|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 20, 2018 10:59:13 GMT -5
Rog -- What I'm arguing for is keeping an open mind to the concept. Its use has been limited but effective. My sense is that it isn't the concept for every sitaution, but that when used appropriately, it can be effective
***boly says****
Rog, why are you still arguing your point?
We don't agree, and continuing to argue it isn't going to change our minds.
It's YOUR opinion, and unless you want people to continue to slam you and get even more ticked off than they already are, LET IT GO.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 20, 2018 13:04:47 GMT -5
Here is the problem as I see it, Boly. Your opinion has no basis. If it had a reasonable basis, I wouldn't still be discussing it.
But the only points I can recall are that you would teach pitchers to go deeper into games, and using an opener would blow up the bullpen, causing as many as perhaps 15 pitchers to be on the roster.
As for your first thought, I endorse it right along with you. I even specified that I would begin it with the young pitchers I deemed because of their physical characteristics and their variety of pitches to be the best candidates for the extension. I endorsed your idea and began formulating a plan for implementation.
But I specified that I would use that in conjunction with exploring the thus far successful concept of the opener. As AL Cy Young Award winner Blake Snell showed, they're far from mutually exclusive. So I agree with your first idea, but it does little if anything to preclude at least exploring the opener.
Remember, all I'm trying to do is convince you to keep an open mind to the concept, which is frankly something you should be doing automatically IMO.
Your second idea that the opener will burn out the bullpen hasn't been shown to be the case, and it isn't logical anyway. Go to the math teacher in your former school, and if you can convince him that 6 + 1 doesn't equal 1 + 6, then you have a point. Otherwise, what IS your point?
Here's what I think is crazy: I endorsed your idea even though to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been tried lately. You won't even CONSIDER the idea I'm endorsing, even though it has been successful in its limited usage.
You say it's been tried, but you don't like the results. I could have sworn that you liked to win more often, which was the results for the Rays. Remember, record-wise the Rays were the Giants prior to May 19th when they began using the opener on a regular basis. Afterward they were a mirror image of the Giants, which was a fine thing for them and a very bad thing for the Giants.
If this makes you more ticked off, you're not the man I believe you to be. I believe you have too fine a mind to close it.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 20, 2018 13:07:52 GMT -5
I think the only thing the fad of using an opener will accomplish is forcing hitters to do better against whatever arm the pitchers use. Rog -- Hitters try all the time to lessen their platoon splits. It isn't that easy to do. Ask Pablo Sandoval or Alen Hanson. If the hitters do adjust, that's a good thing for them. But until they do, shouldn't a manager be looking for any advantage he can find? Shouldn't he use all the strategies and weapons at his disposal to win more games? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog?page=2#ixzz5aFTvXtM6
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 20, 2018 13:28:20 GMT -5
Man you really are dense. How many times do you need to be asked to let it go on a number of topics before it finally sinks in why you annoy all of us here? Mordy even made this thread specifically to address it. Others have said it in multiple threads. You SAID you would try. But intead all you do is get even more obstinate and obnoxious. Mordy is right to tell you to F off
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 20, 2018 14:38:17 GMT -5
Apparently you have no intelligent answers on this subject, Randy, so evasion is probably the least taxing approach for you.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 20, 2018 15:29:21 GMT -5
You'll never know, douchebag
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 20, 2018 16:27:25 GMT -5
You're right, Randy. I probably won't ever know about evading questions.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 20, 2018 21:39:47 GMT -5
I still like the idea of working with young pitchers to stretch them out, but the strategy isn't without risks. The Yankees team physican cites a study which shows that major league pitchers who throw a complete game in a season have a 74% chance of incurring an injury during that season, while those pitchers who don't throw a complete game have a 20% chance.
Asked why pitchers used to be able to pitch well over 200 innings as a matter of course but can't do so now, the Yankees doctor replied that pitchers have to go all out on every pitch now.
MLB is beginning a study in which they are trying to gather information on every pitching injury incurred all the way down to the high school level. They are hoping that the added information will provide them insight in how to reduce injuries. The Yankees doctor says the people who need the most educating are parents and youth coaches.
