Lincecum vs Dbacks

[FRENCHREDSOX]

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.

Every Pitch thrown gives the team insight ESPECIALLY those last 30-40 pitches.As every Sports Trainer will tell you it is not at the "start" of play/training that you IMPROVE it is at the end (for stamina/strength conditioning).Secondly,it is a you tire where a player starts to make mistakes:have mental errors & it here where Management CAN help in the future - spot the mistakes,correct them for the next game etc etc.

For the other players - every play allows coaches to see weaknesses & strengths.More plays more info.

And they can THINK wrong.

Yes we ALL agree that GMs/managers/coaches are fallible.It is called being human,but as of today that is the best we have - only hindsight can show us is they were right or wrong.

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.

LOL it is not my "method" but a possible explanation for certain actions.Are they right ? Who knows BUT they might be....like "our friend" Billy Beane on "Moneyball" drafting....


As said (& even those figures you kindly provided) 1 out 2 had an injury but also 1/2 became a good pitcher.Also I did point out that Lincecum was considerably older than most pitching those innings.But again I am not defending the Giants at all,but giving a possible reason WHY they did it (like the Gillaspie thread) & personally NO MLB organization will KNOWINGLY hinder/risk a young player in a no contest situation,thus I assume that their actions were motivated by other reasons (like those I mentioned earlier).

It is only in 2 or 3 years time we will see if Lincecum is a workhorse (Sabathia like) or an injury prone star (Prior like).Anyways it is a circular argument - you believe that it will weaken Lincecum because of extra stress on his arm,I believe that actually it may strengthen his arm....who is right ? We will see in 10 years

[HoustonGM]

Every Pitch thrown gives the team insight ESPECIALLY those last 30-40 pitches.As every Sports Trainer will tell you it is not at the "start" of play/training that you IMPROVE it is at the end (for stamina/strength conditioning).Secondly,it is a you tire where a player starts to make mistakes:have mental errors & it here where Management CAN help in the future - spot the mistakes,correct them for the next game etc etc.

For the other players - every play allows coaches to see weaknesses & strengths.More plays more info.

And all this is worth risking a player's future? None of that info can be gleaned from games in which Lincecum doesn't have a huge pitch count?

You're the one always defending the decisions of management. Why aren't you defending the collective decision of front offices around the league when that decision is limiting the workload of pitchers, young pitchers in particular?

Again, this type of pitcher use doesn't happen often. Young pitchers are handled very carefully around the game. If what you're saying is so true, than why are the Giants the only team driving the arms of their young studs into the ground? Why is Tim Lincecum's name the only name that comes up multiple times on the list of pitchers that have thrown 130+ pitches this year? He's being worked a ton compared to veteran workhorses, let alone other young pitchers.

You can talk all about the reasons that the Giants may be handling Lincecum the way they are. They can give any reason they want. I still think it's mismanaging a young, prestigious talent.

Yes we ALL agree that GMs/managers/coaches are fallible.It is called being human,but as of today that is the best we have - only hindsight can show us is they were right or wrong.

And I'm giving my opinion that the way the Giants are handling Lincecum is wrong. Yeah, we can't know this until the future, but it's my opinion that they are. So how can you tell me that I'm wrong?

As said (& even those figures you kindly provided) 1 out 2 had an injury but also 1/2 became a good pitcher.Also I did point out that Lincecum was considerably older than most pitching those innings

Of the 12 guys on the average pitches list, only 2 have gone on to be durable and healthy - Mark Buerhle and C.C. Sabathia. Mark Prior, Danys Baez, Kerry Wood, Ben Sheets, and Joe Kennedy all have proven to be very injury prone. Jeff Weaver hasn't had any injury problems, but his effectiveness has plummeted, which may or may not be related to unknown arm issues. Scott Kazmir has had some injury trouble. Matt Cain is in the exact same boat with Lincecum. So no, it's not a half and half split.

