More unnecessary trolling? I have a differing opinion of someone. So what? Stop the confrontational, unnecessary crap, PLEASE.Originally Posted by boa
o
More unnecessary trolling? I have a differing opinion of someone. So what? Stop the confrontational, unnecessary crap, PLEASE.
Unregistered User
The fact that a pitcher on 0 days rest would likely be highly ineffective as a result of fatigue is probably just as good a reason (better, even) as injury risk to NOT start a pitcher on 0 days rest. Apples and oranges.
Anyway, I don't think giving Lincecum a CG had anything to do with some sort of "Oh, let's see if he can do it" process. Any pitcher CAN pitch a complete game. Whether or not it's an effective 9 innings doesn't matter, it can be done by anyone with an arm. I don't think there's much of a difference between Lincecum in the 8th and Lincecum in the 9th that it makes the team obligated to "check it out." So now he's proven he "can do it." Okay, what's the point? Now what? Why try to "see something out" that you would only realistically expect out of any MLB-class starting pitcher?
I think I fall on the side of "Why are you using the future of your franchise as a workhorse at age 24 when you're out of the playoff picture?" He's already way up there in innings, near the league leaders. Extra innings aren't going to guarantee an injury, but they're not going to help.
It's kind of a silly argument altogether. He's a starting pitcher with "funky" mechanics and he throws hard. He's probably going to get injured no matter what he does.
Correct,it does & vice versa - the non importance of the game HAS equally an impact on the decision making process.Teams' such as O's/Giants/Pirates etc are consensually testing players.
That includes Stamina/make up & lots of intagibles plus tangibles (stats & results) but ALWAYS within the constraint of RISK & RETURN for today & in these cases for the future.
o
Exactly.
I read a good comment on this on the Baseball Think Factory thread for this. Every pitcher gets injured. It's just not natural to pitch a baseball. The difference between pitchers is how well they can pitch WHILE injured.It's kind of a silly argument altogether. He's a starting pitcher with "funky" mechanics and he throws hard. He's probably going to get injured no matter what he does.
E=I*R
So, you're theory is that their testing their multi-million dollar, multi year investment to see if he'll become injured? That'd be insane!
Besides, I honestly don't understand defending the Giants. If it were an otherwise successful management team I might be a bit more sympathetic. This is the management team that has a proven loosing track record. Their 290-344 (.457) in the last 4 seasons!
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
I don't see why testing players and being careful with their arm are mutually exclusive.
What is the return for sending Lincecum out in the 9th inning after he already thrown 118 pitches? "Seeing that he can throw a CG"? "Building up innings"? Pushing him to 138 pitches isn't necessary for either of that.That includes Stamina/make up & lots of intagibles plus tangibles (stats & results) but ALWAYS within the constraint of RISK & RETURN for today & in these cases for the future.
o
I wanted to say just this but couldn't figure out how to best put it into words. Well done.
Heh, good point!Besides, I honestly don't understand defending the Giants. If it were an otherwise successful management team I might be a bit more sympathetic. This is the management team that has a proven loosing track record. Their 290-344 (.457) in the last 4 seasons!
Registered User
the dodgers would like that...
o
Here is a list of games pitched by pitchers 24 years old or younger from 2000 to 2008 in which they threw more than 130 pitches.
For the same timespan, here is a list of pitchers younger than 24 ranked by the average number of pitches they threw in their first season.
Make of the lists what you will.
Here is a comment by shoewizard on the Baseball Think Factory thread, regarding the two above links (which he linked too):Furthermore, if anything, taking a look at the heavily worked pitchers illustrates that there's no way to know until years later how much a heavy workload affected the pitcher. So, you're "testing" something that can't even be assessed until years down the road, when it's too late.I was just trying to add a little more context without trying to reach a definitive conclusion. After all, I'm not conducting a study here. But, for me, it's helpful to put 138 pitches and 132 in a modern context, and see in the first list which other pitchers that young have done something similar. There is the soft tosser Davis, who basically doesn't count, the two horses, Zambrano and Vasquez, and every other guy on the list has had some sort of serious injury at a young age.