Anyway, just as the opener likely isn't for every game, the plan to stretch pitchers out seems like a good one, but one which will likely require more caution than I previously realized. '
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 21, 2018 12:14:35 GMT -5
Asked why pitchers used to be able to pitch well over 200 innings as a matter of course but can't do so now, the Yankees doctor replied that pitchers have to go all out on every pitch now.
***boly says***
On the, "You're full of S _ _ t" scale, that argument is at the top of the list.
I'm here to tell you from experience that NO pitcher EVER throttled back during a game unless they had a huge lead.
You can't!!
Either you're trying to pitch the best you can on that day, or you're not.
It's that simple and it's that complicated.
The clown who said that was implying that pitchers of yesteryear half-assed part of games to 'conserve' their energy.
Ask Spahn, or Marichal, or Koufax if they did that.
Those guys pitched their best EVERY pitch, EVERY game.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 21, 2018 23:32:10 GMT -5
I need to do more research on this subject -- although this is far from the first time I've heard about the max-effort thing. Here is one explanation:
Every now and then, usually after some young, well-compensated pitcher’s arm explodes, an old pitching warhorse bellows from the grave, “Back in my day, we never had arm injuries!” After Mets phenom Matt Harvey’s arm blew up in 2013, angry pitching elder Tom Seaver railed: “Imagine if these computer geeks who are running baseball now were allowed to run a war? They’d be telling our soldiers: ‘That’s enough. You’ve fired too many bullets from your rifle this week!’ ”
Yes, and you walked to school uphill both ways in the snow — we get it. Today’s pitchers do get hurt more often, but not because they’re babied or trained in skimpy throwing programs that prevent the building of arm resiliency (or the winning of wars). The arm-injury rash and its contrast to the perceived endurance of past warhorses result from several things: increased speed, overuse and awareness of injuries. Today’s pitchers have the same ligaments as yesteryear’s; it’s all the other stuff that’s changed.
Pitchers now throw harder and more frequently than ever before. The average MLB pitching velocity climbed from 90.9 mph in 2008 to 92 mph in 2013, and that’s over just six years. Extra abuse on young ligaments, compounded over time, means more stress and more injuries. MLB’s obsession with velocity has trickled down into youth baseball, a recipe for more problems.
Before the option of Tommy John surgery, if a pitcher’s arm failed, he was tossed out of the game and replaced. Attrition made MLB teams invite players to spring training by the hundreds. Only those with unnatural resiliency made the grade. It’s easy to point to those who endured, but history has no record of the countless faces whose careers never had a chance.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 21, 2018 23:40:13 GMT -5
This doesn't prove anything about how to use a bullpen, but I found it intriguing.
The Brewers announced on October 3rd that they would go with a bullpen day to open their NLDS with the Rockies. Not quite what we would expect from a team that clearly wanted to get off to a quick start in a best out of five series.
The Brewers went with their first pitcher for three innings, and their second for two. The Brewers won 3-2 in 10 innings. When all was said and done, the Brewers used the same exact number of pitchers -- six -- as did the Rockies with their more conventional approach. Using their starters comparatively little, the Brewers went on to sweep the series.
Again, this is far from proof of anything. But it does show that different "starting" strategies can work.
Open mind; learn new things; make more informed judgments.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 22, 2018 10:43:26 GMT -5
I've long been a believer, and though I have ZERO proof, I still stand by my theory.
Pitchers get hurt more often because they are TOO muscle bound; too bulked up.
But the places where pitchers 'blow up,' is usually the rotator cuff or the elbow.
And those areas CANNOT be beefed up.
But BECAUSE the body and the muscles around them ARE, they become even a MORE exaggerated weak point than they ever were.
Those were always the weak links, but when the body becomes HUGE, and the stress on those points so much greater...well, to me, it's simple math; more injuries.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 23, 2018 13:07:24 GMT -5
I think flexibility is the key, since the greater the flexiblity, the greater strain the UCL can take. I think that strength is good too. Strengthening the quads is usually recommended to further support the knee, and I would think a similar aid would be gained from strength around the elbow.
