Re: Returning from Near Extinction-Complete Games
- From: gnork <4panamajim@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:33:24 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 2, 1:06 pm, McDuck <wallymcd...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 07:55:21 -0800 (PST), gnork <4panama...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jan 1, 9:20 pm, McDuck <wallymcd...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 15:31:28 -0800 (PST), gnork <4panama...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I'm fine with a CG if the pitcher is pitching effectively and does not
exceed 110 pitches to do the deed. I think a CG is a terrible idea
when the pitcher is overextended or is pitching less effectively than
the likely replacement.
As you know, the data show that relief pitchers are generally more
effective than starters late in games. So, in general, why would you
want the stqrter to be pitching. And most baseball people think that
control of pitch count is critical to the longterm health of pitchers.
Some minor differeences on exactly how to manage pitch count, but no
major disagreement on the basic concept.
I realize you disagree with the experts. So I have to decide whether
to accept your biased, uninformed view, or to go with the experts.
I'll not reveal my decision. Happy New Year.
Happy New Year. But there are no experts or anyone worthy of that
title dumb enough to set a 110 maximum for all pitchers. Where is your
source? 110 is very low. If a pitcher throws a reasonable 15 pitches
per inning, that totals to 135 for 9.
Not all pitchers are the same. I think any real expert would agree
with me on that point. Not all pitchers lose effectiveness late. Ask
Jason Verlander. While you are at it, tell him he can't throw more
than 110 pitches. It is your view that is fully biased and uninformed
to the point of absurdity. Also, if more pitchers were regularly
allowed to go deep into games when they are effective, there would be
more pitchers able to maintain a strong performance. Stamina would
build.
Unlike you I am fine with a CG with well over 110 pitches as long as
the pitcher is:
1. Effective
2. Not laboring or visably altering the delivery.
3. Not sweating like Barney Frank in a prison yard.
Also in the NL it would need to be strategically sensible to allow him
to bat in the late innings.
There are very few pitchers who would be regularly tapped at a meager
110 pitches. If a pitcher is struggling at that point, get him out. If
he is still going strong at 130, leave him in. As much as you wish,
there is no "One size fits all" for pitching.
As you know you are an expert at making unsupported claims and trying
to pass them off as common proven facts. That may be good for you to
do in court (if you ever go to court), but it is one reason why so
many attornies are held in such low regard.
I've never been to court, as a lawyer or an accused criminal. And I am
not solely responsible for the unpopularity of practicing lawyers or
of Congressmen for that matter. Careful with the ad hominem or you
will end up like the ridiculous Dano.
I agree that all pitchers are not alike. The baseball people (experts
--- whatever you want to call people who spend their professional life
working in an area) know that. But it is v. difficult to determine who
is different and by how much. We all get the same flu vaccine despite
obvious differences in weight, etc. But that could change with more
knowledge.
We now see baseball people suggesting that 130 pitches may be okay
(assuming not struggling, etc., as you suggested) if the pitcher
AVERAGES 100-110 over a three-game period. I don't claim the
specialists are correct. Hard point to prove, or at least it seems so
to me from reading the public studies. But I think that there is some
basis for going with the specialists (experts?) on such matters.
I realize that cosmology specialists (experts) once told us the world
was flat, and they were wrong. But I think the baseball specialists do
have decent evidence to support their nearly universal view that
control of pitch count is important to pitcher longevity. Now there
could be exceptions. My father lived to 98 and smoked cigars every
day. Babe Ruth had a shorter life.
If you or others can somehow determine who can pitch regularly at 130
pitches per game w/o adverse effects, then I might be on your side of
this issue.
Is Verlander hurt by being flogged by the Tigers? Don't know for
sure, but I am concerned, as I like the guy and would be happy seeing
him do well in the future (except against the RS).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Bullshit! That is your specialty. Flogged???? I bet he has no
whipmarks. You also routinely use inflammatory words in situations
where none are supported. Verlander went 24-5 in 2011. It was enough
to unfairly take the MVP that should have gone to Ellsbury. If they
followed your inane advice, maybe he wins 17-18. If he wins 8 games
less at the end of his career (that is not a concession, just a
scenario), SO WHAT? He will have done his best pitching when he was
most capable.
Figure it out? I already told you, but you do not want to understand.
.
- References:
- Returning from Near Extinction-Complete Games
- From: gnork
- Re: Returning from Near Extinction-Complete Games
- From: Wayback1918
- Re: Returning from Near Extinction-Complete Games
- From: gnork
- Re: Returning from Near Extinction-Complete Games
- From: McDuck
- Re: Returning from Near Extinction-Complete Games
- From: gnork
- Re: Returning from Near Extinction-Complete Games
- From: McDuck
- Returning from Near Extinction-Complete Games
- Prev by Date: Re: A Sweeney projection
- Next by Date: Re: Returning from Near Extinction-Complete Games
- Previous by thread: Re: Returning from Near Extinction-Complete Games
- Next by thread: Re: Returning from Near Extinction-Complete Games
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|