When you look at the second list, and the AVERAGE pitches he is throwing, to me it's even more damning than the 2 or 3 games of ultra high. There is a big jump between averaging 102 and 109, IMO. So while there is gong to be a response...."But it's a mixed bag...look at CC & Buehrle on the list, they're durable"......Timmer has no business being in that top 3 alongside Prior and Wolf.
And the only other guy that young that had a season that averaged over 105 is his teammate Cain, who's seen his K/9 drop since then.
Like I said, there is nothing "definitive" here.....it just doesn't look good to be where he is on those lists. As I said in my previous post, to what end? To impress the Cy Young voters? If he were pitching to try to secure a playoff spot for his team, I would be much more forgiving. But not for this reason. For me, thats where the rubber meets the road, and I say....it's simply not worth the risk, even if we don't know for certain this will lead to injury. At the very please it's certainly taking some extra tread off the tires that might not be there in a few years when the Giants are good enough to contend again.
Unregistered User
Not until he's 34 and looking for a 5 year deal worth $100mil.
E=I*R
The second list is the most damning. I was going to say something like that before I even finished reading your post.
That's some terrific company to put Lincecum in, right there.Code:1 Mark Prior 113.3 30 2003 22 CHC NL 30 3 1 0 18 6 .750 0 211.1 183 67 57 50 245 2.43 178 15 863 793 39 6 4 9 9 2 14 7 9 0 0 9 .231 .283 .352 .635 68 3399 2267 2 Randy Wolf 110.0 32 2000 23 PHI NL 32 1 0 0 11 9 .550 0 206.1 210 107 100 83 160 4.36 107 25 889 780 55 4 2 8 10 8 20 3 7 2 0 1 .269 .342 .446 .788 102 3520 2164 3 Tim Lincecum 109.1 31 2008 24 SFG NL 30 1 1 0 17 3 .850 0 207.2 165 62 56 77 237 2.43 177 10 846 752 33 2 1 5 9 3 23 18 2 0 2 16 .219 .295 .309 .604 63 3357 2117 4 Matt Cain 105.9 32 2006 21 SFG NL 31 1 1 1 13 12 .520 0 190.2 157 93 88 87 179 4.15 108 18 818 708 38 7 1 6 11 6 6 15 3 0 2 9 .222 .310 .371 .681 78 3302 2055 5 Jeff Weaver 104.8 31 2000 23 DET AL 30 2 0 0 11 15 .423 0 200 205 102 96 52 136 4.32 108 26 849 769 39 5 2 15 3 9 12 4 11 3 2 3 .267 .322 .432 .754 93 3163 1987
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
No,my theory* is that the team allowed Lincecum to throw his first ever Complete game.That they also used this occasion (ie September) to "see" tangible & intangible aspects of all their players.
I have said through-out this thread (& others) that the team as a whole (managers/coaches & GMs etc) judge the viability based on RISK-RETURN concerning a Pitcher's usage,& if they thought that return was lower than the risk they would pull him (or another pitcher).
All teams,out of contention seemingly use a similar policy (as they also do during Spring but within a more limited confinement) - usually if a pitcher is tired/fatigued or shows "signs" of over-use they will even shut him down.Lincecum "seems" to be both fully healthy & they are using this time to build up his stamina & shoulder strength for future years.
You don't run a marathon by doing 100 yard dash training...the same goes for pitching & even with his unorthodox delivery he could become a "workhorse" like some of those pitchers in the list - which has not only "injury" stars (Prior,Wolf & Co) but also Buerhle,Sabathia & Kazmir.
But point taken he could be injured just as easily as the others,the ONLY detail I would make is he is the OLDEST player on that list (list 2) & could be considered to be entering his prime.
* it was an more an analysis stating that Lincecum's IP's were being used to assess the totality of his ability within a framework of risk & return during real life game situtation.
E=I*R
I understand that this is the point that you're really trying to make, and I don't disagree with your campaign to get this point across. The problem though is that this was one game, not a series of games with a gradual increase in workload. That and the team's stated purpose was simply to get Lincecum a complete game in order to ensure that he would gain consideration towards the Cy Young voting (which, even disregarding the pitch count issue, in and of itself is a damning point in my view).You don't run a marathon by doing 100 yard dash training...