IMO if strength can be gained without sacrificing flexibility, it is a good thing. But if gaining strength compromises flexibility, it's probably not a good thing.
You make a good point that added muscle adds weight to the arm that is being non-baseball fans might say carelessly thrown around, which puts further strain on the UCL. I would think the answer would be to train for lean muscle, not bulk.
There's probably something approaching an optimal formula here, and it likely differs for every arm.
That's the thing that makes training the arm difficult. Every arm is different. General rules likely apply, but the more specific the training can be to the particular arm and body, the more effective it can be.
Virtally everyone seems to agree that leg strength -- as well as core strength and flexibility -- help take pressure off the arm. When a pitcher moves forward with is motion, tremendous force is developed, which is then roadblocked by the plant leg. The force is transfered up the body, which is what places the tremendous strain on the arm. With pitchers being bigger, stronger and throwing harder, the arm is often strained to its limits.
At least that's my understanding from what I've read and heard. Once again I strongly recommend the book "The Arm." It starts out reading with the excitement of a novel, but it provides a tremendous amount of education about the pitching arm. Almost anyone wanting to discuss the pitching arm would benefit quite a bit by reading it IMO. I know I certainly did.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 23, 2018 13:44:06 GMT -5
Virtally everyone seems to agree that leg strength -- as well as core strength and flexibility -- help take pressure off the arm. When a pitcher moves forward with is motion, tremendous force is developed, which is then roadblocked by the plant leg. The force is transfered up the body, which is what places the tremendous strain on the arm. With pitchers being bigger, stronger and throwing harder, the arm is often strained to its limits. ***boly says*** I know that's what 'experts' believe, but here's the thing; there are now more arm injuries than EVER before in history, and not just arm injuries to pitchers. I am aware that what I've proposed is just a theory, and also that NO expert is going to suggest it or support it, I still believe it's true. All we have to do is look at the number of elbow and rotor cuff injuries. I can't believe I'm the only one who thought of it. Dr. Mike Marshall, whom many believe has been black balled from the Hall of Fame, of which, I am one, has long stated that pitchers need to throw more often. Below are 2 links, if anyone is interested, that address Marshall. Personally, I'm a believer in his theories...which makes me in the minority. Then again, as he references in one of his articles, the outrageous quantity of TJ surgery on young kids has gotten out of control. On 1 college staff, I think it was 21 of 22 of their pitchers. That's nuts. www.drmikemarshall.com/ChapterTwenty-Nine.htmlmlb.mlb.com/news/article_leftfield.jsp?ymd=20070807&content_id=2134845&vkey=leftfield&fext=.jsp
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 23, 2018 19:58:57 GMT -5
As we probably remember from a previous post, kids as young as nine have undergone Tommy John. Nine-year-old kids are rarely muscle-bound. This isn't a clear-cut subject, but I strongly recommending reading "The Arm," and if you get a chance to see the Yankees' team doctor on MLB.com, he's fascinating.
As for Marshall, I've long liked his ideas as a guy who got a degree in kinesiology, maybe a PhD. But I don't think he's close to being a Hall of Famer. Incredible in 1973 and 1974, bracketed by impressive seasons in 1972 and 1975, but although he pitched for 14 years, he was good for little more than half his career.
I see him as a unique reliever, but not a Hall of Famer.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 23, 2018 20:15:21 GMT -5
I don't think he is, either, but he's never even been up for a vote as far as I could tell.
And the 9 year olds getting TJ surgery were getting the surgery because they were told they'd throw harder afterwards.
