OrangeWhoopass.com Forums
General Discussion => Talk Zone => Topic started by: gwat on September 01, 2007, 09:06:47 pm
-
For Red Sox, DirecTV 736.
-
2 down.
-
Crazy big breaking pitch.
-
Done on a gift call 3rd, but done. His 2nd start, BADASSS.
Saw it again, no gift.
-
Done on a gift call 3rd, but done. His 2nd start, BADASSS.
Saw it again, no gift.
Nope, curve right over the plate. No idea why a batter would watch that pitch to end a no-hitter. Buchholz pitched a great game. Used the CB and change a lot, good sinking change. And the play by Pedroia was absolutely incredible.
-
Of all fan bases, you'd think we could spell his last name correctly.
-
Of all fan bases, you'd think we could spell his last name correctly.
You are right. I thought it looked wrong, but I was walking out the door when I caught wind of the event and tuned in. Being late for my date, I didn't double check my spelling.
-
Of all fan bases, you'd think we could spell his last name correctly.
Because of Tailor, right? Huh?
-
Of all fan bases, you'd think we could spell his last name correctly.
did someone mention spelling. i am always glad to help
-
Because of Tailor, right? Huh?
Are Taylor and Clay related? Just curious.
-
Are Taylor and Clay related? Just curious.
No.
-
Texas-grown boy at that... I believe the news said he was born in Nederland, and went to high school in Lumberton.
-
JD said during the game that Francona called up to Epstein in the 8th or 9th to ask about a pitch limit. Theo said pull him at 120 pitches, no matter what.
He ended up at 115.
JD thought it was nuts... how could anyone think that 121 pitches is damaging but 115 is still OK.
-
JD said during the game that Francona called up to Epstein in the 8th or 9th to ask about a pitch limit. Theo said pull him at 120 pitches, no matter what.
He ended up at 115.
JD thought it was nuts... how could anyone think that 121 pitches is damaging but 115 is still OK.
Theo Epstein must think that. Apparently they had a plan. Maybe it's just an adopted number for the team to err on the side of caution. Or maybe they were limiting his pitches in his first few starts and they had already exceeded their planned limit at that point. Sentiment aside, in one way they're to be commended for putting the for the long term health kid with a bright future ahead of the no-hitter. Moot point anyway.
-
Theo Epstein must think that. Apparently they had a plan. Maybe it's just an adopted number for the team to err on the side of caution. Or maybe they were limiting his pitches in his first few starts and they had already exceeded their planned limit at that point. Sentiment aside, in one way they're to be commended for putting the for the long term health kid with a bright future ahead of the no-hitter. Moot point anyway.
or maybe it is total bullshit. yes, i think it is.
-
JD said during the game that Francona called up to Epstein in the 8th or 9th to ask about a pitch limit. Theo said pull him at 120 pitches, no matter what.
He ended up at 115.
JD thought it was nuts... how could anyone think that 121 pitches is damaging but 115 is still OK.
So where do you draw the line?
-
So where do you draw the line?
You draw the line when he's tired and (a) not effective or (b) his mechanics are compromised, or (c) both...(b) usually begets (a).
-
You draw the line when he's tired and (a) not effective or (b) his mechanics are compromised, or (c) both...(b) usually begets (a).
They said the kid hadn't thrown more than 98 pitches all year. Given that, I don't think it's crazy to be concerned about going way beyond that. Obviously they want him to get the no-hitter too. Maybe the difference between 115 and 120 is negligible, but if he's at 120 and then some guy has a ten-pitch at-bat, then, well, you're getting into sketchy territory I would think.
-
You draw the line when he's tired and (a) not effective or (b) his mechanics are compromised, or (c) both...(b) usually begets (a).
Fair enough.
I'd rather have a strict number than rely on the subjective reporting of a young kid in his position. I applaud the protection of his arm.
-
or maybe it is total bullshit. yes, i think it is.
Perhaps you should write Mr. Epstein and tell him how to do his job.
-
Fair enough.
I'd rather have a strict number than rely on the subjective reporting of a young kid in his position. I applaud the protection of his arm.
Do you think the decision would have been the rookie pitchers?
-
Perhaps you should write Mr. Epstein and tell him how to do his job.
perhaps you should jump into the nearest lake.
-
So where do you draw the line?
there is no number line. you also do not rely on what the pitcher says totally. you watch the pitcher.
an arbitrary pitch count is not protecting arms. strict pitch counts in the minors is a major reason why pitchers break down in MLB.
-
strict pitch counts in the minors is a major reason why pitchers break down in MLB.
