PDA

View Full Version : Ryan on Pitchers


Lip Man 1
05-20-2010, 04:47 PM
This week in S.I. Page 72. Nolan Ryan and his crusade to turn back the clock with pitchers. He has some pretty strong statements but what surprised me was the guru of stat-geeks, Bill James' is quoted out of his books talking about how the risk of injury is always there but actually pushing pitchers instead of limiting them is more likely to enhance their durability and performance.

Interesting read.

Guys like Sutter, Gossage and Koosman have also come out and stated pitchers need to stop being babied.

Lip

PalehosePlanet
05-22-2010, 11:37 AM
Teams have way too much money invested in pitchers today to take chances on injuries. Also, the age of the set-up men and other bullpen specialists is here to stay.

The game has changed and Ryan needs to get over it. I'm tired of his Back in my day bull****. The game has passed him by.

If he wants to abuse pitchers he should coach high school baseball. That would be the perfect forum for him. Back in HS, I remember pitching over 20 innings one week, including starting and pitching 4 innings of a game, then going out to LF for 2 innings before I came back in to pitch in the 7th to mop up my own loss. It didn't make me stronger, I remember my arm hurting to the point that I would wake up upwards of 5 times a night with elbow and shoulder pains.

Nolan is probably looking for an Olds dealership as we speak while wondering why his rabbit-ear antenna doesn't work on his Zenith console.

Lip Man 1
05-22-2010, 12:45 PM
Palehose:

So how do you explain James' comments?

Nice diatribe by the way...

Daver any thoughts on this debate?

Lip

Brian26
05-22-2010, 01:04 PM
I get a kick out of people who complain that Dusty is the reason for Prior and Wood breaking down after the 2003 season.

Both Wood and Prior had terrible mechanics through the early part of their careers. Prior developed the bad habit of raising his elbow above his shoulder in his motion. I've read some interesting reviews about Volquez on the Reds having the same issue. Wood's mechanics have been screwed up since day one. Stone says Wood never listened to advice from anyone on how to fix his delivery.

DumpJerry
05-22-2010, 01:16 PM
I get a kick out of people who complain that Dusty is the reason for Prior and Wood breaking down after the 2003 season.

Both Wood and Prior had terrible mechanics through the early part of their careers. Prior developed the bad habit of raising his elbow above his shoulder in his motion. I've read some interesting reviews about Volquez on the Reds having the same issue. Wood's mechanics have been screwed up since day one. Stone says Wood never listened to advice from anyone on how to fix his delivery.
Wood's shoulder has been messed up ever since his coach made him pitch both ends of a doubleheader in the Texas state high school championship tourney.

Yeah, that was before the Cubs made him the fourth pick overall in 1995.

khan
05-22-2010, 01:24 PM
Yeah, I get a kick out of old-timers thinking that the world is the same way it was, "back in my day," too.

Hell, I remember all the fat slobs and cigarette smoke coming out of dugouts when I was a kid. Ballplayers hardly bothered to get into shape, let alone KEEP themselves in shape back when a SP would go 250+ innings/season. Most lineups were good for 2 or 3 automatic outs back in Ryan's day. [Insert joke about the 2010 White Sox here, but they are an exception in the AL, not the rule.]

My opinion:

The level of opposition for pitchers has been RAISED, not lowered, in recent years. Even without 'roids, players are in better shape, which makes them better athletes. Better athletes are in a better position to hit. Better hitters make a pitcher's job all the harder than it was years ago.

I don't think Ryan's antiquated idea will work. The world, and the game changes over time.

DumpJerry
05-22-2010, 01:34 PM
Can Nolan Ryan be in charge of the Twins' pitching staff? Pretty please?

WhiteSox5187
05-22-2010, 01:34 PM
I get a kick out of people who complain that Dusty is the reason for Prior and Wood breaking down after the 2003 season.

Both Wood and Prior had terrible mechanics through the early part of their careers. Prior developed the bad habit of raising his elbow above his shoulder in his motion. I've read some interesting reviews about Volquez on the Reds having the same issue. Wood's mechanics have been screwed up since day one. Stone says Wood never listened to advice from anyone on how to fix his delivery.