It wasn't because of injury
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 24, 2018 10:24:55 GMT -5
I don't think he is, either, but he's never even been up for a vote as far as I could tell. And the 9 year olds getting TJ surgery were getting the surgery because they were told they'd throw harder afterwards. It wasn't because of injury Rog -- You're probably right about the nine-year-olds. What would we guess the percentage of pitchers who undergo Tommy John is? A third maybe? My son didn't have Tommy John surgery, but he had elbow surgery that we believe was related to throwing, and the surgeon (a former Cal pitcher) said it the procedure was very similar to Tommy John. As for Marshall, as with every player, he was placed on the ballot five years after he retired. In 1987 he received only 1.5% of the votes. In order to remain on the ballot the following year, a player must receive either 10% of the votes (I think) or 5%. Mike didn't come close to staying on the ballot more than one year. In order to be elected into the Hall, a player must received 75% of the possible votes in one year. Voters may vote for up to 10 players on their ballots, although there is no minimum. As long as he continues to receive 10% or more of the votes, a player stays on the ballot for I believe it's 15 years. After what I think is then a 10-year wait, the player becomes eligible to be voted in by the Veterans' Committee, or whatever it's now called. In my opinion, the Veterans' Committee has badly diluted the quality of the Hall. Their most recent addition is this year's selection of Harold Baines. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog?page=2#ixzz5acBRRO8b
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 24, 2018 10:59:09 GMT -5
Zack Greinke thinks the opener is a smart move, but he doesn't think it's good for baseball because he believes it will keep normal starters from getting paid.
“[The opener is] really smart, but it’s also really bad for baseball,” Arizona starter Zack Greinke says. “It’s just a sideshow. There’s always ways to get a little advantage, but the main problem I have with it is you do it that way, then you’ll end up never paying any player what he’s worth because you’re not going to have guys starting, you’re not going to have guys throwing innings.
I understand Greinke's point, especially since he's a starter himself, but I'm not entirely sure it's a valid on. Case in point: Ryan Yarbrough of the Rays.
Yarbrough was the pitcher who perhaps most benefited from the Rays' use of the opener. He started only six games, but appeared in most of his performances coming in right after the opener. His 3.91 ERA was OK, but his won-loss record was 16-6, giving him the most wins and the ninth-highest winning percentage of any pitcher with double digit wins.
He was able to put up such a fine record in part because he qualified for the win even if entered with game with the Rays already leading. The opener hadn't gone the necessary five innings to qualify for the win, so Yarbrough was in position to vulture them.
I think Yarbrough stood out as a pitcher much more BECAUSE he was preceded by an opener. He was kind of the ElRoy Face of long relievers. The opener made him a long reliever, and I doubt any long reliever in history had a won-loss record as good as Yarbrough.
But the most important part here relevative to our discussion is that while he believes it could cost his fraternity money, Greinke believes the use of the opener is a smart move.
If Zack Greinke feels that way even though he may be biased AGAINST the strategy, isn't the opener a strategy we should keep an open mind toward?
Or has Greinke not pitched above the high school level, and thus his opinion doesn't matter?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 24, 2018 11:53:08 GMT -5
He's wrong and he's right.
Wrong on the first one, right on the second.
And are you going to start up again in trying to convince us, Roger?
Please.
Stop.
I DON'T CARE about the opinions of others when it comes to this issue, MLB pitchers or not.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 25, 2018 9:05:32 GMT -5
Here's hoping Santa brings you an open mind this Christmas, Boly!
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 25, 2018 10:40:02 GMT -5
an open mind?
Roger, I've asked you to stop trying to 'teach' us.
Getting you to desist will be my Christmas present.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 25, 2018 13:10:58 GMT -5
I'm sorry to be a pest, but it does bother me that so few minds here seem to be open.
I thought of something ironic yesterday. There are supposedly these things about baseball I don't know and according to Randy never will. But to the extent that exists, I'm eager to learn as much as I can about those things -- and just about anything baseball.
On the other hand, I clearly know some analytical things that you guys haven't explored. But you don't seem to want to learn about them either.
I'm supposed to be the guy who doesn't know, but I'm learning things every day. You guys are the ones who talk about what I don't know, but you don't seem the least bit interested in expanding your knowledge or minds.
One of today's top starting pitchers, who if he has a predisposition would be negative toward the opener, thinks it is a "smart" idea, and yet we still won't keep an opon mind about the concept? Not embrace it, but simply keep an open mind?
Compare that with your idea of developing young starters so they can go further into games. I embraced it, wrote my idea for they type of pitchers to use, and then continued to post as I came across other thoughts that were pertinent to the issue.
You know how much I think of you, Boly. You're a great guy. Do you know how much it hurts me that you won't keep an open mind? Keeping an open mind is one of the most important things I taught my kids.
I just thought of it, but isn't it ironic when we don't keep an "open" mind about "open"-ers? I guess we can take comfort in not having a closed mind about closers.
What I want to know is, does the term middle inning relievers give a whole new meaning to the term seventh-inning stretch? We know chicks dig the long ball, but do they like the long man better than the short guy out of the pen?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 25, 2018 14:29:02 GMT -5
I have an open mind, roger, but my point is that just because it isn't open to every new idea doesn't make it closed.
Again, my Christmas present that I'd like from you is to stop trying to 'educate' us.
Please
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 26, 2018 13:06:46 GMT -5
if his wife can't stop him from acting like a dick, then it probably wont happen...ever
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 26, 2018 13:53:55 GMT -5
I have an open mind, roger, but my point is that just because it isn't open to every new idea doesn't make it closed. Rog -- Almost no one has a mind that is closed on everything. When our mate gives us that special look or special hug, chances are we're open to the idea. But if a mind isn't open to a new idea, it is closed on that single idea. And it shouldn't be. The mind should be open to evaluating new information -- and to re-examining the information it already has. Sometimes things look different after our subconscious works on them -- or when they are combined with new information. I keep coming back to Brandon Crawford vs. Andrelton Simmons because that seems very strongly to be close to a clear-cut case. Even when I'm looking at Omar Vizquel I keep coming across new information supporting Simmons. It wasn't until yesterday that I realized how powerful it is that Simmons has fielded 92% of potential outs compared to 89% for Crawford. That's a difference of about 20 outs per season, which is rather significant. 20 more hits per season might raise a batter's average by close to 40 points. Cutting those hits off is significant defense. Does that mean though that I've close my mind on the subject? No. I keep looking for more evidence. It keeps coming back pro-Simmons, but that could change at any time. I have mentioned that I don't think Simmons is as good as he once was. I'm pretty darn confident that is the case. Crawford MIGHT have been the better of the two in 2015. Simmons will almost surely continue his decline in the future, as has been the case with Brandon the past two seasons. Like Crawford, barring serious injury, Simmons will likely continue to be very good for some time. But it is unlikely that he will be AS good. Fielding involves a lot of athleticism, and athleticism almost always fades. If it didn't, players could keep playing until they were our age. Despite not being as good as he was five years ago, Simmons is likely still the best defensive shortstop in the game today. Five years from now, he will still likely have the best CAREER of any active shortstop, but it's unlikely he'll still be the best as of that moment. The really good young shortstops, headed by the tremendously athletic Francisco Lindor, are simply too good for Simmons to fade by much. It happened to Omar, and it happened to Ozzie Smith. Great fielders can remain very, very good for a long time, but they can't remain great forever. Given the overwhelming evidence on behalf of Simmons as having had the best defensive career of any active shortstop, I could simply close my mind to the situation. But it is a changing situation, and even without change, I might come across new evidence that would at least temper my opinion. I have an extremely strong opinion on Simmons. But my mind isn't closed on the subject. And I realize it is virtually certain that the situation will change at some point. I would like to be among the first to recognize the change when it occurs. The evidence on the opener has thus far been strong. But the evidence is also quite limited. I'm far from sure the opener is the wave of the future, and I'm confident it isn't the best solution each and every time. So I will eagerly keep my mind open to further developments. They may not change the situation much, they may make it more ambiguous, they make it clear the opener isn't a good strategy, or they may make it clear that at least in many situations, it is. Remember, there was a time when the idea of using four starters would have been scoffed at. You don't want me to try to teach you things, Boly. But if I can teach you one thing (aside from love), it would be to keep an open mind. Once our mind closes on a topic, it stops learning about that topic. When it stops learning, it stops growing. When it stops growing, it takes us more quickly toward our demise as a