|
Vogey
Apr 4, 2014 21:16:37 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 4, 2014 21:16:37 GMT -5
If I'm Righetti or Bochy, I'm more than a little concerned about my #5 starter.
Think what you want, but after Vogey's spring... 19 ip, 33 hits, 5 HR...They, and all of us, have reason to be.
Question is, how much rope will they give him, especially without a handy option with which to replace him.
Personally, I Love Vogey; for his tenacity, his courage, his "I just won't quit" attitude.
Thing is, he's not pitching well, and with 19 Spring Training innings, and 4+ in the regular season, that makes 23 ip, 5 HRs...38 + hits allowed, if I counted correctly.
His days may truely be numbered.
boly
|
|
|
Vogey
Apr 5, 2014 1:21:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by allenreed on Apr 5, 2014 1:21:10 GMT -5
He seems to be able to go through the lineup once. I think he'd be more effective out of the pen.
|
|
|
Vogey
Apr 5, 2014 1:21:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by allenreed on Apr 5, 2014 1:21:27 GMT -5
He seems to be able to go through the lineup once. I think he'd be more effective out of the pen.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Apr 5, 2014 6:37:03 GMT -5
I agree, Allen. Bochy said he tired early. At his age, I don't see how his stamina will increase over the course of the season. At least Bochy got him out of there fairly quickly, and didn't try to get him through the fifth for the win. He learned from last year, when Vogelsong would fall apart and give up huge innings. Good job by the bullpen in shutting down the Dodgers after Vogey got them back into the game.
|
|
|
Vogey
Apr 5, 2014 13:55:51 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Apr 5, 2014 13:55:51 GMT -5
Allen -- He seems to be able to go through the lineup once. I think he'd be more effective out of the pen. Rog -- Good observation. Even in his horrible 2012 season, Ryan limited opposing hitters to a .703 OPS over his first 25 pitches. The question them becomes whom to use as the 5th starter. The opening is certainly there for Edwin Escobar -- or Yusmeiro Petit if he pitches well. Or how about my best idea (at least I think it is)? Move Madison Bumgarner up as I had suggested earlier, placing Ryan in between Madison and Matt. Then go to a bullpen game, with Ryan as the starter. Maybe him, Petit and David Huff. Even better, Vogelsong, Petit and then give it to the 7th-, 8th- and 9th-inning guys. If the Giants are way behind or way ahead, turn the last three innings over to Huff. The Giants almost certainly won't do this, but the chances are very good it would work out well. I wouldn't expect it to keep up, but amazingly, Petit limited hitters to a .380 (!) OPS in his first 25 pitches last year. Pitchers just flat-out pitch better in short bursts. Some day in the future when pitchers are intentionally going only three or four innings each, they'll be saying what workhorses those guys back in the early 2000's who went 200 innings were. I have a feeling though that instead of complaining about how "weak" the new three-inning guys are, they'll wonder why the teams "way back then" hadn't figured out to properly use their entire staff. Remember, in Don's lifetime, football players played the entire game. Other than Don himself, we don't look back and wonder why today's players are such wimps they can't do that any more, do we? I believe my friend Lorenzo Alexander has come the closest to two-way duty in the past several seasons. He's a Pro Bowl special teams player who has worked his way up to playing various positions in recent years. One recent season with the Redskins, he played half a dozen different positions, including some on offense and some on defense. He plays all the special teams plays, so in one game he played offense, defense and special teams for quite a few plays in a row. But obviously football players perform better when they don't have to play both ways. Just as some day, pitchers will pitch better by not worrying the least about going all the way. Not even considering it. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2221/vogey#ixzz2y2NouBTl
|
|
|
Vogey
Apr 6, 2014 1:19:28 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by allenreed on Apr 6, 2014 1:19:28 GMT -5
Football has become exponentially more physically punishing over the years. A player going both ways just wouldn't last.
If starters start going four innings, they'll never get a win.