I've actually heard Volquez's mechanics compared to Wood's several times. Prior's mechanics were supposed to be a thing of beauty and perfect. Still Baker rode them into the ground in 2003 (there were a lot of games they had with over 130 pitches) and then did the same thing in 2004. Dusty does get too much blame for Wood and Prior, but he didn't do them any favors.

Bobby Thigpen
05-22-2010, 01:37 PM
If throwing too much will cause pitchers to break down how do you explain Buehrle?

It's Dankerific
05-22-2010, 01:40 PM
If throwing too much will cause pitchers to break down how do you explain Buehrle?

I'd compare their fastballs and the movement on their breaking stuff.

Bobby Thigpen
05-22-2010, 01:47 PM
I'd compare their fastballs and the movement on their breaking stuff.
Compare whose?

I would wager Buehrle is closer to what Ryan would like to see out of pitchers.

It's Dankerific
05-22-2010, 02:06 PM
Compare whose?

I would wager Buehrle is closer to what Ryan would like to see out of pitchers.

People like Prior and Wood to Buehrle.

He doesnt get near their MPH and he doesnt have the same movement. All things that contribute to wear and tear.

Mark is special, no doubt about it. But you can't compare the pitching styles and have everyone be like Mark.

Bobby Thigpen
05-22-2010, 02:31 PM
People like Prior and Wood to Buehrle.

He doesnt get near their MPH and he doesnt have the same movement. All things that contribute to wear and tear.

Mark is special, no doubt about it. But you can't compare the pitching styles and have everyone be like Mark.
I think Ryan would much rather have innings eaters that throw everyday for years than "phenoms" with great stuff that flame out after 5 years of being babied at every turn.

I think that's what these "old timers" are saying. "Stuff" doesn't amount to crap if you don't throw it for a long time reliably. Name one "stuff" guy who hasn't flamed out despite being "protected". There's a lot more guys who throw a really long time with marginal stuff who in the end are just as successful or more successful than stuff guys who have 5 year fantastic runs. Even stuff guys who stick around a long time do so because they begin relying less on stuff and more on pitching.

Is there a bigger stereotype in baseball than the big thrower who flames out after a couple years?

I think Ryan would like to see these guys go away. Stop pitch counting, let em throw and if they flame out early they flame out in the minors instead of coming up, having one great year and costing people millions. Find the guys who are going to be reliable to invest in. Especially since offense seems to be trending down since steroid testing is becoming more predominant.

Now, when you find the stuff guy who's going to be reliable, well then you have Nolan Ryan.

Slappy
05-22-2010, 02:36 PM
Is there a link to read this online?

HomeFish
05-22-2010, 02:40 PM
How often does Buehrle truly go deep into games though?

The Sox seem to pull their pitchers around 100 pitches. I'm a fan of this policy.

It's Dankerific
05-22-2010, 02:41 PM
stuff guys with decent careers, right off the top:

Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Roger Clemens
Roy Halladay
Roy Oswalt
Curt Schilling

etc.

WhiteSox5187
05-22-2010, 02:45 PM
How often does Buehrle truly go deep into games though?

The Sox seem to pull their pitchers around 100 pitches. I'm a fan of this policy.

I think guys probably start losing their effectiveness around 100 pitches, if a guy is still throwing lights out stuff at 100 pitches, let him go. But usually guys start to wear down around that long. I just don't like the idea of a pitch count being the end all be all of pitching decisions.

khan
05-22-2010, 02:47 PM
I think Ryan would much rather have innings eaters that throw everyday for years than "phenoms" with great stuff that flame out after 5 years of being babied at every turn.

I think that's what these "old timers" are saying. "Stuff" doesn't amount to crap if you don't throw it for a long time reliably. Name one "stuff" guy who hasn't flamed out despite being "protected". There's a lot more guys who throw a really long time with marginal stuff who in the end are just as successful or more successful than stuff guys who have 5 year fantastic runs. Even stuff guys who stick around a long time do so because they begin relying less on stuff and more on pitching.

Is there a bigger stereotype in baseball than the big thrower who flames out after a couple years?

I think Ryan would like to see these guys go away. Stop pitch counting, let em throw and if they flame out early they flame out in the minors instead of coming up, having one great year and costing people millions. Find the guys who are going to be reliable to invest in. Especially since offense seems to be trending down since steroid testing is becoming more predominant.

Now, when you find the stuff guy who's going to be reliable, well then you have Nolan Ryan.

1. What are you talking about? Nolan Ryan wasn't a "stuff" guy, so much as he was known for his OVERPOWERING fastball. Of course, he had the joy of getting to pitch back in the day when smoking a cigarette was more manly than lifting a weight. [I admit I'm guessing, but it's probably easier to blow away a fat, smoking slob than it is to blow away the more fit athletes of today's MLB.]

2. Nostalgia for the "good old days" does NOT mean that the level of opposition that pitchers will face will go BACK to "the good old days."

3. Somehow pounding your chest over the "good old days" is probably not a good idea. I kind of doubt that pitchers can throw as many pitches to FIT, well-coached, well-scouted opposition the way that they could to fat, smokers who were poorly coached/scouted before the advent of the internet, of modern training and scouting methods, or of modern statistical analysis. [Insert gratuitous joke about the crappy White Sox organization here.]

4. For a myriad of reasons, I doubt that what worked 30, 40, or 50 years ago can work today. The world has changed. The game has changed. And neither will go back to the way "it used to be," whether we like it or not.

SI1020
05-22-2010, 02:50 PM
Yeah, I get a kick out of old-timers thinking that the world is the same way it was, "back in my day," too.

Hell, I remember all the fat slobs and cigarette smoke coming out of dugouts when I was a kid. Ballplayers hardly bothered to get into shape, let alone KEEP themselves in shape back when a SP would go 250+ innings/season. Most lineups were good for 2 or 3 automatic outs back in Ryan's day. [Insert joke about the 2010 White Sox here, but they are an exception in the AL, not the rule.]

My opinion:

The level of opposition for pitchers has been RAISED, not lowered, in recent years. Even without 'roids, players are in better shape, which makes them better athletes. Better athletes are in a better position to hit. Better hitters make a pitcher's job all the harder than it was years ago.

I don't think Ryan's antiquated idea will work. The world, and the game changes over time. There's so much wrong here I hardly know where to begin. I'll just refer to the bolded part. Just for the heck of it I went to 1977, which I consider to be Ryan's best overall year in the AL. His W-L record was a modest 19-16, but he had 22 CG's in 37 starts logged 299 IP with 341 K's and a 141 ERA+. Pretty damn good I'd say. Then I looked at all of the 13 opposing lineups that Ryan faced that year for the two or three automatic outs on each team. I tried to be fair but found less than ten that I thought would qualify as an automatic out. Even a guy like Mark Belanger who I included in my list more than compensated with his unbelievably good defense at SS for the Orioles. So please quit with the angry hyperbole. Nothing is served by the angry old man with the white beard, fierce eyes and quavering voice pointing a bony finger at the young buck and screaming "Well back in my day we ..." or the arrogant young stud telling old men like me (I'm 59) to go off in the corner and die. I think Ryan makes some good points, and as for me I'd like to see teams have pitchers that could log 30-40 total complete games in a year. Having so few bench players to accommodate 12 man pitching staffs, especially in the AL with the DH really squeezes a manager's maneuverability in the late innings of a game. Yes this older man realizes full well that world we live in is in constant flux. I don't think the world is flat or that computers are bad. I do know that not all changes are benign or for the good and that modern day MLB pitchers are a hell of a lot more fragile than they used to be. We can debate the reasons why but to deny it is foolish in my humble honest old fart opinion.

Bobby Thigpen
05-22-2010, 03:05 PM
1. What are you talking about? Nolan Ryan wasn't a "stuff" guy, so much as he was known for his OVERPOWERING fastball. Of course, he had the joy of getting to pitch back in the day when smoking a cigarette was more manly than lifting a weight. [I admit I'm guessing, but it's probably easier to blow away a fat, smoking slob than it is to blow away the more fit athletes of today's MLB.]

2. Nostalgia for the "good old days" does NOT mean that the level of opposition that pitchers will face will go BACK to "the good old days."

3. Somehow pounding your chest over the "good old days" is probably not a good idea. I kind of doubt that pitchers can throw as many pitches to FIT, well-coached, well-scouted opposition the way that they could to fat, smokers who were poorly coached/scouted before the advent of the internet, of modern training and scouting methods, or of modern statistical analysis. [Insert gratuitous joke about the crappy White Sox organization here.]

4. For a myriad of reasons, I doubt that what worked 30, 40, or 50 years ago can work today. The world has changed. The game has changed. And neither will go back to the way "it used to be," whether we like it or not.
Because there aren't any fat players or smokers in baseball today right?

You really think every player in MLB will continue to look like ARoid as testing becomes more and more invasive?

I also forgot that there weren't any well conditioned athletes that guys like Ryan ever had to pitch to. They all looked like Greg Luzinski at the end of his career.:rolleyes:

I also seem to remember Nolan Ryan doing pretty well against guys like Frank Thomas. But, he was just a fat smoker I'm sure.

RichH55
05-22-2010, 03:07 PM
Some of the guys mentioned there...Like RJ and Schilling didn't really start tacking on big innings until a bit later.

Generally there is an "injury nexxus" for younger pitchers til around age 24.

Nolan Ryan had a pretty unique arm (power pitcher into his 40s without chemical help is exceedingly rare....whether the guy was babied or not).

Using outliers like Ryan to gameplan is kind of foolish IMHO.

In a related story...Guys like Gossage, Ryan, and Koosman join Andy Rooney's crusade against musicians they don't know anything about like Lady Gaga.

They also cordially ask you to get off their lawn.

Bobby Thigpen
05-22-2010, 03:11 PM
stuff guys with decent careers, right off the top:

Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Roger Clemens
Roy Halladay
Roy Oswalt
Curt Schilling

etc.
How many of those recovered from early on breakdowns though? Johnson and Clemens both had pretty well documented break downs and were thought to be done pretty early on. Clemens very well may have been had he not started roiding. How many roided?

It's Dankerific
05-22-2010, 03:21 PM
How many of those recovered from early on breakdowns though? Johnson and Clemens both had pretty well documented break downs and were thought to be done pretty early on. Clemens very well may have been had he not started roiding. How many roided?

How many soft tossing innings eaters roided?

it doesnt matter.

i gave you a list. the truth is that injuries happen to a great % of pitchers in general. Some mechanics tend to cause more chance for harm. trying to mold your methodology either on a HOF legend from another time or a soft throwing lefty for everyone in your system just wont work.

Bobby Thigpen
05-22-2010, 03:26 PM
It doesn't matter if they roided?

How does that list prove that pitch counts and "protecting" pitchers is the right way to go?

It's Dankerific
05-22-2010, 04:05 PM
If throwing too much will cause pitchers to break down how do you explain Buehrle?

I think Ryan would much rather have innings eaters that throw everyday for years than "phenoms" with great stuff that flame out after 5 years of being babied at every turn.

I think that's what these "old timers" are saying. "Stuff" doesn't amount to crap if you don't throw it for a long time reliably. Name one "stuff" guy who hasn't flamed out despite being "protected". There's a lot more guys who throw a really long time with marginal stuff who in the end are just as successful or more successful than stuff guys who have 5 year fantastic runs. Even stuff guys who stick around a long time do so because they begin relying less on stuff and more on pitching.

Is there a bigger stereotype in baseball than the big thrower who flames out after a couple years?

I think Ryan would like to see these guys go away. Stop pitch counting, let em throw and if they flame out early they flame out in the minors instead of coming up, having one great year and costing people millions. Find the guys who are going to be reliable to invest in. Especially since offense seems to be trending down since steroid testing is becoming more predominant.

Now, when you find the stuff guy who's going to be reliable, well then you have Nolan Ryan.

It doesn't matter if they roided?

How does that list prove that pitch counts and "protecting" pitchers is the right way to go?