human being. When one closes his mind, he can no longer be reasonably as sure of his opinion. And the irony is that he tends to believe even more strongly that is. He runs the risk that his opinion will get out of alignment with the truth, or if it is already out of alignment, that it will become increasingly so. You and I agree that it makes sense to try to develop starters so that they can go deeper into the game. I could simply close my mind on the idea. I could say that you and I agree on it, and since we often see things baseball differently, if we agree, that's good enough for me. But I will keep studying the subject, if nothing else to learn better ways to implement the plan, and what pitfalls to avoid. I agree with you on the subject, and I hope to keep agreeing with you on the subject. But it would be wrong of me to close my nind on the issue. I would likely stop learning, and I might miss out on a chance to improve or refine my opinion. I might miss out on the chance to change it completely. I have a friend who says that if a person isn't a liberal when he's young, he has no heart; but if he isn't a conservative when he gets older, he has no brain. Clearly my friend is very conservative now. But his comment acknowledges that people can -- and should -- change. The world changes. We shouldn't be compelled to change with it (I have "regressed" into using a flip phone again), but we should be open to change and in fact invite it. Think a pedestrian should react differently now than he needed to react in the horse and buggy days? I lived in a time when my grandfather still refered to a car ride as a "buggy ride." But he made a lot of changes -- including becoming a Giants fan -- and he lived a long life. I could close my mind on baseball and the Giants and still know a lot about them. But my growth would stop on each, and I prefer to continue to grow in my understanding of, appreciation for, and enjoyment of both baseball and the Giants. I no doubt learned the most about the game between the ages of say 5 and 25. But I have likely learned more about it over the past two decades than any OTHER 20-year period of my life. The knowledge of the game continues to grow. It may have grown more quickly over the past decade than any decade since early in its history. If the game continues to grow and I don't, I become less of an informed fan. I don't think I'll ever regress into being just a casual fan of the game, but I would begin regressing in that DIRECTION. It has been said that when one stops improving, he begins his decline. On an absolute level that doesn't have to be true, but when the world is changing around him, it is true in a comparative sense. Remember the commercial comparing an egg to our minds? Remember that it then compared a frying egg to our mind on drugs? We might compare a closed mind to an egg in a frying pan (not necessarily turned on) with the frying pan lid soldered shut. Hard to see the egg, but we can be rather sure it's not growing. I strongly believe you already possess love. I'd like to feel as confident that you possess a mind that is open to new things. If it weren't for new things, we certainly wouldn't be on the internet right now. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog?page=2#ixzz5aoYPRrNb
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 26, 2018 15:16:29 GMT -5
We're all open to new ideas here, Rog. But only when those new ideas have a possibility of having a beneficial outcome. We're open to platoons and lefty-righty matchups, because we see the benefit. I dont see a significant benefit of having a reliever start the game. Relievers are taught to warm up fast and throw hard. Starters are taught to take their time warming up and to manage their pitch count. If a reliever starts the game then it causes an added headache for the manager to decide when to start warming up the "starter." I see more bad than good with this strategy. This strategy was devised and supported by people who think they're smarter than the history of the game.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 26, 2018 23:13:21 GMT -5
You say you're open to new ideas, Boagie, but then your answer says you're not.
You say you're open if the idea has a POSSIBILITY of having a beneficial outcome. But then you say you essentially don't see any possible benefit to the opener, even though it worked well for the Rays last season, and the Brewers used a similar approach effectively in the postseason.
You say opening with the reliever adds the extra difficulty of knowing when to start warming up the starter. My sense is that the starter decides that himself, since he knows he's going to start the second inning. He doesn't know the precise moment that will be, but he has a relatively good idea. When the team is at home, the home batters can stall a little bit if absolutely necessary. It worked for the Rays, so apparently the starting pitchers could handle the adjustment well enough.
Your point was potentially a good one, but it didn't pose a big enough problem for the Rays to overcome the advantages. Since the Rays used the opener only about half the time, I suspect it was one consideration they had when they decided whether or not to use it that day.
