Jump to content

84 Lives!!!

What BOTHER'S me about JL's use of Edwin Today:

Recommended Posts

People worry way too mcuch about pitch counts these days. Jackson wasn't laboring in the 8th, he still looked sharp IMO.

This is my final thought as well.

I was stating that I was nervous that he went from an average 100 pitches per game to a spike of 132... but after seeing Maddux's game logs... it seems that pitch counts are often up & down game to game... so I don't think it's anything to worry about either.

The more critical issues being: Not pushing a pitcher to high pitch-counts when he is "labouring", and not continuously pushing a pitcher to high pitch counts game-after-game (reducing follow-up game or in-between game heavy workloads...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the justifiable nitpicking continues..

Let me pose this question. If Leyland abuses, misuses and botches the use of his staff and bullpen, thus rendering them tired and usless at the end of seasons.

Explain the pitching performances in the 2006 playoff run..bullpen and starters.

That's a fair point, but how do you explain our collapse in the second half of 2006? What about the fact that the staff has performed significantly worse in the second half of each season under Leyland's watch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) And the justifiable nitpicking continues..

2) ...If Leyland abuses, misuses and botches the use of his staff and bullpen, thus rendering them tired and usless at the end of seasons...Explain the pitching performances in the 2006 playoff run..bullpen and starters.

1) I wasn't nitpicking. I was asking questions.

2) "1.30 ...the increase in ERA of Detroit starters from the first half of the season to the second half of the season for 2006..."

The answer to your question in #2 is: Second wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a fair point, but how do you explain our collapse in the second half of 2006? What about the fact that the staff has performed significantly worse in the second half of each season under Leyland's watch?

Which is why I asked the questions that I did...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) I wasn't nitpicking. I was asking questions.

2) "1.30 ...the increase in ERA of Detroit starters from the first half of the season to the second half of the season for 2006..."

The answer to your question in #2 is: Second wind.

The answer to my question debunks all the elevated ERA nonsense..because the real answer is something along the lines of, they overperformed in the 1st 81 games and underperformed in the second 81 games.

But the most important answer was, they were perfectly able to perform well in a post season scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The answer to my question debunks all the elevated ERA nonsense..because the real answer is something along the lines of, they overperformed in the 1st 81 games and underperformed in the second 81 games.

But the most important answer was, they were perfectly able to perform well in a post season scenario.

What about 2007 and 2008? Did they overperform in the first half of those years and underperform in the second? Didn't that underperformance in the second half of 2007 keep us out of the playoffs, rendering their ability to perform in the post season moot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about 2007 and 2008? Did they overperform in the first half of those years and underperform in the second? Didn't that underperformance in the second half of 2007 keep us out of the playoffs, rendering their ability to perform in the post season moot?

No, they had injuries and used different pitchers..cmon I've always respected your takes..but that is down right weak..2008..Casey Fossum, Gsry Glover 100 year old Kenny Rogers..don't insult me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they had injuries and used different pitchers..cmon I've always respected your takes..but that is down right weak..2008..Casey Fossum, Gsry Glover 100 year old Kenny Rogers..don't insult me.

I was primarily talking about 2007. We collapsed down the stretch, in no small part to a declining pitching staff. That cost us a playoff berth. Sure injuries played a role in that as well, but I'm not sure why we shouldn't assume that overuse didn't play a role Bonderman's injury, for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was primarily talking about 2007. We collapsed down the stretch, in no small part to a declining pitching staff. That cost us a playoff berth. Sure injuries played a role in that as well, but I'm not sure why we shouldn't assume that overuse didn't play a role Bonderman's injury, for one.

Save me..Bonderman..overuse..how..slider overuse maybe..Ron..EVERY PITCHING INJURY RESULTS FROM OVERUSE..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.30, 1.55, and 1.36

Those are the increases in ERA of Detroit starters from the first half of the seaons to the second half of the season for 2006, 2007, and 2008 respectively.

Discuss.

Tiger starters didn't pitch any more innings than average in the first or second half of any of those seasons -- and the Tigers starters finish with a nominal amount of innings for each of those seasons as a whole.

I'll bet the individual stats don't show any real variation from the norm either.

So I don't see how JL has overused the rotation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff Weaver threw 131 once in 2001, and Justin Thompson threw 131 once in 1999.

And we've never seen from either one of them since.

We saw Jeff Weaver win Game 5 of the '06 World Series

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about 2007 and 2008? Did they overperform in the first half of those years and underperform in the second? Didn't that underperformance in the second half of 2007 keep us out of the playoffs, rendering their ability to perform in the post season moot?

But their starters didn't have an unusual number of innings in any of JL's seasons or even half-seasons. So I don't see the whole point about people being overused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a fair point, but how do you explain our collapse in the second half of 2006? What about the fact that the staff has performed significantly worse in the second half of each season under Leyland's watch?

That happens to every team to some extent -- the average increase in ERA for starting rotations is more than 1 run from first to second half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That happens to every team to some extent -- the average increase in ERA for starting rotations is more than 1 run from first to second half.

I'm glad you posted that, because it was the first question that came to mind when I read those numbers about the second half under Jimmy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That happens to every team to some extent -- the average increase in ERA for starting rotations is more than 1 run from first to second half.

That was one of my questions...

Data supports this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Save me..Bonderman..overuse..how..slider overuse maybe..Ron..EVERY PITCHING INJURY RESULTS FROM OVERUSE..

Well, if you agree on this point, I'm not sure why you seem to be so opposed to suggestions on ways to reduce the risk of overuse-induced pitching injuries...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think LeFlore is asking a legitimate question:

Does Leyland wear down his staffs over the course of the season?

My question(s) would be:

1) What happened with Leyland's teams in Florida and Pitt?

2) Is it normal for ERA's to jump in the second half of a season? Related: Aren't hitters supposed to "heat up" in the summer? What are the historical league average ERA's 1st half versus 2nd half?

This isn't related to Edwin's "132"... but I guess it's "in the same ballpark." As well as the points on Leyland's use of relievers. I thought he was supposed to be a "bullpen managing guru"... but it also seems like he is wearing out a couple of 'em, and isn't efficient in using them sometimes either.

I agree with 4hz that it was just as good an idea to let EJ get through the 8th based on not over-taxing the BP... but there are also relevant points being made that it just seems like Leyland is not efficiently using the BP either...

It would seem that Nate and French would be capable of pitching more than 1 inning... but that's how he used those guys, as 1-inning only guys...

Doesn't make sense to me.

It was a legitimate question. I think Chuck Hernandez' being a bad pitching coach is a legitimate answer.

Plus, there are a few mitigating circumstances. In 2006 for example, we had Mike Maroth pitching fantastic baseball, and then he blew out his elbow and we replaced him with a less effective Zach Miner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-- unnecessary apostrophes

Can't help you there...

Way too high strung... and then I add daily, healthy doses of caffeine...

Sorry... I can't stop those 'postrophes!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a legitimate question. I think Chuck Hernandez' being a bad pitching coach is a legitimate answer.

Plus, there are a few mitigating circumstances. In 2006 for example, we had Mike Maroth pitching fantastic baseball, and then he blew out his elbow and we replaced him with a less effective Zach Miner.

I think you are giving incorrect answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, people who want to support Leyland (I'm not sure if you're one of them) will find any way to twist it to express that supporting sentiment. You make this comment, but if the Tigers had lost and people complained, I've seen many times on this board where people will say "Everybody comes out of the woodworks to complain when they lose, but they all shut up when they win."

Well if you don't like something, when can you speak out on it? If they lose, you "take advantage of their losing to jump on the manager". If they win, "Leyland can't win for winning". If you don't like something, you don't like it.........and while losing can fan the flames of discontent, winning doesn't necessarily douse them.

Fair enough. Leyland is the sort of guy who seems to combine both intuition and objective facts in making decisions. In this case, I agree, running Jackson out there again ran against conventional wisdom. I probably wouldn't have done it not just because of pitch count but because I would have wanted to protect his win and building confidence. But Jackson said he felt find and it gave him a lot of confidence that Leyland stuck with him.

I think it was a risk on many fronts but what we can't measure is what it meant to Jackson's mental makeup and how he sees his role on this staff. He learned a lot about himself and his manager in that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was primarily talking about 2007. We collapsed down the stretch, in no small part to a declining pitching staff. That cost us a playoff berth. Sure injuries played a role in that as well, but I'm not sure why we shouldn't assume that overuse didn't play a role Bonderman's injury, for one.

Couldn't you argue if the staff wasn't "overused" (and I'm not quite sure if I agree with that notion) that the team wouldn't have been in a position to win anything during the second half? That production in the first half by the pitching staff does mean something positive.

And looking at the ERAs by month, August was awful - 5.34. But the staff bounced back with a season-best month 3.96 after that. Did arms recuperate? The second-worst month was May - 4.88.

People that want to debunk pitching workloads do the same, but for about 20 years there has been this trend to WANT TO PROVE "overworking pitchers" is this tremendous ogre that each team must have 13-man staffs and will need about 17 pitchers to be a focal point of their staff. Maybe I don't see the right surveys or tests or whatever, but I don't think either side has really proven one thing or the other. What I do know is when arms were conditioned to go 190+ innings as a starter and many relievers were conditioned to throw 70 games and 100+ innings, there were arm injuries. In today's game there are arm injuries as well.

Maybe overuse resulted in 2007's August ERA. Maybe it wasn't overuse in 2007 - maybe it had to do with young arms pitching an additional month and then those arms not getting the rest they need. Maybe they were just unlucky. Maybe not. They also had a 40-something Kenny Rogers that got hurt and forced some pitchers into action that may not been 100 percent ready to be at this level. I don't know. But I know this - no one can prove it was workload concretely one way or the other. And in today's game so many pitching injuries fall into the convenient excuse of over-usage. And the funny thing is we almost only hear it about starters. Those pen people aren't robots either. What you don't give those starters, someone needs to take those pitches. Why don't we concern ourselves with those people nearly as much? Pitching 70 games a year regardless the number of innings can't be ideal for one's arm. And guess who is going to get the extra workload - these guys or substandard relievers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good post DTroppens. I don't think anyone can set a standard limit for every pitcher or even a limit for an individual pitcher for every game. Each pitcher is different and for each pitcher each game is different. Obviously you don't want to have too big of jumps for guys (thus the very conservative approach with Porcello) but every one is made different. Think of how Nolan Ryan would have been handled today, or Lolich. Would they have been better for longer? I think it would be hard to prove that as they were pretty good for a long time. But could everyone handle their workloads, definitely not.

The whole having to take a guy out after 100-105 pitches no matter how they are doing is what I don't like. I also don't think it is good to leave a guy in even if he has only thrown 80 pitches with decent results, but is clearly laboring and tired due to various factors like weather, illness, etc as IMO that is more likely to cause an injury than a guy who is cruising free and easy at 110-115 pitches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There probably is value to the thought that 100-105 pitches makes sense as a standard rule. I'm not even saying that's not the case. But it is like batting average. It still has value but do you determine the value of a hitter truthfully based on it? No. But it seems this 100 pitch plateau has become this great and unquestioned number that makes sense for everyone. In reality people are people and we are all different.You probably can't go too far off course using the 100 pitch thing, but I think it's probably more like a batting average. It's an imperfect standard. And yet it's used as its the Holy Grail. We are only seeing people question it now and that's probably a good thing. Maybe they are wrong to question it. Maybe not. But I find it hard to believe that 100 pitches is some sort of end all gold standard.

There are tons of great runners in the world. Some can go great distances some short distances. Some middle distances. People learn what they can do best and go with it. We realize the differences among people. But with starting pitching we got this one standard and seemingly don't try to learn who can do this or that. To me it really seems like poor organizational decision making skills to just accept something like this. You want to maximize your best players to best level acceptable and to think that in baseball that puts about 95% of the pitchers in the same boat, seems like a pretty poor thought process. Heck, half of the pitchers on the same staff are conditioned for different roles in the pen. That diversity has to exist with the starters as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...