SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Mar 23, 2021 13:27:20 GMT -5
I don't think there are any Boggs or Gwynns languishing in the minors because no team will give them a chance. If you can hit .390, you're going to be in the majors. But I'm not sure teams should nurture those approaches. Gwynn would have been a much more valuable player if he had hit for some more power. If he was on the Red Sox today, I'd hope the coaches would try to tweak his approach. Boggs hit for power for one season and was able to keep his batting average sky high (.363 to be exact), but if he felt he could have done that consistently then he would have tried for more home runs - and as I recall 1987 was a year for the HRs (by 1980s standards anyways). I think I remember him saying something to the affect that had he changed his swing his batting average decline would have dropped enough it wouldn't have been worth the increase in HRs. "Wade Boggs didn't try to hit 24 HRs last year and Wade Boggs didn't try to hit five HRs this year. Wade Boggs just tries to make good contact." I think Wade's quote was something like that, as I recall. He was a character!
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 23, 2021 13:38:12 GMT -5
I've written this before, but it's worth laying it out again. Nolan Ryan was not the best pitcher on the Angels where he started his career. That was Frank Tanana. He was truly gifted but given a workload that led to serious arm problems. There were people who understood back then what had happened, but it wasn't something that was widely discussed. It was simply seen as part of the game. That he reinvented himself was to his lasting credit, but it left me wondering how he could have developed if he hadn't thrown 1300 innings worth of pitches in his age 20-24 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Mar 23, 2021 14:21:13 GMT -5
El Tiante thinks that they are wimps. Every pitcher from every preceding generation thinks the newest generation of pitchers are whimps as they watch 400 inning pitching workloads become 300 inning loads become 250 inning loads become 200 inning loads become 175 inning pitching loads, which of course is the evolution of starting pitchers' workloads. I do wonder why a number of those pitchers from the 1960s pitched well into the 1980s despite having those 250 inning workloads. Seemed like there were a number of greybeards who hung around forever while today pitching less innings these guys seem to flame out at a higher rate, or basically the near extinction of 300 game winners. I would like to compare pitch counts in addition to inning as strike zones have gotten smaller and pitched per batter have gotten higher (and games much longer).
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Mar 23, 2021 14:23:07 GMT -5
El Tiante thinks that they are wimps. Every pitcher from every preceding generation thinks the newest generation of pitchers are whimps as they watch 400 inning pitching workloads become 300 inning loads become 250 inning loads become 200 inning loads become 175 inning pitching loads, which of course is the evolution of starting pitchers' workloads. I do wonder why a number of those pitchers from the 1960s pitched well into the 1980s despite having those 250 inning workloads. Seemed like there were a number of greybeards who hung around forever while today pitching less innings these guys seem to flame out at a higher rate, or basically the near extinction of 300 game winners. The pitchers today are encouraged to throw harder blowing out their arms!
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Mar 23, 2021 14:26:54 GMT -5
One Nolan Ryan vs a hiuge number of Al Nipper, Chuck Rainey, Bill Lee. I can name an abbreviation in almost anything.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Mar 23, 2021 14:31:22 GMT -5
Every pitcher from every preceding generation thinks the newest generation of pitchers are whimps as they watch 400 inning pitching workloads become 300 inning loads become 250 inning loads become 200 inning loads become 175 inning pitching loads, which of course is the evolution of starting pitchers' workloads. I do wonder why a number of those pitchers from the 1960s pitched well into the 1980s despite having those 250 inning workloads. Seemed like there were a number of greybeards who hung around forever while today pitching less innings these guys seem to flame out at a higher rate, or basically the near extinction of 300 game winners. My brother in Maine has played golf with Luis, (who has a summer home there) on a number of occasions and they talk a lot of baseball. Luis remains adamant that pitchers today are terribly babied. A thought re shorter outings now is that there is greater emphasis on velo and pitchers are asked to 'throw as hard as you can as long as you can'...so they exhaust themselves earlier. And that max effort can lead to injury. Still, I remember an article in the Boston Herald so many years ago when Luis was then pitching for Cleveland and threw a shutout. The paper reported that he was still at 98 mph in the 9th inning. That stood out to me as it was almost unheard of then, certainly for the perennially pitching poor Sox. In a game I listened to on radio when Luis was later with us he pitched 14 innings and threw something in the range of 160 pitches. He was the consummate matador of a bygone era. It was also normal to see all the pitchers in the rotation throw between 5 and 10 complete games each.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Mar 23, 2021 14:31:54 GMT -5
My brother in Maine has played golf with Luis, (who has a summer home there) on a number of occasions and they talk a lot of baseball. Luis remains adamant that pitchers today are terribly babied. A thought re shorter outings now is that there is greater emphasis on velo and pitchers are asked to 'throw as hard as you can as long as you can'...so they exhaust themselves earlier. And that max effort can lead to injury. Still, I remember an article in the Boston Herald so many years ago when Luis was then pitching for Cleveland and threw a shutout. The paper reported that he was still at 98 mph in the 9th inning. That stood out to me as it was almost unheard of then, certainly for the perennially pitching poor Sox. In a game I listened to on radio when Luis was later with us he pitched 14 innings and threw something in the range of 160 pitches. He was the consummate matador of a bygone era. It was also normal to see all the pitchers in the rotation throw between 5 and 10 complete games each. ....per season
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Mar 23, 2021 15:35:46 GMT -5
It was also normal to see all the pitchers in the rotation throw between 5 and 10 complete games each. ....per season And a lot more than that for the studs. El Tiante CG from '73-'76: 23, 25, 18, 19. He threw 311 innings in 1974 and put up 7.7 B-Ref WAR. His exclusion from the HOF is a total joke. It's not like he's a close call and you could argue it either way. It's an earth-is-round-vs.-earth-is-flat type of argument.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Mar 23, 2021 15:48:12 GMT -5
Every pitcher from every preceding generation thinks the newest generation of pitchers are whimps as they watch 400 inning pitching workloads become 300 inning loads become 250 inning loads become 200 inning loads become 175 inning pitching loads, which of course is the evolution of starting pitchers' workloads. I do wonder why a number of those pitchers from the 1960s pitched well into the 1980s despite having those 250 inning workloads. Seemed like there were a number of greybeards who hung around forever while today pitching less innings these guys seem to flame out at a higher rate, or basically the near extinction of 300 game winners. In a game I listened to on radio when Luis was later with us he pitched 14 innings and threw something in the range of 160 pitches. He was the consummate matador of a bygone era. Found it: www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CAL/CAL197406140.shtmlHe faced 56 hitters and pitched to contact with only five K's. I can't find the pitch count - not that Luis the warrior gave a crap about that.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Mar 23, 2021 18:46:27 GMT -5
No, we've raised a generation of pu$$ies, plain and simple. With their load management and such. We'll never see anything close to Cal Ripken or even in basketball when a player goes all 82 games, or even close to it, playing 40 minutes per game in an era where players were being body slammed almost nightly. Yes it took it's toll. But the games were more fun to watch. Some careers were cut short. This generation, and one prior, are a bunch a sucker punching/kicking "tough guys". Sorry if some of you fit in that category but it's true. Go in the woods and have keg parties and piss on a tree (or squat behind a bush) instead of staring at your smartphone and doing the least amount of work possible at your job. Be one with nature. Well, obviously this is stupid. Athletes exhibit “toughness” all the time, as much as ever (I mean.... consider that the season is longer AND the playoffs are extended, for example). But when you raise only to dismiss shortened careers, you make the main point unconsciously: some fans want more from guys than they deserve. Do you go to the post office and ask the “wimpy” postmen why they don’t work double shifts to get you your Amazon packages faster? Athletes do a job that they get paid for, and they need to be able to play again tomorrow. What is wrong with better work conditions? And, by the way, as a fan, I’d rather multiple 175 inning seasons from my favorite starter than a single epic 300 inning season, as briefly satisfying as that would be. If we could safely return to 200-220 innings a year, I’d prefer it. But if it is not for the best, I certainly won’t tell guys to rub some dirt on it. No athlete gets paid to disable himself. But, then again, I much prefer toilets to trees, so.... Agreed, the initial comment is missing the forest from the trees by blaming this on (in my words) society becoming a bunch of wimps. That's not addressing the root cause. To me, it's the evolution of the game from an era of playing "for the love of the game" to an era of capitalism. The minute these teams had a huge financial disincentive to ruining someone's career, they began to think through all the ways to preserve their investment. The average salary was 150K in 1980 and 15K in 1965 so an injury hurt the team but not the pocketbook, which isn't the case now that it's pushing 4.5M (as an aside for a separate thread, flattening at 4.5M while revenues soar is why players should be angry heading into the labor talks). It's just a different world now and we have to accept that risk mitigation is a crucial component of the game now. Unfortunately MLB is now a business and will be run by businessmen and played by businessmen. Some might find it better, some might find it worse. Whatever you think it's just different, it can't be the same as the way it used to be.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 23, 2021 18:56:56 GMT -5
Well, obviously this is stupid. Athletes exhibit “toughness” all the time, as much as ever (I mean.... consider that the season is longer AND the playoffs are extended, for example). But when you raise only to dismiss shortened careers, you make the main point unconsciously: some fans want more from guys than they deserve. Do you go to the post office and ask the “wimpy” postmen why they don’t work double shifts to get you your Amazon packages faster? Athletes do a job that they get paid for, and they need to be able to play again tomorrow. What is wrong with better work conditions? And, by the way, as a fan, I’d rather multiple 175 inning seasons from my favorite starter than a single epic 300 inning season, as briefly satisfying as that would be. If we could safely return to 200-220 innings a year, I’d prefer it. But if it is not for the best, I certainly won’t tell guys to rub some dirt on it. No athlete gets paid to disable himself. But, then again, I much prefer toilets to trees, so.... Agreed, the initial comment is missing the forest from the trees by blaming this on (in my words) society becoming a bunch of wimps. That's not addressing the root cause. To me, it's the evolution of the game from an era of playing "for the love of the game" to an era of capitalism. The minute these teams had a huge financial disincentive to ruining someone's career, they began to think through all the ways to preserve their investment. The average salary was 150K in 1980 and 15K in 1965 so an injury hurt the team but not the pocketbook, which isn't the case now that it's pushing 4.5M (as an aside for a separate thread, flattening at 4.5M while revenues soar is why players should be angry heading into the labor talks). It's just a different world now and we have to accept that risk mitigation is a crucial component of the game now. Unfortunately MLB is now a business and will be run by businessmen and played by businessmen. Some might find it better, some might find it worse. Whatever you think it's just different, it can't be the same as the way it used to be. I think that is half true, but it does overlook the fact that if the owners really had no incentive to keep guys healthy, then the league was like a meatpacking plant. That is certainly not good. Even if it is for selfish reasons, the owners not treating players like horses that can be sent to the glue factory is an advance. And I think players have more power to control their work conditions, which is also a good thing. Indeed, I often look at sports and wish other jobs made similar workplace advances. Good pay, great health care, proactive attention to injury.... shouldn’t that be a given?
|
|
|
Post by rasimon on Mar 23, 2021 19:18:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Mar 23, 2021 21:52:21 GMT -5
Agreed, the initial comment is missing the forest from the trees by blaming this on (in my words) society becoming a bunch of wimps. That's not addressing the root cause. To me, it's the evolution of the game from an era of playing "for the love of the game" to an era of capitalism. The minute these teams had a huge financial disincentive to ruining someone's career, they began to think through all the ways to preserve their investment. The average salary was 150K in 1980 and 15K in 1965 so an injury hurt the team but not the pocketbook, which isn't the case now that it's pushing 4.5M (as an aside for a separate thread, flattening at 4.5M while revenues soar is why players should be angry heading into the labor talks). It's just a different world now and we have to accept that risk mitigation is a crucial component of the game now. Unfortunately MLB is now a business and will be run by businessmen and played by businessmen. Some might find it better, some might find it worse. Whatever you think it's just different, it can't be the same as the way it used to be. I think that is half true, but it does overlook the fact that if the owners really had no incentive to keep guys healthy, then the league was like a meatpacking plant. That is certainly not good. Even if it is for selfish reasons, the owners not treating players like horses that can be sent to the glue factory is an advance. And I think players have more power to control their work conditions, which is also a good thing. Indeed, I often look at sports and wish other jobs made similar workplace advances. Good pay, great health care, proactive attention to injury.... shouldn’t that be a given? That's fair, I would agree that owners didn't deliberately destroy their players, they just didn't have the analytics and insights to know the correlations (or causations) we know today. And as someone else posted, pitchers were throwing less max-effort and fewer sliders/splitters so the chance of injury was likely less. But I still believe protecting their players health became an imperative as money entered the game. I feel like MLB players would need to be compared to the executive/management layer. Baseball doesn't look nearly as utopic once the MiLB conditions come in.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 24, 2021 3:32:24 GMT -5
Missing from this discussion is that in the era where Pedro came up, the injury attrition rate for top pitching prospects was terrifying. We can complain about Carl Pavano, Brian Rose, and Juan Pena all getting hurt before getting to MLB, but that happened to almost every top pitching prospect.