Thats not what you asked.

dickallen15
05-22-2010, 04:25 PM
Since Ryan took over the Rangers, their pitching has improved. The one problem I see is if they are the only organization doing things his way. When they acquire pitching from another organization, they will have a guy who has been babied forever, and probably won't be able to adjust easily. Everyone used to have a 4 man rotation. Then everyone went to five. It is pretty amazing guys like Ryan were still throwing gas in their 40's and he had some games he threw close to or even more than 200 pitches.

Its something that would have to start early and everyone would have to be doing it.

Lip Man 1
05-22-2010, 05:34 PM
In 1999 at the age of 42 Ryan threw 166 pitches for the Rangers in a game against K.C. just FYI.

Everyone has not addressed one of my questions though and I'm still curious about it...if this is such a bad idea how come the father of stat-geek's and egghead's everywhere, Bill James is for it and says the benefits outweigh the risks?

I think this is the link to the story:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1169750/index.htm

Lip

Bobby Thigpen
05-22-2010, 06:50 PM
Thats not what you asked.
Ok, which one of those guys was protected?? Pedro threw 241 innings one year. Which one of these guys is proof that 100 pitches an outing is successful?

LITTLE NELL
05-23-2010, 08:26 AM
:bandance:[QUOTE=RichH55;2501967]



Nolan Ryan had a pretty unique arm (power pitcher into his 40s without chemical help is exceedingly rare....whether the guy was babied or not).

IIRC I read one time that based on a computer program, Ryan had the best mechanics of any pitcher, EVER.
I would guess to say that Tom Seaver was not far behind.

khan
05-23-2010, 11:06 AM
There's so much wrong here I hardly know where to begin. I'll just refer to the bolded part. Just for the heck of it I went to 1977, which I consider to be Ryan's best overall year in the AL. His W-L record was a modest 19-16, but he had 22 CG's in 37 starts logged 299 IP with 341 K's and a 141 ERA+. Pretty damn good I'd say. Then I looked at all of the 13 opposing lineups that Ryan faced that year for the two or three automatic outs on each team. I tried to be fair but found less than ten that I thought would qualify as an automatic out. Even a guy like Mark Belanger who I included in my list more than compensated with his unbelievably good defense at SS for the Orioles. So please quit with the angry hyperbole. Nothing is served by the angry old man with the white beard, fierce eyes and quavering voice pointing a bony finger at the young buck and screaming "Well back in my day we ..." or the arrogant young stud telling old men like me (I'm 59) to go off in the corner and die. I think Ryan makes some good points, and as for me I'd like to see teams have pitchers that could log 30-40 total complete games in a year.

I respect your opinion, and I disagree. There were plenty of ****ty-hitting middle IF in MLB 30 or so years ago. As for the bolded part, you'll let us know when you expect this to happen, right?

For my part, I don't see this happening in my lifetime, to tell you the truth, for a number of reasons.

khan
05-23-2010, 11:15 AM
Because there aren't any fat players or smokers in baseball today right?
A lot fewer than in years past. Society as a whole has far fewer smokers today than ever before; MLB reflects this change.

You really think every player in MLB will continue to look like ARoid as testing becomes more and more invasive?
I think that, unlike in the early 80s and before, MLB players will continue to workout and be better athletes than back then, REGARDLESS of roids or not.

I also forgot that there weren't any well conditioned athletes that guys like Ryan ever had to pitch to. They all looked like Greg Luzinski at the end of his career.:rolleyes:
And there were a lot more fatasses then than now. Players nowadays are fitter, faster, bigger, and stronger, with or without 'roids. Do you disagree?

I also seem to remember Nolan Ryan doing pretty well against guys like Frank Thomas. But, he was just a fat smoker I'm sure.
So what? He also sucked ass against Harold Baines, too. I fail to see your point. The degree of difficulty was far easier for pitchers back then when compared to today.

downstairs
05-23-2010, 11:18 AM
I'm all for Ryan's ideas. I don't think he's thinking the entire game can go back to the 1970's. And I doubt he'll not HAVE a pitch count. I just think that he believes (as I do) that pitchers can go deeper into games with no harm.