Only two of the 10 pitchers (not counting Cain and Lincecum) have gone on to have complete, injury-free careers. One hasn't had too much injury problems, but hasn't been completely healthy. The other 7 have been very injury prone or otherwise ineffective (and it's important to remember that overuse doesn't always necessarily lead to injuries, but can still be harmful to performance).

personally NO MLB organization will KNOWINGLY hinder/risk a young player in a no contest situation,thus I assume that their actions were motivated by other reasons (like those I mentioned earlier).

You have a much more optimistic outlook on MLB organizations than I do, then. I don't know how the Giants can have Lincecum throw an amount of pitches that most veteran workhorses don't even throw and not know that they may be hindering or risking him. So, they're either knowingly risking him, or they're really blind.

It is only in 2 or 3 years time we will see if Lincecum is a workhorse (Sabathia like) or an injury prone star (Prior like).

So you work young pitchers hard to find out whether they'll be able to withstand it, instead of erring on the side of caution? Isn't in the team's best interest to protect the player instead of using him in the same manner as Mark Prior was?

Sabathia averaged 102 pitches at age 21. Lincecum is averaging 109 pitches at age 24. In Sabathia's age 24 season, he averaged 101 pitches per start. That's a huge difference, especially considering that in his age 24 season, Sabathia's highest pitch count in a single game was 119, a number that Lincecum has equaled or bettered 7 times.

Lincecum is being handled in a manner consistent with Mark Prior and Randy Wolf, not in a manner consistent with the guys at the bottom of the list that have lasted, like Sabathia. Lincecum, Wolf, and Prior are very far ahead of the pack in terms of how much workload they carried at a young age. Wolf and Prior have both faced great injury problems in their careers, Prior more so than Wolf. I sincerely hope that Lincecum doesn't face the problems Wolf or Prior have, and two players (or even the full 10) are far from conclusive, but it's the only thing we have to accurately compare Lincecum to, and the outlook isn't favorable.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

And all this is worth risking a player's future? None of that info can be gleaned from games in which Lincecum doesn't have a huge pitch count?

No,it is definitely not worth risking a player's future & neither Bochy nor the hierachy of SFG have any reason to do so.

You're the one always defending the decisions of management. Why aren't you defending the collective decision of front offices around the league when that decision is limiting the workload of pitchers, young pitchers in particular?

First & foremost I don't always defend management & even in this case I wasn't defending Bochy & Co - I simply stated that their decision to let Lincecum pitch a Complete Game was not solely based on that game but could be based on other reasons.

On your second issue each team has the right to do what is BEST for their organization - as of today & correct me if I am wrong the teams are all mutually indepedent & don't have a "charter"/rule on the number of pitches thrown by ANY Pitcher.

Again, this type of pitcher use doesn't happen often. Young pitchers are handled very carefully around the game. If what you're saying is so true, than why are the Giants the only team driving the arms of their young studs into the ground? Why is Tim Lincecum's name the only name that comes up multiple times on the list of pitchers that have thrown 130+ pitches this year? He's being worked a ton compared to veteran workhorses, let alone other young pitchers.

Maybe (& please note the maybe) young Pitchers are being handled "too" carefully rather than "very carefully".

Lincecum is on that list for several reasons - but basically he fits the EXACT criteria of the list i.e. 2nd year + under 24 + IPs .

You can talk all about the reasons that the Giants may be handling Lincecum the way they are. They can give any reason they want. I still think it's mismanaging a young, prestigious talent.

That is your right & to some extent I agree with your analysis.What I disagreed with was the way you singularly attacked the team beacuse of the context (ie Non contender/September/Stupid).

I posted (& I still actually believe) that teams DO things not for ONLY 1 context but also for ULTERIOR motives.

And I'm giving my opinion that the way the Giants are handling Lincecum is wrong. Yeah, we can't know this until the future, but it's my opinion that they are. So how can you tell me that I'm wrong?

I don't think I said you are "wrong" in your analysis - I said EXACTLY this:

No disrespect here HGM but do you know the consequences ? I mean your rhetoric,ie using "silly/huge" is claiming that (again) management don't know what there are doing & that they will sacrifice players unduly.