Any way you cut it, this particular incident falls squarely under the Pitcher Abuse category. I'm with HGM in that the strict pitch count methodology has goon too far, but there is definitely such a thing as pitcher abuse.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Unregistered User
The pitchers listed represent a rather small sample size to draw any real conclusions from.
It's interesting that you could look at the same list parameters, except with pitchers from 40 or 80 years ago, compare him to them, and say "wow, he's going to be a HOFer" by the same kind of association as "oh, he's a Tommy John surgery waiting to happen."
I also am sure that you can look at any list of pitchers, sorted by anything, and find injury risks there. I'm sure the strikeout leaders lists would bring up injury names. I'm sure the hit batters leaders would bring up injury names too.
Still, in the context, it's really a "better safe than sorry" measure to be careful about injuries. There is a correlation between more pitches and more injuries, but it's not as exaggerated as those lists make it look. Pure coincidence having guys like Prior listed with Lincecum.
Pitchers are gonna get injured (no matter what), but if it were me making the decision, I'd still err on the side of caution. I just don't buy the "prove you can pitch 9 as well as 8" line. You expect an ace pitcher to do that, they'll end up proving it over time. I think he's been stretched enough this season.
I'd probably be keeping almost every pitcher on my staff on strict pitch counts if it's near the end of the year and I'm out of the playoffs, not just the young ones. The only exception would be a no-hitter. I'd like to see a pitcher "prove" that they could do that.
o
I'm still not quite sure how having a pitcher who threw 118 pitches through 8 innings throw 20 more gives you any insight into him, let alone OTHER players.
And they can THINK wrong.I have said through-out this thread (& others) that the team as a whole (managers/coaches & GMs etc) judge the viability based on RISK-RETURN concerning a Pitcher's usage,& if they thought that return was lower than the risk they would pull him (or another pitcher).
That does not mean that this is the correct decision. The same exact thing could have been said in regards to Mark Prior, except that the Cubs WERE in contention, and we all know how swimmingly that worked out. And no, others teams don't seemingly use a similar policy, as evidenced by Tim Lincecum and his teammate Matt Cain racking up much higher pitch counts than any other young pitchers, particularly in the latter half of this decade (the past 2-3 years). I'd say only the Giants are following this method of yours.All teams,out of contention seemingly use a similar policy (as they also do during Spring but within a more limited confinement) - usually if a pitcher is tired/fatigued or shows "signs" of over-use they will even shut him down.Lincecum "seems" to be both fully healthy & they are using this time to build up his stamina & shoulder strength for future years.
Buerhle, Sabathia, and Kazmir were also more towards the bottom of the list.You don't run a marathon by doing 100 yard dash training...the same goes for pitching & even with his unorthodox delivery he could become a "workhorse" like some of those pitchers in the list - which has not only "injury" stars (Prior,Wolf & Co) but also Buerhle,Sabathia & Kazmir.
True. It's not particularly comforting though.
I'm not sure what you mean here.It's interesting that you could look at the same list parameters, except with pitchers from 40 or 80 years ago, compare him to them, and say "wow, he's going to be a HOFer" by the same kind of association as "oh, he's a Tommy John surgery waiting to happen."
Is it coincidence? It might be..but...how do we know?Still, in the context, it's really a "better safe than sorry" measure to be careful about injuries. There is a correlation between more pitches and more injuries, but it's not as exaggerated as those lists make it look. Pure coincidence having guys like Prior listed with Lincecum.
Yep. Let Lincecum go for the CG when he hasn't already thrown 118 pitches. There'll be games where he's downright filthy and efficient.Pitchers are gonna get injured (no matter what), but if it were me making the decision, I'd still err on the side of caution. I just don't buy the "prove you can pitch 9 as well as 8" line. You expect an ace pitcher to do that, they'll end up proving it over time. I think he's been stretched enough this season.
I'd agree with this for the most part. I wouldn't keep my proven workhorses on any strict pitch count, though. And in the case of blowout games particularly, I'd take out my starters earlier than I would if it was April in order to get a look at some younger pitchers who could be of use in the future.I'd probably be keeping almost every pitcher on my staff on strict pitch counts if it's near the end of the year and I'm out of the playoffs, not just the young ones. The only exception would be a no-hitter. I'd like to see a pitcher "prove" that they could do that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote