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.
|
Post by rasimon on Mar 22, 2021 10:50:37 GMT -5
One thing to keep in mind as the season progresses.....these pitchers are getting worked hard already. Pitches thrown this weekend: Jack Leiter: 125 Kumar Rocker: 116 Ty Madden: 120 Gunnar Hoglund: 118 Yikes Not great but given 6 days of rest, not as bad as the days you'd see guys throwing 140+ Kerry Wood thinks they are wimps
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Mar 22, 2021 11:27:59 GMT -5
El Tiante thinks that they are wimps.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 22, 2021 11:28:23 GMT -5
Kerry Wood wishes his career as a starter had lasted longer than six years.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 22, 2021 11:29:01 GMT -5
Kerry Wood wishes his career as a starter had lasted longer than six years. #4 pick Kerry Wood....
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 22, 2021 11:42:37 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.
|
|
|
Post by worldbfree on Mar 22, 2021 14:26:49 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 wonder how many threw 95 mikes per hour. Most pitchers today seem like max effort pitchers. I think change of speeds might have been more significant back then.
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Mar 22, 2021 14:36:27 GMT -5
IIRC, they generally didn't throw as hard. Hitting 90 meant something when I was a kid and that was just the early 90's.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 22, 2021 16:00:15 GMT -5
IIRC, they generally didn't throw as hard. Hitting 90 meant something when I was a kid and that was just the early 90's. This is only anecdotal but I do remember seeing some old games and there were a lot of loopy slurvy pitches being thrown, the kind of stuff you don't see a lot of today. Hell, Bill Lee made a career out of striking nobody out and getting a huge ton of ground balls, or from the Tommy John family as Bill James would say.
|
|
|
Post by rasimon on Mar 22, 2021 16:00:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Mar 22, 2021 16:23:45 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. 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.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Mar 22, 2021 18:24:20 GMT -5
IIRC, they generally didn't throw as hard. Hitting 90 meant something when I was a kid and that was just the early 90's. This is only anecdotal but I do remember seeing some old games and there were a lot of loopy slurvy pitches being thrown, the kind of stuff you don't see a lot of today. Hell, Bill Lee made a career out of striking nobody out and getting a huge ton of ground balls, or from the Tommy John family as Bill James would say. Pitching was a lot easier back then. The SS on most teams hit like Luis Aparacio and the 2B hit like Doug Griffin. The lineups just weren't as thick. Lifting weights was taboo. I'm convinced that the weaker lineups were the reason P's could throw 300 innings. Also, hitters weren't taking as many pitches. P's pitched to contact and that contact by a marshmellow hitter like Mark Belanger and a lot of other guys who couldn't crack a lineup today was usually pretty soft.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 22, 2021 19:34:16 GMT -5
Has anyone ever done a study on where the danger zones are for innings in a season, pitches in a game, etc? I am fine with not having guys throw 135, 140, or more pitches. But it seems like even 120 is almost unheard of today, and truthfully that doesn’t seem more dangerous to me than 95-100 pitches.
I think the answer to the change is manifold: A) survivor bias. There *were* plenty of Fidryches whose arms went kaboom. So we see the survivors and think the practice “worked,” or whatever. B) guys didn’t try to strike out as many batters and tried to keep pitch counts lower. I suspect there were guys throwing 89-91 who could have been 94-95 if they thought it was worth it. C) strategic change. With modern bullpens, there is less reason to throw a guy longer, no matter who he is. D) investments... it is simply too expensive a risk to have, well, Sale miss a year and a half.
That is just a few — and others have been mentioned, too.
