A Gem!
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Prev: Catching position
Next: wow !
From: HTP on 13 May 2010 16:43 On May 13, 10:47 am, tom dunne <dunn...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 1:05 pm, HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Well, i think if we have shot at the postseason come september, and > > its possible this year, then all of that long-term thinking has to be > > scrapped. But otherwise, yes, dont rack up the innings on those guys > > if the club aint gonna win anyway. > > You'd risk Leake's and Chapman's arms for one shot at a division > title? I don't think I'd want to set the team up for another decade > of suck just to face Roy Halladay twice in a five game series. A > winning season would be great, but I'd be happier with a winning > franchise. What if they decide not to use leake and/or chapman down the stretch, we finish 2 games out of a postseason spot, and then, despite solid years from those 2, we end up with another decade of suck anyway? What have we gained? There are degrees of risk. I think folks are overstating the risk of adding another 20 innings onto these guys. The risk of falling just short of the accomplishing your main objective has to outweigh almost anything. Thats the whole point of putting a team together. I'm not talking here about pitching these guys every day.
From: John Kasupski on 13 May 2010 16:50 On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:10:51 GMT, tom(a)nomail.please (JustTom) wrote: >On Thu, 13 May 2010 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT), RJA <agentvaughn(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > >> >>The thing is, how do you pull this off? You can't let him pitch to a >>certain number of innings and then bring in another guy who has been >>pitching all year as well, like Chapman or Wood. Their counts need to >>be watched as well. It seems that at some point, they're going to >>need to skip some of his starts to stretch him to the end of the year. > >Earlier in the year, I broached the subject of perhaps going to a 6 >man rotation with Chapman and Leake swapping starts and longer relief >roles in between to kind of limit their innings. Janish could always >pitch garbage time if needed. No one replied probably because it's a >bit of a stretch, but it's a pretty unique set of circumstances that >puts us in this position. It's not often that you sign a defector >and a draft pick who are both ready to contribute almost immediately, >but only for a limited time, so a little creativity might be called >for. Earlier this year, the Red Sox discussed using a six-man rotation. Then they had a sudden attack of common sense. One way to look at it is that any starts you give to a sixth starter are lost to the five other guys you have that are better than he is. Now, that's also pretty much what Earl Weaver used to say about the five-man rotation. of course, his Orioles had four 20-game winners in the rotation at the time so he could afford to say that...but I don't think a six-man rotation would last in the majors anyway - in either league. What happens when one of those six guys gets hurt? Do they put that guy on the DL and call up another guy from AAA? Or will the manager just skip the sixth guy's turn in the rotation, knowing that his other five starters are perfectly capable of performing without the extra off day? And whose roster slot do you take away to go with six starters? If you go with only six guys in the bullpen, as soon as one of those starters gets lit up in the third inning the guy scheduled to pitch the next night's game is going to end up pitching long relief that night instead and there goers your six-man rotation down the drain. And if you shorten your bench to only four position players, either you only have four outfielders or you only have one backup infielder, and if somebody gets hurt after you've used the one spare outfielder or the one spare infielder as a pinch-hitter, you're screwed and have to have a guy playing out of position. And that's if your in the NL. In the AL one of those bench guys is your DH, so now you only have three bench players. One is going to be a backup catcher. If somebody gets hurt after you pinch-hit or insert a defensive replacement, you may well wind up using your DH in the field and have a pitcher going to the plate in the late innings with a bat in his hand and a brown spot in the back of his pants. No, I think this simply wouldn't fly. They'd be better off trying to limit Leake's pitch count and shave an inning off every start by doing that. It dumps more innings onto the bullpen, but there's seven guys out there, many hands (or arms) make the workload lighter. JK
From: HTP on 13 May 2010 16:53 On May 13, 1:10 pm, t...(a)nomail.please (JustTom) wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT), RJA <agentvau...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >The thing is, how do you pull this off? You can't let him pitch to a > >certain number of innings and then bring in another guy who has been > >pitching all year as well, like Chapman or Wood. Their counts need to > >be watched as well. It seems that at some point, they're going to > >need to skip some of his starts to stretch him to the end of the year. > > Earlier in the year, I broached the subject of perhaps going to a 6 > man rotation with Chapman and Leake swapping starts and longer relief > roles in between to kind of limit their innings. Janish could always > pitch garbage time if needed. No one replied probably because it's a > bit of a stretch, but it's a pretty unique set of circumstances that > puts us in this position. It's not often that you sign a defector > and a draft pick who are both ready to contribute almost immediately, > but only for a limited time, so a little creativity might be called > for. > > Or, I guess you could always consider dangling somebody like Alonso or > others for another starter after the break if we're still in it. Trading for another starter? Getting Janish some innings? Babysitting the arms of leake and Chapman cant be this teams top priority, nor should they center thier season plan around it. If it is, then just send leake down and keep them both down and bring up someone else. Sacrificing a legit shot at a championship isnt fair to the rest of the players, the owners or fans. I think a 6 man pitching staff makes little sense. Guys are used to 5 days and need to work every 5 days or so. If anything i think some, like Arroyo, would actually benefit from a 4-man rotation. We have a 12-man staff for gods sake. and most of them are solid pitchers, theres no reason for anyone to get consistently overworked.
