Lincecum vs Dbacks

[HoustonGM]

ok, thats a good answer. I wonder how many of those pitchers have bad mechanics, the ones that blow their arms out early. In the SI article on Lincecum his dad said that there is a large number of big leaguers that have poor or bad mechanics. I know he is by no means an expert, but having tought Tim his mechanics and seeing how successful that is, I would say he probably has some good insight. (incidently, I think the Giants need to get him and Zito together).

Mechanics matter, but there's also many schools of thought on what mechanics are "good" or "bad" and none of them are necessarily 100% correct. Mark Prior, by some accounts, had "perfect mechanics." Now, there's many people saying his "poor mechanics" are part of why he faced so many injuries.

Lincecum has very unique mechanics, and by some accounts, incredibly structurally sound. I happen to agree with that, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily right, so as he's developing, it's still important to err on the side of caution, I think.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Also, does the game in question matter? Different situations call for different decisions. If Lincecum was pitching for the Mets, it's a different story. But the Giants aren't contending for the playoffs, not to mention had a 7-0 lead entering the 9th inning.

Why is it different for the Mets ? Because their pen is bad now that Wagner is down or because they are in a pennant race ?

The Giants (& every MLB team) & again I re-emphasize,something you "like" to ignore,do for EVERY single player a RISK-RETURN management.If the RETURN outweighs the RISK then you keep the P in,if not (& there are multiple reasons like bad matchup,tiredness,loss of velocity etc etc) then you change

However ,they have short & long term aims which they use in their analysis which neither you or I have BUT my original post stated a possible reason for his pitching into the 9th.You contend it is a "huge" risk but again I ask - how huge ?

Give me the numbers,is it like crossing a freeway blindfolded huge ?

As every analyst or doctor will tell you the "risk" of injury is on EVERY single delivery so why not simply pull a P in the 5th & reduce the risk to ZERO ?

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Mechanics matter, but there's also many schools of thought on what mechanics are "good" or "bad" and none of them are necessarily 100% correct. Mark Prior, by some accounts, had "perfect mechanics." Now, there's many people saying his "poor mechanics" are part of why he faced so many injuries.

Lincecum has very unique mechanics, and by some accounts, incredibly structurally sound. I happen to agree with that, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily right, so as he's developing, it's still important to err on the side of caution, I think.

Mechanics are part of the strain you put on the shoulder/arm/body & are RISK related.What is considered "good" is based on the fluidity of the ball out of the hand comaparative to the strain put on the body (Computers have been excellent in showing this in 3D motion.)

However,Mechanics differ from player to player due to Muscle tone-Bone strength & even Body mass differentiation.

Also Mechanics are only are part of the equation in developing the propensity towards injury.Training is the counter effect as it attempts to build up those exact areas seen by Medics & Trainers as being weak.Thus a trainer will build up endurance over time - however if he limits the "endurance" work certain muscles will not be called upon (heart/lungs) as highly as otherwise.

[boa]

I would think he meant because of the pennant race issue.

[HoustonGM]

Why is it different for the Mets ? Because their pen is bad now that Wagner is down or because they are in a pennant race ?

A mix of both, but mostly the fact that the games matter.

However ,they have short & long term aims which they use in their analysis which neither you or I have BUT my original post stated a possible reason for his pitching into the 9th.You contend it is a "huge" risk but again I ask - how huge ?

Bigger than the gain of one inning in a 7-0 meaningless game, and I don't think there needs to be numbers to show that, considering it's pretty obvious unless I'm missing something...

As every analyst or doctor will tell you the "risk" of injury is on EVERY single delivery so why not simply pull a P in the 5th & reduce the risk to ZERO ?

Come on. There's no need to make it seem as if I'm being extreme here.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

It's one inning. What is the "major long term gain" gained by throwing one 20-pitch inning in a 7-0 game in September against a non-contender?

That is called RISK management.You really ought to know that.

The long term gain ?

Here I will list them:

1) Lincecum can & has pitched DEEP in September;
2) He can pitch 200 Innings without tiring as the season progresses;
3) He has the ability to throw a CG/SO - it was his FIRST in 55 Games as a pro;
4) The Giants' could/can analyse his make up & character in a UNUSUAL situation - ie his 1st SHUTOUT & his 1st COMPLETE GAME - both of which he achieved;
5) He is building up stamina (last year 1st as a pro 146 IPs this year 207+ & counting)
6) More Innings = More Information for the Giants & thus BETTER management of the player & others which I don't know nor have the info for to list....

What information is gained from that that outweighs the risk of blowing out a young ace's arm?

There is none - but that is hindsight....You will never get a situation where a team will knowingly pitch a player where the "information is gained from that that outweighs the risk of blowing out a young ace's arm".

But every decision has that possibility as stated elsewhere.All decisions have a tangible risk.Yous said it was a high risk,but once again WHERE is the study (& we have over 130+ YEARSof statistical information or roughly 15000+ SPs to use) to show you are right ?

Uh, how can you say "No, it didn't happen."? It's not going to happen overnight. He's not just going to wake up the next morning with a blown out shoulder. We don't know if it's hurt him for the future or not. We can only hope that it hasn't.

Well I can base it on the fact he pitched,didnt get pulled & is not on the DL with an injury.

What you are now talking about is what is called a "stress" related injury WHICH is totally different.Unless every player has a MRI after every game or has an "investigatory" operation one cannot be certain of the impact of a single game or pitch.

However,it can also be concluded the exact opposite,similarly,that the 120 pitched game WILL strengthen his shoulder (see Training manuals/competitive sports/records achieved etc) & that game ACTUALLY may prolong his career

Again, we know this how? Mark Prior didn't throw a bunch of 130 pitch games, and then walk into the park next day with his arm hanging from its socket. It's a process, not an instantaneous thing.

That is a possibilty BUT as stated every action has a reaction - Prior "seems" to have a weak physical infrastructure WHICH is the cause of his injuries.NOTHING can or could help his career unless he could get Steve Austin surgery

If this was C.C. Sabathia, or Carlos Zambrano, or Roy Halladay, or some other pitcher with a proven track record of handling high workloads, it's a different story.

That is the POINT they have proven they can BY doing it! Simply Lincecum is being tested in the same vein & WITH the same attention to see if he can become a "workload pitcher!

But this is a young ace with huge potential for the future. It's one inning at the end of a meaningless September blowout. What could that one inning possibly tell you that is enough to outweigh the risk of throwing out a young pitcher's arm? That he can go "deep in September"? Is going 8 innings and throwing 118 pitches not "going deep"? It's also a different story if this was just one game like this. However, in his last 4 games, he's had pitch totals of 132, 92, 127, and 138. There's no reason to subject a young pitcher to those workloads while out of contention and building for the future.

Yes there is to build up IPs pitched & the other reasons I already stated....

As I said, I happen to think that Lincecum has incredible mechanics, is a phenomenal athlete, and has a rubber arm. But, the same things were said of Mark Prior. Lincecum's September of his second season and first full season is shaping up to look eerily similar to Prior's - whose pitch counts in his September 2003 starts were 132, 129, 109, 124, 131, 133. Chicago, though, was contending for the playoffs, so it's more defensible, but, we all know how well that worked out for Prior's future. Now, yes, every pitcher is different. Livan Hernandez threw tons of pitches at the same age and has proven to be durable. This very well may not affect Tim Lincecum's career, and I sincerely hope it doesn't because Lincecum's one of my favorite pitchers and I want to see him have a full career, but I'd always err on the side of caution when it comes to young pitchers, and I don't think racking up 130 pitches a game tells us anything more useful than we could glean from 110 pitch games.

I think C.C. Sabathia is a great model for teams to follow when raising young pitchers. In his first year, at the age of 20 he broke 120 pitches just twice, and was often kept around 100. Same story the next year, and in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. In 2007, he still rarely threw high pitch count games but managed to rack up impressive inning totals. In 2008, he's throwing more high pitch count games than usual, while also racking up innings. He was kept on regular pitch counts while he was young, still threw 180-200 innings a year, and now his team is reaping the benefits of a well-developed pitcher entering the prime of his career in his late-20's.


And also, I know very well that we don't know whether this is right or wrong, as you keep trying to say. I'm simply stating my opinion of it, so there's no need to tell me that I can't know for sure whether this is the right decision or wrong decision. It seems you do that on most topics we discuss - repeatedly say "You can't know fully whether this is right or wrong" and I don't think stating that is necessary, as OF COURSE that's the case. I'm just giving my opinion on whether I think it's the right or wrong decision. I don't KNOW for sure, nobody does.

HGM when you state:

it's silly to take a risk that could have huge consequences in a blowout game between non-contenders at the end of September, particularly when he's been worked hard in his past few starts as well.

No, we don't know the consequences, which is exactly why it's not a good choice to risk finding them out, because they could be catastrophic. There's no short or long term gain for leaving Lincecum in for the 9th inning of that game.

You are clearly claiming that risk outweighs the gain (ie they had won the game & that leaving Lincecum in was an "unwarranted" risk).

I simply & politely pointed out that there are other factors to consider,not just the actual game itself, & it is precisely during a NON contending season where the consequences are limited that a team like the Giants BUT also the Padres/O's etc can do such a thing.