That said, it is impossible not to marvel at guys like Palmer in the 70s: 40 starts, 23 CGs in 1976, for example. And we have guys we hope make 23 STARTS.
|
|
|
Post by juanpena on Mar 22, 2021 20:42:30 GMT -5
I think the answer to the change is manifold: A) survivor bias. There *were* plenty of Fidryches whose arms went kaboom. So we see the survivors and think the practice “worked,” or whatever. Don Gullett is one who comes to mind. Overworked too young, he threw his last pitch at 27. An interesting case was Frank Tanana. He looked like he was headed to Cooperstown his first few years but was abused by the Angels, who seemed to be looking for him to match Nolan Ryan's workoad even though Ryan was a freak. Tanana threw heat initially, blew out his arm at 25 and was able to hang around throwing slop until he was 39.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 22, 2021 21:08:06 GMT -5
I think the answer to the change is manifold: A) survivor bias. There *were* plenty of Fidryches whose arms went kaboom. So we see the survivors and think the practice “worked,” or whatever. Don Gullett is one who comes to mind. Overworked too young, he threw his last pitch at 27. An interesting case was Frank Tanana. He looked like he was headed to Cooperstown his first few years but was abused by the Angels, who seemed to be looking for him to match Nolan Ryan's workoad even though Ryan was a freak. Tanana threw heat initially, blew out his arm at 25 and was able to hang around throwing slop until he was 39. I love Tanana. I actually often look at pitchers and try to imagine the Tanana Test: if you take away this guy’s fastball, could he reinvent himself? The answer is obviously almost always no (which is no sleight, since Tanana’s second career was amazing).
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 23, 2021 7:32:47 GMT -5
I don't think Tiant ever threw 98, certainly not in his second life with the Red Sox. Maybe when he was young with the Indians, but I find no mention of that. He had a good 1970s fastball, low 90s maybe touching 95, his favorite pitch, that he moved all around and threw from three different angles, and he had five other pitches of varying quality. A fb of 93 or 95 suddenly appearing from overhand or 3/4 or the side, after a few other off-speed pitches, after he twirled to face the bleachers or maybe tracked with his eyes a passing plane overhead, and then suddenly exploded and spun towards the plate, would have seem faster than its actual mph. Tremendous leg strength, tremendous stamina and toughness.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Mar 23, 2021 8:25:05 GMT -5
Has anyone ever done a study on where the danger zones are for innings in a season, pitches in a game, etc? I am fine with not having guys throw 135, 140, or more pitches. But it seems like even 120 is almost unheard of today, and truthfully that doesn’t seem more dangerous to me than 95-100 pitches. I think the answer to the change is manifold: A) survivor bias. There *were* plenty of Fidryches whose arms went kaboom. So we see the survivors and think the practice “worked,” or whatever. B) guys didn’t try to strike out as many batters and tried to keep pitch counts lower. I suspect there were guys throwing 89-91 who could have been 94-95 if they thought it was worth it. C) strategic change. With modern bullpens, there is less reason to throw a guy longer, no matter who he is. D) investments... it is simply too expensive a risk to have, well, Sale miss a year and a half. That is just a few — and others have been mentioned, too. That said, it is impossible not to marvel at guys like Palmer in the 70s: 40 starts, 23 CGs in 1976, for example. And we have guys we hope make 23 STARTS. This isn't exactly what you're looking for but I often go back to these two sources on the matter: bleacherreport.com/articles/1622573-do-innings-limits-pitch-counts-actually-prevent-serious-injurieswww.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/09/predicting-tommy-john-surgeries-the-2017-update.htmlThe conclusion seems to be that there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest what pitch count is "correct" but modern pitchers aren't being allowed to train their arms to throw 110+ pitches on a consistent basis. Based on the second article (as many would predict) risk of injury is much more heavily correlated with repeatability of delivery, % of hard pitches thrown, and previous arm injuries. I swear I remember reading an article discussing how the 100-pitch limit had zero basis in science and 100% basis in picking an easy even number, but I think the conclusion was once again that they couldn't find any evidence as to what the proper number should be.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Mar 23, 2021 9:01:28 GMT -5