|
|
|
Vogey
Apr 6, 2014 3:53:39 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Apr 6, 2014 3:53:39 GMT -5
Allen -- If starters start going four innings, they'll never get a win. Rog -- I believe the rules will change in that regard once teams see the light regarding shorter stints for pitchers. Stop and think about this logically. With just a few exceptions, team's best pitchers are starters, right? And the worst pitchers on the team often pitch a lot of innings as long/middle relievers. Yet relievers around the league have better average ERA's than starters -- by about half a run IIRC. It used to be that it made a lot of sense to try to knock the starter out, since bullpens weren't all that strong. It still probably makes sense if a team can get the opposing starter out early enough for him to be relieved by the weaker long/middle relievers. But once the game gets beyond six or seven innings, the best ERA's on a team enter the game as set up men and closers. How many times have we felt that the Giants had to get to the starter in the late innings before the top relievers enter the game? I don't know where to find it, but I'll bet the overall starters' ERA's in the 6th and 7th innings isn't very good. After that, their ERA's probably ARE pretty good, since they only last that long on their very best days. With the typical dozen pitchers on a staff, it might make the most sense to have starters expected to go 3-5 innings. If they are having great games and are still fresh, they might go an inning or two longer. Pitchers pitch best in short bursts. We used to hear a lot about good starters that you needed to get them early if you were going to get them at all. Don't hear that much any more , do we? That's because while it sometimes takes a starter a little while to settle in, overall he tends to pitch his best while he is his freshest. Short outings from even starting pitchers. I don't know if we'll see it in our lifetimes, but the game will almost certainly see it sometime. Remember, a century ago many starters went over 300 innings. A hundred years later, not that many exceed 200. Not everyone will agree with this, but hitters are better and considerably more powerful, so pitchers have to pitch harder to get them out. It used to be that hitters hit better in the late innings, since the starters would be tiring. Now they have a hard time hitting as well, since they are likely to face a team's top two or three pitchers ERA-wise in the late innings of a close game. I haven't researched this, but I'll bet it's true. With how good today's top relievers are, it almost has to be. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2221/vogey#ixzz2y5i4en8A
|
|
|
Vogey
Apr 6, 2014 5:48:25 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by allenreed on Apr 6, 2014 5:48:25 GMT -5
Could be. I think starters have higher ERAs because they have a longer leash. In most cases, if a reliever gives up anything, he's gone, or if his turn to hit comes up, he's gone. They're not going to be in there long enough to give up anything significant. How many pitchers would you have to carry in such a scenario? Didn't the Rockies try this already? I don't recall it working to well, though that may have had more to do with the quality of their pitching.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Apr 6, 2014 10:10:32 GMT -5
I was just about to say the Rockies tried this a couple of years ago and it was a disaster. The quality of the pitchers were definitely a factor, but I still don't like it even with a good staff. Whenever I see a manager with a quick hook I'm always thinking that sooner or later he's going to bring in someone who doesn't have it and he's going to blow the game. You really want to pull a Kershaw or Bumgarner when he's pitching well for a Yusmeiro Petit type? I don't like this idea and don't think it will work.
|
|
|
Vogey
Apr 7, 2014 9:02:43 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Apr 7, 2014 9:02:43 GMT -5
Allen -- I think starters have higher ERAs because they have a longer leash. In most cases, if a reliever gives up anything, he's gone, or if his turn to hit comes up, he's gone. They're not going to be in there long enough to give up anything significant. Rog -- Nor are they likely to be in the game long enough to build up enough innings to lower their ERA's by much. It's a mathematical push. Allen -- How many pitchers would you have to carry in such a scenario? Rog -- 12. The 9 regulars who are tasked to go three innings (or thereabouts) each start each third day, leaving three "closers." Allen -- Didn't the Rockies try this already? I don't recall it working to well, though that may have had more to do with the quality of their pitching. Rog -- What the Rockies tried was four starters who were limited to 75 pitches each. A step in the right direction. The Rockies tried it mostly out of desperation, since their rotation was lousy. Kind of like how the bullpen by committee usually didn't work because the bullpen was lousy, and that was why the committee approach was used. You may recall two years ago when the Giants went to the bullpen by committee, some here thought it was horrible, citing history. It was then mentioned that a good bullpen would likely yield better results. And that's exactly what the Giants' bullpen did -- until Sergio Romo took over as the closer. Bullpen by committee can work because it makes it easier to use a team's best pitchers earlier in the game if a high-leverage situation occurs then. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2221/vogey#ixzz2yD07mAAh
|
|
|
Vogey
Apr 7, 2014 9:06:43 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Apr 7, 2014 9:06:43 GMT -5
Mark -- I was just about to say the Rockies tried this a couple of years ago and it was a disaster. The quality of the pitchers were definitely a factor, but I still don't like it even with a good staff. Whenever I see a manager with a quick hook I'm always thinking that sooner or later he's going to bring in someone who doesn't have it and he's going to blow the game. You really want to pull a Kershaw or Bumgarner when he's pitching well for a Yusmeiro Petit type? I don't like this idea and don't think it will work. Rog -- I understand why you might think this, but there are really no factors that would preclude it. And it is true that pitchers pitch best in short bursts, which is why lesser-as-a-group relievers post lower average ERA's than better-as-a-group starters. As for the Rockies' experiment, not only was it adversely affected by the poor caliber of the rotation, it also wasn't the same experiment I was recommending. Baseball is very slow to change, but some day ... Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2221/vogey?page=1&scrollTo=19495#ixzz2yD251TtE
|
|
|
Vogey
Apr 7, 2014 9:19:48 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Apr 7, 2014 9:19:48 GMT -5
Kershaw is clearly an exception to the rule and would be given more leash. Still, his .619 OPS allowed on pitches 76-100 last season was far higher than his .552, .514 and .412 figures on his previous three pitch count splits.
If one wants an example of how the concept could possibly work, think Tim Lincecum in the 2012 World Series. His ERA was less than half what it has been over the past two plus seasons as a starter.
Incidentally, it's not as if top pitchers wouldn't get a chance to throw a lot of innings in the system I propose. If a guy throws 3 innings every 3rd game, he'll get in 162 innings. Fewer than three starters per team threw that many innings in 2013. If a starter such as Kershaw is given more rope and goes four innings per outing, he'd throw 216 innings. That's almost exactly the number of innings Clayton has averaged in his five seasons as a starter.
Don't know this for sure, but it is possible pitchers pitching in shorter bursts would have less arm trouble. I can see logic why that might be the case, but it's really just a little-educated guess on my part.
|
|