The First one comes to mind is that it was LIncecum's first Complete Game/Shutout UPTO now - that information alone is "gold" to a team such as the rebuilding Giants.Also it SHOWED (& this is hindsight btw) that Lincecum COULD/CAN handle an unusual situation - CG/SO & in September to boot (Useful if the Giants contend next year )

[FRENCHREDSOX]

A mix of both, but mostly the fact that the games matter.

Now this funny As the saying goes "what is good for the goose,is good for the gander"!

If it is alright (hypothetically) for Lincecum to pitch a CG in a Mets uniform then it should be in a Giants' no (whatever the state of the standings) ?

Either he can or he can't UNLESS you know something about NY air or training methods that preserves a pitcher better than SF....

Come on. There's no need to make it seem as if I'm being extreme here.

I am not & am simply extending your logic...you said quite clearly that you should pull a pitcher with a big lead in order to minimalize the risk of FUTURE UNKNOWN POSSIBLE injury.

I simply conclude that Ps who fill that criteria should therefore be pulled in th 5th/6th innings...& for example last night Zambrano should have left in the 6th/7th when he had hit 90 Pitches thrown - especially as he was pitching AFTER coming off an injury! Maybe even pulled in the 5th...

[TheNamelessPoet]

u cant win frenchie

[FRENCHREDSOX]

u cant win frenchie

LOL,the idea "is not to win" but to point out that sometimes decisions are "deeper" than what is perceived as good or bad.That teams' have not just 1 priority but several that sometimes contradict.

In this case I simply pointed out that SFG have short,medium & long term strategies which may appear as unusual.

Anyways I find it funny,in 1 post HGM says it is "dumb" to pitch Lincecum 9 innings because of Injury risk (nb His 1st EVER Complete Game as a Giant) & then contradicts it by saying he would be OK with it for another team.

Again,& hopefully finally, teams' decide USING Risk-Return management for the BEST of the team TODAY & tomorrow & that it was not necessarily as risky as made out.

[HoustonGM]

1) Lincecum can & has pitched DEEP in September;

Making him throw 130+ pitches in multiple games is not necessary for this.

2) He can pitch 200 Innings without tiring as the season progresses;

Again, this one inning doesn't change that.

3) He has the ability to throw a CG/SO - it was his FIRST in 55 Games as a pro;

Every pitcher has the ability to do it. There's no need to force it though if he's getting up there in pitches.

4) The Giants' could/can analyse his make up & character in a UNUSUAL situation - ie his 1st SHUTOUT & his 1st COMPLETE GAME - both of which he achieved;

Again, I don't see why it's necessary to push him near 140 pitches to do this.

5) He is building up stamina (last year 1st as a pro 146 IPs this year 207+ & counting)

A 70-80 inning jump, which is what he'll end up around, is a pretty risk jump in innings for a young pitcher.

6) More Innings = More Information for the Giants & thus BETTER management of the player & others which I don't know nor have the info for to list....

And still, was this one inning, pushing him from 118 pitches to 138, really necessary for that?

There is none - but that is hindsight....You will never get a situation where a team will knowingly pitch a player where the "information is gained from that that outweighs the risk of blowing out a young ace's arm".

Let's put it this way...what possibly could have been gained from throwing this one extra inning?

But every decision has that possibility as stated elsewhere.All decisions have a tangible risk.Yous said it was a high risk,but once again WHERE is the study (& we have over 130+ YEARSof statistical information or roughly 15000+ SPs to use) to show you are right ?

You want me to provide proof that pushing a young pitcher who's yet to prove his durability over a pitch count threshold in multiple games that is rarely reached by the best and most durable pitchers, is high risk?

Well I can base it on the fact he pitched,didnt get pulled & is not on the DL with an injury.

Which, once again, is very unlikely to happen.

What you are now talking about is what is called a "stress" related injury WHICH is totally different.

So we're arguing semantics now?

Unless every player has a MRI after every game or has an "investigatory" operation one cannot be certain of the impact of a single game or pitch.

No, but we can make educated guesses about how much is too much, and pushing a young pitcher over 130 pitches in multiple games isn't exactly managing him cautiously.

That is the POINT they have proven they can BY doing it! Simply Lincecum is being tested in the same vein & WITH the same attention to see if he can become a "workload pitcher!

They also were rarely, if ever, pushed as hard as Lincecum's been in his last few starts. Sabathia, particularly, never faced the workload Lincecum's been put through in his last 4 starts.

Yes there is to build up IPs pitched & the other reasons I already stated....