I don't think Tiant ever threw 98, certainly not in his second life with the Red Sox. Maybe when he was young with the Indians, but I find no mention of that. He had a good 1970s fastball, low 90s maybe touching 95, his favorite pitch, that he moved all around and threw from three different angles, and he had five other pitches of varying quality. A fb of 93 or 95 suddenly appearing from overhand or 3/4 or the side, after a few other off-speed pitches, after he twirled to face the bleachers or maybe tracked with his eyes a passing plane overhead, and then suddenly exploded and spun towards the plate, would have seem faster than its actual mph. Tremendous leg strength, tremendous stamina and toughness. Of course that was all long ago and it's hard to find data. As I recall, Tiant hurt his arm/shoulder and may have been released by the Twins (following his Cleveland days). That's when we picked him up. He probably wasn't throwing near 98 with us...but he still had a stiff fb then. My memory is so strong regarding reading about his 98 mph in the 9th inning when pitching for Cleveland because it was so amazing to me. I even recall where in the house I was while doing so. Now maybe someone writing that was exaggerating or maybe there was an inaccurate recording, but the report definitely was 98. If my bro gets to play with Luis again, perhaps Luis can offer his 'slant'.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 23, 2021 9:12:12 GMT -5
I don't think Tiant ever threw 98, certainly not in his second life with the Red Sox. Maybe when he was young with the Indians, but I find no mention of that. He had a good 1970s fastball, low 90s maybe touching 95, his favorite pitch, that he moved all around and threw from three different angles, and he had five other pitches of varying quality. A fb of 93 or 95 suddenly appearing from overhand or 3/4 or the side, after a few other off-speed pitches, after he twirled to face the bleachers or maybe tracked with his eyes a passing plane overhead, and then suddenly exploded and spun towards the plate, would have seem faster than its actual mph. Tremendous leg strength, tremendous stamina and toughness. Of course that was all long ago and it's hard to find data. As I recall, Tiant hurt his arm/shoulder and may have been released by the Twins (following his Cleveland days). That's when we picked him up. He probably wasn't throwing near 98 with us...but he still had a stiff fb then. My memory is so strong regarding reading about his 98 mph in the 9th inning when pitching for Cleveland because it was so amazing to me. I even recall where in the house I was while doing so. Now maybe someone writing that was exaggerating or maybe there was an inaccurate recording, but the report definitely was 98. If my bro gets to play with Luis again, perhaps Luis can offer his 'slant'. I think the Braves released Tiant before the Sox picked him up and fortunately the Sox let him struggle with them in 1971 and didn't give up on him as you recall he really reinvented himself in 1972 with a great season that set the tone for the ones that would follow that one. I think Manfred made some good points as to why things are the way they are with pitchers. I keep wondering where it's going on the evolutionary path - are we headed for 3 three inning pitchers per game? 9 one inning pitchers? Or will it eventually swing back the other way? How does what happens in college pitching against those aluminum bats impact those sorts of things, the usage by college coaches?
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Mar 23, 2021 9:33:40 GMT -5
IIRC, they generally didn't throw as hard. Hitting 90 meant something when I was a kid and that was just the early 90's. No, we've raised a generation of pu$$ies, plain and simple. With their load management and such. We'll never see anything close to Cal Ripken or even in basketball when a player goes all 82 games, or even close to it, playing 40 minutes per game in an era where players were being body slammed almost nightly. Yes it took it's toll. But the games were more fun to watch. Some careers were cut short. This generation, and one prior, are a bunch a sucker punching/kicking "tough guys". Sorry if some of you fit in that category but it's true. Go in the woods and have keg parties and piss on a tree (or squat behind a bush) instead of staring at your smartphone and doing the least amount of work possible at your job. Be one with nature.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 23, 2021 10:01:20 GMT -5
IIRC, they generally didn't throw as hard. Hitting 90 meant something when I was a kid and that was just the early 90's. No, we've raised a generation of pu$$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....