With all due respect Jim, I think that's somewhat anecdotal. Is there anyone you can actually point to an say, "he broke down at this level because he was limited to a strict pitch count in the minors."
-
With all due respect Jim, I think that's somewhat anecdotal. Is there anyone you can actually point to an say, "he broke down at this level because he was limited to a strict pitch count in the minors."
oh, my--the ultimate curse: "somewhat anecdotal."
lots of folks in baseball are saying it. maybe pravata kind find you a link so you'll give it some credence.
here you go. numbers galore: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/what-pitch-counts-hath-wrought/
the bottom line is arm strenghth. the Atlanta Braves, an organization which knows something about pitching, has their young pitchers throw EVERY day.
Maddux on pitch counts: Maddux was impressed by not only Matsuzaka, but Japan's developmental methods. "It just goes to show you that maybe the guys here aren't throwing enough pitches," Maddux said. "I remember being in Double-A and my coach telling me how to pitch tired. I don't think there's any of that going on now." Maddux scoffed at how protective some U.S. clubs are, pulling the plug on minor league pitchers after 80 pitches. "My kid has a (flipping) pitch count in his league this year. He's 10 years old. You are telling me his arm's tired?"
an arbitrary pitch count limit is just a number someone chose. it has no basis in any real situation whatsoever and directly contributes to a lack of arm strength and conditioning. what matters is how the pitcher is throwing and whether he is laboring or still throwing free and easy when he reaches the magic number.
-
oh, my--the ultimate curse: "somewhat anecdotal."
lots of folks in baseball are saying it. maybe pravata kind find you a link so you'll give it some credence.
here you go. numbers galore: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/what-pitch-counts-hath-wrought/
It's not that I don't give it credence, hell, if you say it's so, than so be it. Forgive me for asking if you had someone in mind or specific knowledge of an individual whose MLB breakdown might have been caused by the limiting of pitch counts in the minors.
-
It's not that I don't give it credence, hell, if you say it's so, than so be it. Forgive me for asking if you had someone in mind or specific knowledge of an individual whose MLB breakdown might have been caused by the limiting of pitch counts in the minors.
perhaps i could find someone to tell me a specific name. of course, i do not know one. the hysteria over pitch counts started with BP. the idea that 101-120 pitches leads to broken down arms but 100 is ok is total nonsense. can i prove that? nope, but i know it. i could probably find quotes of baseball folks with whom i agree if i researched it.
-
I agree the best way to tell if a pitcher has had too much, is by observing. The thing about pitch counting that alway bugs me the most is that it discounts the individuals physical and mental abilities. It doesn't allow for exceptions. As if one pitch could be the equivalent of a grass straw or a grain of sand.
117 is fine, 118 too much--is to me a silly notion.
-
I agree the best way to tell if a pitcher has had too much, is by observing. The thing about pitch counting that alway bugs me the most is that it discounts the individuals physical and mental abilities. It doesn't allow for exceptions. As if one pitch could be the equivalent of a grass straw or a grain of sand.
117 is fine, 118 too much--is to me a silly notion.
yes, and BP started it at 100.
-
perhaps you should jump into the nearest lake.
OK, but only since you were so nice about suggesting it.
-
Do you think the decision would have been the rookie pitchers?
I thought that the "when he's tired" comment meant it would be significantly impacted by the pitcher's own reporting...
-
I thought that the "when he's tired" comment meant it would be significantly impacted by the pitcher's own reporting...
Not what I meant to imply at all. The decision would come from observations by the pitching coach, Manager, and catcher.
-
Not what I meant to imply at all. The decision would come from observations by the pitching coach, Manager, and catcher.
Cool.
I guess i'd prefer a strict count to eliminate human error and some of the subjective element. Reduce variation sort of.
But that's a different issue than one Jim is talking about, I think. If you want to make changes to the entire organizational philosophy, that could be a valid strategy. But I don't think opening things up in the majors after these players are used to strict counts all through the minors is a good idea.
-
I always figured that observing pitch counts was something the organization's legal department dreamed up to protect the club from the agent's bastard cousin, the plaintiff's attorney.
-
I guess i'd prefer a strict count to eliminate human error and some of the subjective element.
From where do you think pitch counts come? A burning bush? Written on stone tablets? Pitch counts are entirely subjective.
-
Cool.
I guess i'd prefer a strict count to eliminate human error and some of the subjective element. Reduce variation sort of.
But that's a different issue than one Jim is talking about, I think. If you want to make changes to the entire organizational philosophy, that could be a valid strategy. But I don't think opening things up in the majors after these players are used to strict counts all through the minors is a good idea.