Managers have been relying on pitch counts as a CYA move. No doubt about it. If a pitcher gets a freak injury on pitch 160 of a game, he's going to hear about it from everyone.

SI1020
05-23-2010, 12:07 PM
I respect your opinion, and I disagree. That's all one can ever ask. Especially on an internet message board. Thanks, and the same goes for you.

PalehosePlanet
05-23-2010, 11:29 PM
In 1999 at the age of 42 Ryan threw 166 pitches for the Rangers in a game against K.C. just FYI.

Everyone has not addressed one of my questions though and I'm still curious about it...if this is such a bad idea how come the father of stat-geek's and egghead's everywhere, Bill James is for it and says the benefits outweigh the risks?

I think this is the link to the story:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1169750/index.htm

Lip

Lip, even though James is, as you put it, the "father of stat-geeks" he doesn't offer any actual stats or data to support his beliefs. It's just an opinion; and a six year old one at that.

Bottom line is relievers are specialists now: Set-up men and closers and even 7th inning guys are groomed in the minors. For at least half of Ryan's career, most relievers were just failed starters at the MLB level who were banished to the pen.

Nellie_Fox
05-24-2010, 12:53 AM
You know, not all "progress" is good. Sometimes, the changes made are the wrong ones, and "going back" is okay. Seaver has said that they had pitch counts in his day. It just wasn't the same for everybody. Some guys were 100, others were 120, still others were 140. The thing today of everybody getting yanked by about 110 pitches is BS. Everybody is not the same.

areilly
05-24-2010, 10:27 AM
You know, not all "progress" is good. Sometimes, the changes made are the wrong ones, and "going back" is okay. Seaver has said that they had pitch counts in his day. It just wasn't the same for everybody. Some guys were 100, others were 120, still others were 140. The thing today of everybody getting yanked by about 110 pitches is BS. Everybody is not the same.

Jack McDowell made a good point about this a few seasons ago when he was doing a broadcast. The short of it was that, say a guy has thrown 120 pitches in the game - but how much has he really thrown? If one guy needs 10 pitches to warm up, and another needs 50, does throwing 120 in-game pitches really signify the same thing in both cases?

SI1020
05-24-2010, 11:18 AM
You know, not all "progress" is good. Sometimes, the changes made are the wrong ones, and "going back" is okay. Seaver has said that they had pitch counts in his day. It just wasn't the same for everybody. Some guys were 100, others were 120, still others were 140. The thing today of everybody getting yanked by about 110 pitches is BS. Everybody is not the same. Some might think that it's a case of an older generation always trying to cling to the past. Nothing could be further from the truth. You shouldn't automatically lose your reasoning abilities as you age. In baseball and in life some changes are good, others benign and still others just plain bad. Good luck to Nolan Ryan.

khan
05-24-2010, 11:41 AM
You know, not all "progress" is good. Sometimes, the changes made are the wrong ones, and "going back" is okay. Seaver has said that they had pitch counts in his day. It just wasn't the same for everybody. Some guys were 100, others were 120, still others were 140. The thing today of everybody getting yanked by about 110 pitches is BS. Everybody is not the same.

See, I can agree to this. I also think that this can be measured, quantified, and turned into something that the player, the manager/pitching coach, and the catcher can use in an individual game. I think that this is something that the manager/pitching coach can use over the course of a season.

I think this is something that a smart GM can use when assembling a team. I think that this is something that those scary stats guys, with their new-fangled math that uses more than a person's fingers/toes can figure out. [Bill James hasn't quantified this, despite his "opinions" on the matter.]


What I can't and won't ever agree with is the idea that today's pitcher, pitching off a shorter mound, facing the fit athletes of today, throwing a tightly-wound ball, in bandboxes can go back to "the good old days" of pitching 30 complete games of 200+ pitches per game.

You know, back when the number of teams in MLB was in the teens? Or back when players never bothered to lift anything other than a cigarette? Or back when [some people] weren't allowed to play in MLB?


I simply refuse to believe the "pitchers-used to-pitch-complete-games-back-in-my-day-why-can't-they-now" antiquated idea. It isn't coming back, despite what Nolan Ryan or any other geezing geezers think.

Now, perhaps SPs can [and perhaps they should] throw a few more pitches/start. To this, I can agree.

khan
05-24-2010, 11:48 AM
Some might think that it's a case of an older generation always trying to cling to the past. Nothing could be further from the truth. You shouldn't automatically lose your reasoning abilities as you age. In baseball and in life some changes are good, others benign and still others just plain bad. Good luck to Nolan Ryan.

Unfortunately, all too often this is the case. After all, criticizing "the good old days," and favoring the newer ways of doing things is tantamount to criticizing yourself, right? And NO ONE was as good as YOU, back "in my day," no?

Suggesting that "some pitchers can/should pitch closer to 140 pitches/game, some are good for 120, and some are only good for 80/game" is a more cogent point [IMO] than:

"60 years ago, pitchers pitched complete games, why can't they now?"

The former is a reasoned approach, while the latter idea simply clings to nostalgia.

SI1020
05-24-2010, 11:51 AM
Unfortunately, all too often this is the case. After all, criticizing "the good old days," and favoring the newer ways of doing things is tantamount to criticizing yourself, right? And NO ONE was as good as YOU, back "in my day," no?

Suggesting that "some pitchers can/should pitch closer to 140 pitches/game, some are good for 120, and some are only good for 80/game" is a more cogent point [IMO] than:

"60 years ago, pitchers pitched complete games, why can't they now?"

The former is a reasoned approach, while the latter idea simply clings to nostalgia. I have no problem with this.

Edit: In rereading a post of mine earlier here, I may have failed to be as clear as I should have. I was suggesting 30-40 CG's a year for a team, not an individual pitcher.

asindc
05-24-2010, 12:45 PM
I have no problem with this.

Edit: In rereading a post of mine earlier here, I may have failed to be as clear as I should have. I was suggesting 30-40 CG's a year for a team, not an individual pitcher.

I thought that is what you meant.

Lip Man 1
05-24-2010, 12:47 PM
Khan:

You are implying that hitters are the only ones who stay fit and in shape. Last I looked pitchers work out year round, have trainers, have personal chefs etc. They are in just as good a shape on average in my opinion as hitters.

I agree with Ryan and Seaver, Koosman, Gossage etc. pitch counts are arbitrary and limit what an individual can do if given the chance.

The S.I. story shows statistically the Rangers are getting better since Ryan's team / system wide philosophy is being used..we'll see if that continues.

Also "back in the day" there were more not less bandbox ballparks than today. They were in Chicago (N.L.), Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York (Giants), Brooklyn, Boston (Braves), Boston (Red Sox), Detroit, Philadelphia (A's) just to name a few...than you had the short porch in Yankee Stadium.

Lip

PalehosePlanet
05-24-2010, 01:12 PM
Ryan's old-school Rangers are averaging 5.8 innings per start.

The new-school White Sox are averaging 6.3 innings per start.

areilly
05-24-2010, 01:26 PM
Ryan's old-school Rangers are averaging 5.8 innings per start.

The new-school White Sox are averaging 6.3 innings per start.

Ryan's new-school Rangers have two complete games. The new-school White Sox have zero.

Lip Man 1
05-24-2010, 02:41 PM
Palehose:

The S.I. story also states that a number of clubs including Detroit, the Yankees and Angels have altered their philosophy on some aspects of how they are treating their pitchers to conform more to what Ryan is implimenting in Texas.

This could be the new wave for the future.

Lip

bunty_doghunter
05-24-2010, 06:24 PM
Ryan's old-school Rangers are averaging 5.8 innings per start.

The new-school White Sox are averaging 6.3 innings per start.
Cold comfort, since the Rangers are 25-20 and leading their division. I would take that right now.

Dibbs
05-24-2010, 07:33 PM
I always got a kick out of the 100 pitch count mark for pulling a pitcher. That may be the case for some, but everyone's body and genetics are different. 80 pitches may be the max for one guy while 150 could be a max for a different guy. It really makes no sense thinking everyone is similar.