If you look at it from another perspective ,maybe they are "testing" him now (ie in a "non" important situation) for the future.

On this I am sure (& you will agree) they know the investment they have in him but unlike say a Halladay or a Schilling in his prime or Mr October - Beckett,they DONT know his limits .... making him pitch deep in September is a very good judge of whether he can or cannot repeat the phenomenon in the future or if/when they do make the playoffs.*


As we have said (plus numerous "experts") pitchers tend to pitch less & less innings with the hope to get a better long term return - more seasons/longer life span in the MLB - but as of today,there is no indication or study that proves it.If anything the injuries to Pitchers have remained stable over the years & if anything (from Hardball Times "survey") they have increased as IPs have decreased.Could it be pitchers' no longer build up enough arm strength for a 162+ season ?

Just my comments/idea on a contentious subject.


* Some pitchers build up strength during the season OTHERS lose strength & thus are "October" or not pitchers.Repetition being the "best" indicator of future actions that most analysts use.As known is usually considered better than unknown .

If you read the post nowhere does it say YOU are wrong (I used clearly the word IF & complemented/clarified what I have maintained through out THAT it is possible there are more than 1 game motivations involved.

You have a much more optimistic outlook on MLB organizations than I do, then. I don't know how the Giants can have Lincecum throw an amount of pitches that most veteran workhorses don't even throw and not know that they may be hindering or risking him. So, they're either knowingly risking him, or they're really blind.

You see that is where we disagree - everything upto the "highlighted" part makes sense & I agree - however you conclusion is both unsubstantiated by your actual comment (ie "not know that they MAY be hindering or risking him CONTRADICTS with KNOWINGLY risking him** ) & also aggressive/insulting (ie they're really blind).

Yes there is a risk elements in making him pitch so many innings,yes there is a risk with High Pitch counts BUT & this the essence,as of today there is no conclusive study that says EITHER is a major or singular factor in injury occurrence.

The only real "study" is Bob Woolmer's 1 YEAR based study on the 2000 season & even that article has many "lacunes" (holes).


Even Woolmer concludes:

The research presented here has shown, in essence, that not all pitches are created equal.The results of this study should not be considered final because many active pitchers are included in the study. It will be several years before a large sample of pitch counts for entire pitcher careers becomes available, and such a resource is necessary before we can complete the analysis has been started here.

It's important to note that the Workload Stress factor is not a prediction of injury risk for a specific season, but rather a risk of injury over several years of pitching at that level.*

The interactions and spacing between pitcher outings may prove to have a significant effect -- does starting on 3 days rest vs. 4 days rest substantially affect the risk of either injury or ineffectiveness? There may yet be better estimates of injury risk as I did not conduct an exhaustive search for all mathematical representations, favoring the simplicity of a single measure like PAP^3.

Biomechanical experts may help identify physical characteristics that indicate which pitchers are more or less susceptible or have greater endurance, allowing personalized PAP formulae for individual pitchers.

& most importantly he himself puts his own RESULTS in doubt by saying:

There is also the possibility that the relationship between pitch counts and injury risk is not static over time. Improved training methods, changing usage patterns and strategies, new medical technology and techniques, new diagnostics and screening could all impact the negative effects of high pitch counts. Pitch count data from 1950 may not be terribly informative about the effects on modern pitchers.
.....or now, however, we can confidently say that PAP^3 yields information about pitcher performance and durability not answered by pitch counts alone under current playing conditions

Overall I am not saying that you are wrong or right - & I re emphasize WHAT I did say:

1) teams have more motivations than just the game being played & those motivations can explain what "seemingly" is seen as poor judgement;
2) teams use RISK-RETURN for all actions concerning their team & their players;
3) Pitch Counts,although accepted by all teams as needed,does not CONCLUSIVELY help reduce injuries & may actually stunt "growth" depending the pitcher & his Bio-mechanics;
4) teams in non contention for the playoffs have as much motivation to "test players" concerning both tangible & intangible traits as teams' in contention.& lastly
5) Management is fallible & do make mistakes but those decisions have to be respected as they can only be judged with something they lack - HINDSIGHT.