I have a list of 18 guys who were in BA's top 15 prospects in MLB and who debuted in the minors from 1987 to 1992. Mike Harkey, Kiki Jones, Roger Salkeld, Todd van Poppel, Steve Karsay, Allen Watson, Jose Silva, Brien Taylor, and Bill Pulsipher all had serious injuries that derailed their careers (Taylor's infamously off-the-field). Ben McDonald, Steve Avery, Arthur Rhodes, Jason Bere, and James Baldwin all fell short of expectations due to injury. Only Pedro, Jason Schmidt, and Willie Banks escaped injury, but Banks, a #13 prospect, was a bust.
Avery's IP starting at age 19: 171, 186, 210, 234, 216, when he had a 2.94 ERA. He had a 2.49 through May 20 the next year, then a 5.08 in his remaining 15 starts, was shut down, and had a 5.06 ERA in 6 more seasons. That permanent collapse happened in his age 24 season. That's a criminal waste of what was looking to be a HOF carrer from ther #1 prospect in MLB. For context, Houck, Whitlock, and Seabold, the youngest guys expected to pitch for us this year, are all in their age 25's.
Teams noticed this. That's when they started "babying" guys. 6 of 15 guys who debuted 1993-7 stayed healthy, and 10 of 16 from 1998 to 2002.
Here's Avery's innings again, with the obvious comp:
171, 186, 210, 234, 216 122, 169, 171, 204, 233. That's Kershaw.
If you poke around baseball history, you'll come across one promising pitching career after another that ended prematurely. If you started following Sox prospects in 1962, as I did, you remember names like Jerry Stephenson. Or maybe you remember Josias Manzanillo putting up a 2.27 ERA for Winter Haven in the FSL at age 18 .in 1986 ... while throwing 143 innings, an increase from 52 the year before. He blew out his elbow in his second start the next year, and ended up having 3 real good years as a reliever (1994, 2000, 2001) and a bunch of bad ones. But he had fanned 12 in 10 IP in AA at age 19. He was supposed to be a top-of-rotation starter.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 24, 2021 7:29:02 GMT -5
No, we've raised a generation of pu$$ies, plain and simple. With their load management and such. We'll never see anything close to Cal Ripken or even in basketball when a player goes all 82 games, or even close to it, playing 40 minutes per game in an era where players were being body slammed almost nightly. Yes it took it's toll. But the games were more fun to watch. Some careers were cut short. This generation, and one prior, are a bunch a sucker punching/kicking "tough guys". Sorry if some of you fit in that category but it's true. Go in the woods and have keg parties and piss on a tree (or squat behind a bush) instead of staring at your smartphone and doing the least amount of work possible at your job. Be one with nature. "Back in the day, when men were men, and they didn't try so hard, and like smoked cigarettes in the dugout - unlike today's wimpy athletes, who work out constantly and exert themselves to the point that their bodies literally break down in order to gain the tiniest marginal advantage against a far larger and more talented pool of competition..." I have heard stories about having a few beers in between double headers, Rico Petrocelli.
|
|
|