From: John Kasupski on 13 May 2010 17:16 On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:43:38 -0700 (PDT), HTP <tmbowman25(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >What if they decide not to use leake and/or chapman down the stretch, >we finish 2 games out of a postseason spot, and then, despite solid >years from those 2, we end up with another decade of suck anyway? What >have we gained? There are degrees of risk. I think folks are >overstating the risk of adding another 20 innings onto these guys. The >risk of falling just short of the accomplishing your main objective >has to outweigh almost anything. Thats the whole point of putting a >team together. I'm not talking here about pitching these guys every >day. Yes. The more I think about this...upthread I said I didn't think a six-man rotation would fly...down here I'm going to say I also don't think it's necessary. Sure, it might reduce the overall number of innings a guy pitches, but is it really the number of innings he pitches, or whether or not his arm gets fully rested after one outing before he pitches again? I think what's medically important is the latter. Orthopedic evidence suggests that pitchers' mechanics start to break down when they get tired. The resulting imperfect mechanics is what leads to injuries. The thing is, there's really never been a study done to determine whether a pitcher's arm has gotten enough rest after four days, four hours, or four minutes. I do know that relief pitchers don't seem to need four or five days of rest. Some guys have pitched every other night for years and years. Some of them like Smoltz were even starters before they were relievers and had no problems switching from starting every five days to relieving every other day. As long as Leake doesn't go out there and throw 140 pitches some night, I think he'll be fine. Saying the guy should only pitch, say, 150 innings...well, does that mean he's going to pitch 150 innings regardless of whether it takes him ten pitches to get through an inning or thirty? I don'[t think you want him to do what Cueto did last year and throw winter ball and the WBC and then come to training camp and just rack up a ridiculous number of innings by the time everything's over. At the same time, if you make the postseason I don't think you bench one of your best pitchers over that extra 15-20 innings either. JK
From: tom dunne on 13 May 2010 17:32
On May 13, 4:43 pm, HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 10:47 am, tom dunne <dunn...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 13, 1:05 pm, HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Well, i think if we have shot at the postseason come september, and > > > its possible this year, then all of that long-term thinking has to be > > > scrapped. But otherwise, yes, dont rack up the innings on those guys > > > if the club aint gonna win anyway. > > > You'd risk Leake's and Chapman's arms for one shot at a division > > title? I don't think I'd want to set the team up for another decade > > of suck just to face Roy Halladay twice in a five game series. A > > winning season would be great, but I'd be happier with a winning > > franchise. > > What if they decide not to use leake and/or chapman down the stretch, > we finish 2 games out of a postseason spot, and then, despite solid > years from those 2, we end up with another decade of suck anyway? What > have we gained? There are degrees of risk. I think folks are > overstating the risk of adding another 20 innings onto these guys. The > risk of falling just short of the accomplishing your main objective > has to outweigh almost anything. Thats the whole point of putting a > team together. I'm not talking here about pitching these guys every > day. I'm concerned that winning leads to more than just another 20 innings. With the 1991 Braves in a pennant race until the last day of the year, they pitched the 21-year old Steve Avery for 210 innings in the regular season (18-8, 3.38 ERA.) With a pair of seven-game postseason series to follow, Atlanta needed him for another 30 in the postseason. That's 240 innings, because the team was winning. Seemed worth it at the time, and Cox pitched Avery under similar loads and even better results in 1992-93. Despite no major injuries, his career tailed off in 1994 and was essentially over at age 29. Reds fans likely still remember Avery as the worst pitcher on that 1999 team, looking totally washed up, and would never guess he was younger that year than Harnisch, Parris or Neagle. Avery was better younger than Tom Glavine or John Smoltz, and I've always wondered what might have come of his career if he hadn't been ridden so hard so early on. I don't think there's any real chance the Reds will need to pitch Leake in game six of the World Series, but I still would be incredibly reluctant to risk extending him more than 180 IP. |