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Mar 23, 2021 11:37:42 GMT -5
Of course that was all long ago and it's hard to find data. As I recall, Tiant hurt his arm/shoulder and may have been released by the Twins (following his Cleveland days). That's when we picked him up. He probably wasn't throwing near 98 with us...but he still had a stiff fb then. My memory is so strong regarding reading about his 98 mph in the 9th inning when pitching for Cleveland because it was so amazing to me. I even recall where in the house I was while doing so. Now maybe someone writing that was exaggerating or maybe there was an inaccurate recording, but the report definitely was 98. If my bro gets to play with Luis again, perhaps Luis can offer his 'slant'. I think the Braves released Tiant before the Sox picked him up and fortunately the Sox let him struggle with them in 1971 and didn't give up on him as you recall he really reinvented himself in 1972 with a great season that set the tone for the ones that would follow that one. I think Manfred made some good points as to why things are the way they are with pitchers. I keep wondering where it's going on the evolutionary path - are we headed for 3 three inning pitchers per game? 9 one inning pitchers? Or will it eventually swing back the other way? How does what happens in college pitching against those aluminum bats impact those sorts of things, the usage by college coaches? Following injury Tiant pitched for the Twins a bit in 1970....then was released. Milwaukee picked him up but released him almost immediately w/o his pitching for them. In 1967 and 1968 Luis was unhittable. In that so different era, he struck out more than a batter/inning, a real rarity then AND threw 9 shutouts. As to the draft, each video we see whets the appetite until we see the next. Thanks to those with access posting them. The rankings seemingly have settled in barring injury. I read scouting reports that described Lawlar and Mayer as good in all categories but not great at any phase particularly. Most seem to think Lawlar gets picked in top 3 with Mayer in the top 7-8. Both are rangy and fluid and we'll be in need of a SS by the time either arrives.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Mar 23, 2021 11:49:05 GMT -5
The question is, will we ever see another, say, Greg Maddux, who could flummox everyone while not overexerting himself, using his smarts? Baseball may be evolving toward something, but smart management would be to give the extraordinary talent a chance to reveal itself, and if it does, use it to its fullest extent whether or not it follows current trends.
What about the next Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn, who has relatively little interest in 3 true outcomes but can hit .350 to .400 in his prime? There has to be a place for that type of offensive player, and if you find one you should nurture it, because a .350 - .400 average IS better than a .350 - .400 OBP.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Mar 23, 2021 11:57:55 GMT -5
The question is, will we ever see another, say, Greg Maddux, who could flummox everyone while not overexerting himself, using his smarts? Baseball may be evolving toward something, but smart management would be to give the extraordinary talent a chance to reveal itself, and if it does, use it to its fullest extent whether or not it follows current trends. What about the next Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn, who has relatively little interest in 3 true outcomes but can hit .350 to .400 in his prime? There has to be a place for that type of offensive player, and if you find one you should nurture it, because a .350 - .400 average IS better than a .350 - .400 OBP. 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.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 23, 2021 12:11:56 GMT -5
The question is, will we ever see another, say, Greg Maddux, who could flummox everyone while not overexerting himself, using his smarts? Baseball may be evolving toward something, but smart management would be to give the extraordinary talent a chance to reveal itself, and if it does, use it to its fullest extent whether or not it follows current trends. What about the next Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn, who has relatively little interest in 3 true outcomes but can hit .350 to .400 in his prime? There has to be a place for that type of offensive player, and if you find one you should nurture it, because a .350 - .400 average IS better than a .350 - .400 OBP. 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. I get your general point but I wouldn't have done anything to change Boggs or Gwynn. Gywnn was a lifetime .338 hitter. He impacted for the good. I don't know if coaches trying to tweak his approach might have done more harm than good. 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. When I think of this class of hitter, the names Pete Rose, Rod Carew, Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, and Ichiro come to mind. With the exception of Rose for obvious reasons and Ichiro because he isn't eligible yet, they're all HOFers, so messing around with their approach could have backfired dramatically on them. They all offered different skills that supplemented their batting average driven approach. Rose played several different defensive positions. Carew played 2b where power doesn't matter as much (until he later moved to 1b). Boggs drew a ton of walks and was an on-base machine and played a solid 3b Gywnn was ultimately the best of the batting average guys - I mean the guy was an all-timer. .338 lifetime. Ichiro supplemented his singles skills with speed and gold glove defense in RF.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 23, 2021 12:22:36 GMT -5
IIRC, they generally didn't throw as hard. Hitting 90 meant something when I was a kid and that was just the early 90's. 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..."
|
|
|