Again I say your opinion is exactly that an opinion which I respect,but you must also be respectful of teams' decisions as your (or my) information is INCOMPLETE relative to theirs & we have the added capacity that whatever we say or do WILL not affect a thing whereas theirs' affect DIRECTLY the outcome of their organization.



* or basically a Pitcher throws every game with X Pitch load which is unrealistic!

** May = modal verb which defines an inconclusive possibility whereas Knowingly*** = adverb with a Definitive action


*** Defintion is 1. With knowledge; in a knowing manner; intelligently; consciously; deliberately; as, he would not knowingly offend. Strype.
2. By experience. [Obs.] Shak.

[ohms_law]

Man... French, your posts are just plain tough to read. After getting to the end of that, I've forgotten what you were saying at the beginning! lol

Anyway, could you post something short and to the point?

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Man... French, your posts are just plain tough to read. After getting to the end of that, I've forgotten what you were saying at the beginning! lol

Anyway, could you post something short and to the point?

LOL I was answering HGM's "long post" but anyways HGM said:

So how can you tell me that I'm wrong?

& my original post is below:

No disrespect here HGM but do you know the consequences ? I mean your rhetoric,ie using "silly/huge" is claiming that (again) management don't know what there are doing & that they will sacrifice players unduly.

If you look at it from another perspective ,maybe they are "testing" him now (ie in a "non" important situation) for the future.

On this I am sure (& you will agree) they know the investment they have in him but unlike say a Halladay or a Schilling in his prime or Mr October - Beckett,they DONT know his limits .... making him pitch deep in September is a very good judge of whether he can or cannot repeat the phenomenon in the future or if/when they do make the playoffs.*


As we have said (plus numerous "experts") pitchers tend to pitch less & less innings with the hope to get a better long term return - more seasons/longer life span in the MLB - but as of today,there is no indication or study that proves it.If anything the injuries to Pitchers have remained stable over the years & if anything (from Hardball Times "survey") they have increased as IPs have decreased.Could it be pitchers' no longer build up enough arm strength for a 162+ season ?

Just my comments/idea on a contentious subject.


* Some pitchers build up strength during the season OTHERS lose strength & thus are "October" or not pitchers.Repetition being the "best" indicator of future actions that most analysts use.As known is usually considered better than unknown .

If you read the post nowhere does it say HGM 'You are wrong' (I used clearly the word IF & complemented/clarified what I have maintained through out THAT it is possible there are more than "1 game motivations involved in their actions",also I didn't say THAT the Giants' were right,nor wrong.



I will resumé WHAT I did say in the later posts:

1) teams have more motivations than just the game being played & those motivations can explain what "seemingly" is seen as poor judgement;
2) teams use RISK-RETURN for all actions concerning their team & their players & won't Risk a player WITHOUT what they deam at the time as a "good reason" eg Lincecum & his high Pitch count or calling up players etc;
3) Pitch Counts,although accepted by all teams as needed,does not CONCLUSIVELY help reduce injuries & may actually stunt "growth" depending the pitcher & his Bio-mechanics;
4) teams in non contention for the playoffs have as much motivation to "test players" concerning both tangible & intangible traits as teams' in contention - such as "how they handle X or Y situation",number of games,fatigue,travel or simply being on the Major League club.
5) Every SINGLE Management is fallible & do make mistakes but those decisions have to be respected as they can only be judged with something they lack - HINDSIGHT.

Lastly HGM is correct & logical in most of his posts but sometimes concludes incorrectly his analysis or "jumps" to conclusions which he has not substantiated eg

You have a much more optimistic outlook on MLB organizations than I do, then. I don't know how the Giants can have Lincecum throw an amount of pitches that most veteran workhorses don't even throw and not know that they may be hindering or risking him. So, they're either knowingly risking him, or they're really blind.

May = modal verb which defines an inconclusive possibility whereas Knowingly = adverb with a Definitive action thus either they Know (fact) or they don't know (may) ---- see what I mean ?