I don't see how an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all, number would be better at protecting the pitcher than individualized evidence of how the pitcher is feeling and performing.
-
Cool.
I guess i'd prefer a strict count to eliminate human error and some of the subjective element. Reduce variation sort of.
This is one of the most asenine statements ever made in the history of baseball.
Pitch count is a factor to consider in whether a pitcher needs to be replaced. Comparison of a pitcher's pitch counts over a series of appearances has more relevance than just where he is on the count at a particular time. Factors to consider when deciding whether or not to change pitchers include overall effectiveness (is he getting outs? are they hitting him hard?), location (can he put his pitches where he wants them?), mechanics (has he changed his mechanics at all?), time sequence between pitches (is it lengthening?), signs of fatigue (hanging the shoulders, extra walking around the mound, etc.) and input from the battery.
Setting a pitch count would do nothing but introduce arbitrariness into baseball. It would not eliminate human error. Who would set the number? Pitchers have a wide range of arm strength. One number wouldn't be fair.
Pitchers will still make pitching mistakes during their appearances. Some pitching coaches will miss obvious signs of distress before the pitch count becomes an issue. Managers will continue to leave pitchers in too long even though they haven't reached their pitch count limit.
As a youth pitching coach, I've come full circle about pitch counts. I used to pay far more attention to them 20 years ago than I do now. In fact, I think that slavish use of pitch counts to determine when to make pitching changes costs teams ball games because they pull a pitcher who is pitching effectively for the "plan"-set-up men for the eighth and the closer for the ninth. This is a dumbass strategy in my view.
-
They said the kid hadn't thrown more than 98 pitches all year. Given that, I don't think it's crazy to be concerned about going way beyond that. Obviously they want him to get the no-hitter too. Maybe the difference between 115 and 120 is negligible, but if he's at 120 and then some guy has a ten-pitch at-bat, then, well, you're getting into sketchy territory I would think.
I wonder though where Epstein got 120 from? I would've loved for him to have said 110 tops and then you pull him. Made for great drama in Beantown.
-
Glad it did not come down to the purported pitch count.
Regarding Buchholz, a guy who had been MOWING down the Orioles that evening, any managerial sort who might have second-guessed his skills in the ninth inning, removing him with a 10-0 lead, for the sake of a pitch count, saving him a few (and it would have only been a few) more pitches, would have been, in my book, a total Ass Wipe. So much for that conjecture however.
Who knows if the pitch count stuff was really an issue. If it was, I would guess that it might possibly have been a guideline for the notion that "this is your average start and these are the parameters." Saturday night, however, was not your average start.
-
Pitch count is a factor to consider in whether a pitcher needs to be replaced. Comparison of a pitcher's pitch counts over a series of appearances has more relevance than just where he is on the count at a particular time. Factors to consider when deciding whether or not to change pitchers include overall effectiveness (is he getting outs? are they hitting him hard?), location (can he put his pitches where he wants them?), mechanics (has he changed his mechanics at all?), time sequence between pitches (is it lengthening?), signs of fatigue (hanging the shoulders, extra walking around the mound, etc.) and input from the battery.
...is it a day game in St Louis in August or a night game in San Fran in September? Has the pitcher just had a bout of diarrhea, gonorrhea or ED? Did he throw nine innings last time out, or two?
Basically, you watch the pitcher and when he starts losing control because he's tired and his mechanics are breaking down, you think about yanking him. I can't say "yank him" definitively, because there's a whole buhzillion other reasons why you might want to leave him out there...especially in National League ball.
-
I always figured that observing pitch counts was something the organization's legal department dreamed up to protect the club from the agent's bastard cousin, the plaintiff's attorney.
Though I did not seek nor receive the chair's approval to reserve the right to advise and extend my remarks, I do so nevertheless. After further consideration, the thought occured to me that "the bastard cousin" in the above observation just might in fact be the sports agent and not the plaintiff's attorney.
-
...is it a day game in St Louis in August or a night game in San Fran in September? Has the pitcher just had a bout of diarrhea, gonorrhea or ED? Did he throw nine innings last time out, or two?
Basically, you watch the pitcher and when he starts losing control because he's tired and his mechanics are breaking down, you think about yanking him. I can't say "yank him" definitively, because there's a whole buhzillion other reasons why you might want to leave him out there...especially in National League ball.
Wrong. The cosiderations are the same. Double switches do come in to play in the nl. Bullpen availabilty also fafctors in. My comments were dircted at someone who has obviously never coached pitchers in his life.