the scoreboard and put them on the catcher's glove. Manager says you're pitching, you get in the game and get your outs.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 30 2010 03:40 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

seawolf17 wrote: Feckin' drives me crazy that a closer (I'm talking about you, Billy Effin Wagner) can't get three outs with a four-run lead because he "needs that adrenaline." Really, Bill? Just fecking pretend it's a three run lead, okay, jackass? Take your eyes off the scoreboard and put them on the catcher's glove. Manager says you're pitching, you get in the game and get your outs. Wagner was full of shit. He didn't want to waste his finite chances to get into a game on non-save situations, to the point of lying to management because his pursuit of personal statistics mattered more than his team's goals. So he made up some unbelievable dog ate my homework crap about not being able to pitch with a large lead. Its' funny how starting pitchers never complain about pitching with big leads. The sad thing is that Wagner is probably more of the rule than the exception as far as this goes. Fuck him if he said that.

Gwreck Apr 30 2010 08:12 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

I thought the "tough to get the adrenaline going" quote was from JJ Putz about pitching in the 8th instead of the 9th.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 30 2010 08:16 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Gwreck wrote: I thought the "tough to get the adrenaline going" quote was from JJ Putz about pitching in the 8th instead of the 9th. Well then fuck Putz if Putz said that. Do you think that Niese complained tonight about the Mets scoring too many runs? "Ooooh. Ooooh. Stop hitting all those Home Runs. I can't hold a big lead. I'm talking to you, Rod!"

Edgy DC Apr 30 2010 08:20 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

I think we need to figure out who said what, not that I don't beleive that attitude runs rampant.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 30 2010 08:21 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Edgy DC wrote: I think we need to figure out who said what, not that I don't beleive that attitude runs rampant. Fuck anybody who said that!

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 30 2010 08:23 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Putz said he couldn't get it up in the 8th. Wagner said he couldn't get it up if it wasn't a save situation. Fuck both of them.

Edgy DC Apr 30 2010 08:36 PM Re: Talkin' about my G-G-G-G-Generation

Which we fortunately did. Funny how it was not long ago that many folks were saying fuck the Mets for not doing right by Putz. I wonder where those folks got to.