[ohms_law]

May = modal verb which defines an inconclusive possibility whereas Knowingly = adverb with a Definitive action thus either they Know (fact) or they don't know (may) ---- see what I mean ?

No, I don't. That paragraph of HGM's that you quoted seems awfully straightforward to me. I don't understand what you're ...confused about?

5) Every SINGLE Management is fallible & do make mistakes but those decisions have to be respected as they can only be judged with something they lack - HINDSIGHT.

What you're saying here is that we can't legitimately criticize MLB management (whether or not you intend to be saying that), which I personally totally disagree with, and is why HGM is continuing to disagree with you it seems.

What I mean by that is simple enough. The Giants are currently a loosing franchise. Their not just recently bad, but they've been bad for four seasons now. What's worse is that the decisions that their making are keeping them a bad team, and this is one incident that simply adds to that.

Does giving Lincecum a Complete Game help the franchise?

What is the potential reward for the additional risk in having Lincecum pitch a high number of pitches? Does that outweigh the potential harm in having him do so?

To me, the answers to both of those questions are fairly obvious in this case, and they don't speak well of the managerial decisions of the current Giants organization. Add this to the existing body of evidence against the Giants management and it's fairly clear that the team is going to be a loosing organization until some change in management is made.

As I said above, it's fairly clear what the ultimate conclusion to the original criticism is. Someone should be fired, or some similar action should be taken. I wholeheartedly agree.

[boa]

No, I don't. That paragraph of HGM's that you quoted seems awfully straightforward to me. I don't understand what you're ...confused about?


What you're saying here is that we can't legitimately criticize MLB management (whether or not you intend to be saying that), which I personally totally disagree with, and is why HGM is continuing to disagree with you it seems.

Look out - your bias is showing. There was no need to single out FRS for a lengthy post - they were perfectly understandable. As far as management goes, he is saying criticize, but have a, as you put it, 'legitimate criticism', not just opinions that you claim to be fact.

Look, things are more complex than 130 pitches = injury, and that teams only have one goal.

[ohms_law]

OK, I'll play your game...

Look out - your bias is showing.

So? What's your point?

There was no need to single out FRS for a lengthy post - they were perfectly understandable.

• I didn't understand what his point was.
• FRS doesn't seem to have a problem with it, so why is it a problem to you? This is nothing more than trolling.
• I didn't say anything about it being lengthy, I said that I didn't understand what he was saying. I explained why, above.

As far as management goes, he is saying criticize, but have a, as you put it, 'legitimate criticism', not just opinions that you claim to be fact.

The legitimate criticism is what I mentioned in my post immediately prior to yours.

Look, things are more complex than 130 pitches = injury, and that teams only have one goal.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
More importantly, who's disagreeing with that? How is this even a part of this debate?

[FRENCHREDSOX]

No, I don't. That paragraph of HGM's that you quoted seems awfully straightforward to me. I don't understand what you're ...confused about?

I am NOT confused at all,LOL but when you say "may" that means you don't know WHETHER it will be beneficial,constant or harmful - that is an "uncertainty aspect".Straight after he then says "So, they're either knowingly risking him, or they're really blind." which implies they know (which is an exactitude) the injury risk involved.

No one knows - not Sabermetricians,nor statisticians nor MLB management the EFFECT of high IPs or high Pitch counts - that was why I said from an implication where there are 3 possibilities he only concludes that 1 can be achieved WHICH is illogical Ohms I am sorry to say,that is what I said concerning his statement .


Also he said I said he was "wrong" which I never said & only offered a possible alternate hypothesis to WHY the Giants' are doing what they are doing .

[RedsoxRockies]

Why does every thread about pitchers seem to go into heated debates involving pitch counts?

[ohms_law]

I am NOT confused at all,LOL but when you say "may" that means you don't know WHETHER it will be beneficial,constant or harmful - that is an "uncertainty aspect".Straight after he then says "So, they're either knowingly risking him, or they're really blind." which implies they know (which is an exactitude) the injury risk involved.

