Master Index of Archived Threads


The Forced Extinction of Starting Pitching

Edgy MD May 22 2021 08:59 PM

“With him, this is a guy who's been part of our bullpen now for almost a week,” Rojas said. “We knew that we had him at a point where he was throwing sides as a starter, but not at this point. He wasn't doing that in between starts or anything. Last night we didn't know who was going to start the game, and this morning was when we committed to giving the ball to Lucchesi because he had probably the length that we needed and the four innings, which is what he gave us today. We felt it was safe for him with the ups and downs, and just from our pitching coach's experience and any concern level that we may have just pushing a guy going maybe to a further up-down or pitch count after the four innings without having a side, that's why we ended up going that way. So, we're back to this new artificial barrier of ups and downs. And I just think that we're trapped in realm of madness. How is that even a thing? So much science has crept into the game, that everybody wants to seem like they are part of the science-informed population of the illuminated. But what so many are embracing is pseudo science. Nobody is finding new ways to win — they're finding new excuses for caution. But risk can not be eliminated, only managed and weighed against rewards. That's not happening. Once, not too long ago, a manager asked two questions about his pitcher as he progressed into the game and contemplated removing him. 1. Is he still effective? 2. Do I find myself in an offensive situation where it's more valuable to pinch-hit for him than to leave him in the game? It was great, because if you elected to say yes to the first, and no to the second, you can ask yourself again one batter later, and one batter after that, until you change your mind. You can even go pitch-by-pitch if you want. If you're unsure in answering yes to the first question and no to the second, you get somebody up in the bullpen, and make the decision again a few moments later. But now, the manager is forced to ask himself a litany of questions, most of which have nothing to do with anything. 1. Is my pitcher still effective? 2. Do I find myself in an offensive situation where it's more valuable to pinch-hit for him than to leave him in the game? 3. Is this next hitter a good matchup for him in a tough spot? 4. Has he hit his pitch count? 5. Has he hit his innings count? 6. Has he reached a certain number of times through the order? 7. Have we reached the game/score situation that we have groomed a particular reliever for? 8. Has my starter been “stretched” enough? 9. Has he reached a poiont my coach and I arbitrarily came up with before the game, and inexplicably made a hard rule out of? 10. Has he been pitching more innings than he had at this point last year? All the questions advise you to lean toward the most cautious approach. Managers are managing less for wins and more for things not to blow up on their watches, and the pitchers get shorter and shorter ropes that serve neither them nor the team. Nor the game. Nor me, frankly. If Phil Jackson ever pulled Michael Jordan at halftime because they decided before the game that he only had x amount of shots and/or Y amount of minutes in him, nobody would accept that. Ever. And no, that's not an ideal analogy, because pitching isn't basketball, but still, we're putting up with a counterproductive philosophy permeating through the game. I can't blame Rojas, because I've heard this bullshit from all corners, but I sure wish he was the first to get off this train.

Lefty Specialist May 23 2021 06:00 AM Re: The Forced Extinction of Starting Pitching

So, let's take this in the case of Lucchesi yesterday. 1. Is my pitcher still effective? YES 2. Do I find myself in an offensive situation where it's more valuable to pinch-hit for him than to leave him in the game? NO 3. Is this next hitter a good matchup for him in a tough spot? He'd already handled the upcoming hitters 4. Has he hit his pitch count? 43? Unlikely. 5. Has he hit his innings count? 4? With a bullpen coming off a stressful game? 6. Has he reached a certain number of times through the order? Had only faced the minimum 12 batters. 7. Have we reached the game/score situation that we have groomed a particular reliever for? Teams don't have 5th inning relievers. At least they shouldn't PLAN it that way. 8. Has my starter been “stretched” enough? He'd already thrown 60 pitches in a previous start, so yes. 9. Has he reached a poiont my coach and I arbitrarily came up with before the game, and inexplicably made a hard rule out of? This is possible, but then they're idiots and are not managing to the game situation. 10. Has he been pitching more innings than he had at this point last year? Yes, but this is a guy who had 30 starts in 2019. He's not a kid out of short-season A ball. So even by the new 'rules' he shouldn't have been pulled. At least pitch him 5 innings to make him eligible for the win. This one really annoys me.

bmfc1 May 23 2021 06:48 AM Re: The Forced Extinction of Starting Pitching

Edgy for Quality Control Coach! Sometimes I ask if the other team is happy with the decision that my manager is making. If the answer is "yes" then it's often a bad decision.

Edgy MD May 23 2021 07:01 AM Re: The Forced Extinction of Starting Pitching

Lefty Specialist wrote: 5. Has he hit his innings count? 4? With a bullpen coming off a stressful game? This, though, apparently, was the condition that set off the kill switch. There was a specific number of "ups-and-downs" he was being limited to. This was looking like the game that had the potential to turn Lucchesi's season around, and maybe it still will be, but not for lack of ice cold water being thrown all over that notion by his manager.