You say the bad outweighs the good, but if so, how did it work for the Rays?
You say the strategy was developed by someone who thought he was smarter than the game. Well, he likely isn't smarter than the way the game will be, but he may be smarter than the game is today.
Early on in baseball I'm sure there were those who didn't see the need for a fourth starter. They were getting by just fine with three, and besides, the fourth starter wasn't going to be as good as the first three. Why add a fourth starter and dilute the rotation? In their first season, the Giants used three pitchers for all but 15 innings of the season. This past season things were slightly different.
No doubt some wondered how a bullpen could survive with a closer who went only one inning. They didn't realize the benefits of using relievers in short bursts instead of longer outings. They didn't realize that relievers could be groomed, rather than simply being failed starters.
The history of the game and in particular of the pitching staff says that there may be a better way. In fact, it says that there always has been. The history of the game is actually against you on this one, Boagie.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 27, 2018 5:13:04 GMT -5
How is the history of the game against me on this one? Not all new ideas impact the future, some fade away. Look at the pitcher batting 8th, it's been tried here and there, but it never really proved to be of any significant advantage. Was I close minded for not being all gung ho about the idea, or was I being realistic for basically seeing it for what it was? This is how i feel about this new strategy..
Again, I think we're all fairly open to new ideas, but I think we'd like a little more proof, instead of just blindly drinking the punch. I realize you like to consider yourself on the "cutting edge" of this new baseball revolution, but the rest of us don't NEED to be on the cutting edge just so we can claim to be smarter than the rest.
You, Brian Kenny, and a lot of the mainstream geeks like to promote your own intelligence, the rest of us don't crave that. Article after self-absorbed article from the mainstream baseball media has continued to push the point that anyone who resists this new sabremetric revolution is stupid, likely old, white, and probably votes republican. They hate Randy, Boly and I and think we're out of touch. They also disrespect managers like Bochy, just because he's old and white, when in reality some of these innovative ideas are ideas he's tried before in games. You, of course, recycle that message here on the board. Randy is dumb, Boly is close minded, and I'm somewhere in between..We get it. I realize you consider our viewpoints to be on the chopping block, but history has actually proven you wrong. Our viewpoints keep your viewpoints and the viewpoints of your progressive stat geeks, grounded, where they belong. We've always been here, since the days of batting helmets and designated hitters. Some things we accept, some we fight. We continue to fight the use of aluminum bats and the DH. We try to keep baseball pure, because it's the game we love. Brian Kenny and the other geeks want baseball to be more Vegas friendly, and they will always have sheep to follow.
And I will always stand in the way. Get used to it.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 27, 2018 12:31:02 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 27, 2018 12:39:53 GMT -5
We're open to platoons and lefty-righty matchups, because we see the benefit. Rog -- And my guess is that when platoons were first implemented, they were probably looked at askance. Now there is a positive correlation between Hall of Fame managers and platooning. As for lefty-righty matchups, it has been during the history of this board that the term LOOGY in particular was joked bout. As for seeing the benefit, platoons and lefty-righty matchups now have long track records of success. One would have to be in denial not to recognize their values. The opener has no such long record. But it HAS been successful thus far. Let's be honest: If the opener hadn't worked for the Rays, Randy would be crowing how UNsuccessful it was, that it had been proven so. That would have been wrong, since the sample wouldn't have been large enough for proof one way or the other. Likewise it would be wrong to say that the concept of the opener has been proven by the small sample of the Rays' success and the even smaller usage of a similar concept by the Brewers in the playoffs. But the results thus far are positive. I'm not asking anyone to say that the opener should be used every game by every team. In fact, I'm saying it likely shouldn't be. What I'm asking is that we keep an open mind to the concept. We seem to be taking the position that, yes, the concept has been a success in its brief trial thus far, but I don't like it, and even though I can't give substantive reasons why not, I'm opposed to even keeping an open mind to the subject. It just isn't right. Have our minds become so stagnant that we're not even OPEN to a concept that thus far has been successful? Are our minds that closed? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog?page=2#ixzz5auHEpc1o
|
|