No one knows - not Sabermetricians,nor statisticians nor MLB management the EFFECT of high IPs or high Pitch counts - that was why I said from an implication where there are 3 possibilities he only concludes that 1 can be achieved WHICH is illogical Ohms I am sorry to say,that is what I said concerning his statement .


Also he said I said he was "wrong" which I never said & only offered a possible alternate hypothesis to WHY the Giants' are doing what they are doing .

OK, I get it. It seems as though you're reading what he's saying too literally...

Additionally: From my perspective, and from what you've said here that I've actually read, you have been saying that HGM is wrong. From what you're saying here it seems obvious that it wasn't your intent to do so, but that's what it seems like. If you're not saying that he's wrong though, what are you saying?

[boa]

Ohm's -
1- I guess it's not a big deal if you don't think it is.

2- I can't nicely comment on this.

3 - FRS wouldn't say publicly if he did have a problem. That doesn't mean you were fair in your statements.

4 - you said can you make it SHORT and to the point. That sounds like you're saying he is lengthy and not concise.

5 - HGM called 130+ pitches stratospheric levels and basically came across (to me, I guess I need a qualifier here) as saying that 130 pitches = extreme risk.

6 - HGM is ignoring many variables here. The truth is you don't know how much gas is in his tank without pushing him.

7 - I suggest any responses to this be pm'ed so the thread doesn't get out of hand.

[HoustonGM]

No,it is definitely not worth risking a player's future & neither Bochy nor the hierachy of SFG have any reason to do so.

My point exactly.

Lincecum is on that list for several reasons - but basically he fits the EXACT criteria of the list i.e. 2nd year + under 24 + IPs .

Not the list I was referring to. I was referring to the highest pitches thrown in one game THIS season, regardless of age or experience.

That is your right & to some extent I agree with your analysis.What I disagreed with was the way you singularly attacked the team beacuse of the context (ie Non contender/September/Stupid).

I posted (& I still actually believe) that teams DO things not for ONLY 1 context but also for ULTERIOR motives.

And, it's my opinion that there's no ulterior motive that makes sense in this situation. Unless that ulterior motive is to put Lincecum at greater risk of injury.

The legitimate criticism is what I mentioned in my post immediately prior to yours.

Which nobody is "claiming to be fact". Boa, drop that nonsensical rhetoric. I am clearly and repeatedly stating that what I say is my opinion. I'm "stating my opinion as fact" no more than you do. I state my opinion. I often QUALIFY it AS my opinion. It's not my fault that you're incapable of separating that from a fact.

Straight after he then says "So, they're either knowingly risking him, or they're really blind." which implies they know (which is an exactitude) the injury risk involved.

Saying that they are blind implies that they don't know that an injury risk is involved. I'm saying that they either know the risk OR they're blind.

5 - HGM called 130+ pitches stratospheric levels

And that's...well...true. That level is rare in today's game.

and basically came across (to me, I guess I need a qualifier here) as saying that 130 pitches = extreme risk.

~130 pitches on a relatively consistent basis for a young pitcher is an extreme risk. 130 pitches once isn't. 130 pitches for an established workhorse isn't. 130 pitches for a young pitcher multiple games in a row is.

6 - HGM is ignoring many variables here. The truth is you don't know how much gas is in his tank without pushing him.

I'm not ignoring any variables. I disagree with the decision. I also don't think pushing a player when the outcome of the game is both a) all but wrapped up and b) irrelevant to see if they can take it is a sound way to go about things.

[ohms_law]

I also don't think pushing a player when the outcome of the game is both a) all but wrapped up and b) irrelevant to see if they can take it is a sound way to go about things.

Agreed. Those two points are really the only things being criticized here anyway... the actual pitch counts are relatively irrelevant.

As I said before, the current Giants management is terrible. Their a failure, and this is one (relatively minor) example of why.

[HoustonGM]

Agreed. Those two points are really the only things being criticized here anyway... the actual pitch counts are relatively irrelevant.

It's also that it wasn't just this one game that they've pushed him this far, but 3 games in the span of 4.