All of which can be done without pushing a player into stratospheric pitch count levels in meaningless games.

HGM when you state: You are clearly claiming that risk outweighs the gain (ie they had won the game & that leaving Lincecum in was an "unwarranted" risk).

in my opinion.

The First one comes to mind is that it was LIncecum's first Complete Game/Shutout UPTO now - that information alone is "gold" to a team such as the rebuilding Giants.Also it SHOWED (& this is hindsight btw) that Lincecum COULD/CAN handle an unusual situation - CG/SO & in September to boot (Useful if the Giants contend next year )

If Lincecum's even healthy come next September after the workload he's being subjected to this September.

[HoustonGM]

If it is alright (hypothetically) for Lincecum to pitch a CG in a Mets uniform then it should be in a Giants' no (whatever the state of the standings) ?

Either he can or he can't UNLESS you know something about NY air or training methods that preserves a pitcher better than SF....

I don't understand what's not to get about the difference of being in contention vs. not being in contention.

I am not & am simply extending your logic...

To an extreme level that I am quite clearly not advocating.

you said quite clearly that you should pull a pitcher with a big lead in order to minimalize the risk of FUTURE UNKNOWN POSSIBLE injury.

I NEVER said that. I said that you shouldn't subject a pitcher to incredibly high workloads, particularly when you're not in contention and/or have a big lead.

I simply conclude that Ps who fill that criteria should therefore be pulled in th 5th/6th innings...& for example last night Zambrano should have left in the 6th/7th when he had hit 90 Pitches thrown - especially as he was pitching AFTER coming off an injury! Maybe even pulled in the 5th...

Entirely different circumstances. Come on now.

You may be "extending" my logic, but it's dragging it far out of the way of what I'm advocating, and to the point that it's not at all what I'm saying.

[HoustonGM]

Anyways I find it funny,in 1 post HGM says it is "dumb" to pitch Lincecum 9 innings

Not 9 innings. 138 pitches. If he was at 90 pitches through 8 innings, letting him go for the CG is a no-brainer. He was at 118 pitches though. There's a big difference.

because of Injury risk (nb His 1st EVER Complete Game as a Giant) & then contradicts it by saying he would be OK with it for another team.

If the game mattered, getting most out of your ace may outweigh the possible risk of future injury. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

If the game mattered, getting most out of your ace may outweigh the possible risk of future injury. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Yes it is ... & I don't.

As said,above & numerous times either a Pitcher is effective & the team deem he is capable,weighing up the RISK-RETURN ratio or he isn't.

Being in the playoff hunt has NO bearing on this & thus is irrelevant in your (or any logical) argument.

It is as simple as that either the P can do it or not.Please Note the return is NOT necessarily the actual game but the TOTAL return (which can include *shudders here* intangibles that most Sabermetricians & Statisticians CANNOT evaluate - this includes make up,confidence,stamina,future application etc etc.)

If the game mattered, getting most out of your ace may outweigh the possible risk of future injury. .

That is where your analysis* & that of a team DIFFER gravely.No team WILL "get most out of a pitcher" if it outweighs "the possible risk of (future) injury".

Simply put the RISK-RETURN becomes negative & no team will do it,they may pitch a player on short rest (1 day less) but NEVER pitch(start) an Ace on consecutive nights EVEN if the game mattered.



* which again contradicts what you said about Lincecum initially btw.Sorry

[boa]

sigh HGM being HGM

[HoustonGM]

Yes it is ... & I don't.

As said,above & numerous times either a Pitcher is effective & the team deem he is capable,weighing up the RISK-RETURN ratio or he isn't.

Being in the playoff hunt has NO bearing on this & thus is irrelevant in your argument.It is as simple as that either the P can do it or not.Please Note the return is NOT necessarilly the actual game but the TOTAL return (which can include *shudders here* intangibles that most Sabermetricians & Statisticians CANNOT evaluate - this includes make up,confidence,stamina,future application etc etc.)

Than, frankly, I don't know what to say. I think that the importance of the game certainly should play into the decision-making process.

That is where your analysis* & that of a team DIFFER gravely.No team WILL "get most out of a pitcher" if it outweighs "the possible risk of (future) injury".

Simply put the RISK-RETURN becomes negative & no team will do it,they may pitch a player on short rest (1 day less) but NEVER pitch(start) an Ace on consecutive nights EVEN if the game mattered.

So, once again, you're taking what I'm saying, extending it to a ridiculous extreme that is nowhere near what I'm saying, and than saying that since that's wrong, what I'm saying is also wrong.

* which again contradicts what you said about Lincecum initially btw.Sorry

No, it doesn't. The importance of the game matters.