PDA

View Full Version : More of this crap


blandman
06-30-2013, 05:26 PM
And only 123 pitches for Sale....way to go Ventura. Pitch his arm out so we can win 65 games.

Saving the bullpen for the stretch drive.

:rolling:

I don't have a problem with a 123 pitches. A hundred twelve years of major league baseball history doesn't support the claim limiting a pitcher to a hundred pitchers preserves his arm or limits the risk of injury in the long run.

You realize there's also 112 years of guys getting seriously hurt, right? You realize that in 112 years, all the guys throwing as many pitches as Sale with the same form ended up with exploded elbows or shoulders, right?

If there's a case to be made for Sale to have high pitch counts and innings, it's certainly not based on 112 years of history.

SI1020
06-30-2013, 05:52 PM
You realize there's also 112 years of guys getting seriously hurt, right? You realize that in 112 years, all the guys throwing as many pitches as Sale with the same form ended up with exploded elbows or shoulders, right?

If there's a case to be made for Sale to have high pitch counts and innings, it's certainly not based on 112 years of history. All? Really? I would never say Sale will last another 15 years without a major injury. I'm not Cleo and lots of pitchers without the dreaded inverted W blow their arms out too. Pitchers just seem so fragile nowadays regardless of how they throw.

WLL1855
06-30-2013, 06:17 PM
:rolling:



You realize there's also 112 years of guys getting seriously hurt, right? You realize that in 112 years, all the guys throwing as many pitches as Sale with the same form ended up with exploded elbows or shoulders, right?

If there's a case to be made for Sale to have high pitch counts and innings, it's certainly not based on 112 years of history.

Take your crusade elsewhere. Your absolutist statements are stale.

TheVulture
06-30-2013, 06:28 PM
:rolling:



You realize there's also 112 years of guys getting seriously hurt, right? You realize that in 112 years, all the guys throwing as many pitches as Sale with the same form ended up with exploded elbows or shoulders, right?

If there's a case to be made for Sale to have high pitch counts and innings, it's certainly not based on 112 years of history.

Facts are facts. As pitch count restrictions have increased, so have arm injuries to pitchers. Unless you are arguing we are in the midst of a process human devolution, I don't know how you can claim there is no correlation. And how does it just so happen a nice round number like 100 becomes a magic number where that's acceptable but not 120 pitches. If we were using the duodecimal system instead of the decimal system, people would probably praising Ventura for keeping him under pitch count right now.

blandman
06-30-2013, 11:17 PM
All? Really? I would never say Sale will last another 15 years without a major injury. I'm not Cleo and lots of pitchers without the dreaded inverted W blow their arms out too. Pitchers just seem so fragile nowadays regardless of how they throw.

Yep. All of them.

Take your crusade elsewhere. Your absolutist statements are stale.

Or, you know, you could educate yourself. Because it's true.

There hasn't been a single 10+ year career in the last 112 years of baseball where a starting pitcher threw with a true inverted W without serious and career threatening (or ending) incident. Not a single case.

And someone will look it up and come up with names like Glavine, Smoltz, Blylevin, etc. But none of those guys threw a true inverted W. In a true inverted W, the elbow can (and does frequently) raise about the shoulder. That's what causes catastrophic injury. At a 100% rate. Absolute. 100%.

In case you were wondering, it's still 100%.

Did you look it up yet? 100%.

Facts are facts. As pitch count restrictions have increased, so have arm injuries to pitchers. Unless you are arguing we are in the midst of a process human devolution, I don't know how you can claim there is no correlation. And how does it just so happen a nice round number like 100 becomes a magic number where that's acceptable but not 120 pitches. If we were using the duodecimal system instead of the decimal system, people would probably praising Ventura for keeping him under pitch count right now.

I'm not knocking the argument that pitch counts are to blame in a lot of cases, I believe that to be true. My issue is with the way Sale pitches. It's 100% a ticking time bomb. It's not a matter or if, it's a matter of when. And the more pitches he throws, the sooner when is.

WLL1855
06-30-2013, 11:37 PM
Yep. All of them.



Or, you know, you could educate yourself. Because it's true.

There hasn't been a single 10+ year career in the last 112 years of baseball where a starting pitcher threw with a true inverted W without serious and career threatening (or ending) incident. Not a single case.

And someone will look it up and come up with names like Glavine, Smoltz, Blylevin, etc. But none of those guys threw a true inverted W. In a true inverted W, the elbow can (and does frequently) raise about the shoulder. That's what causes catastrophic injury. At a 100% rate. Absolute. 100%.

In case you were wondering, it's still 100%.

Did you look it up yet? 100%.



I'm not knocking the argument that pitch counts are to blame in a lot of cases, I believe that to be true. My issue is with the way Sale pitches. It's 100% a ticking time bomb. It's not a matter or if, it's a matter of when. And the more pitches he throws, the sooner when is.

Here's why people don't take you more seriously.

I want to take you seriously. I really do. But when you pull this shtick, it is like talking to the guy who claims the moon landing was faked.

CoopaLoop
06-30-2013, 11:42 PM
Here's why people don't take you more seriously.

I want to take you seriously. I really do. But when you pull this shtick, it is like talking to the guy who claims the moon landing was faked.

Do you have an actual counter to his claim?

WLL1855
06-30-2013, 11:55 PM
Do you have an actual counter to his claim?

I've got better things to do but feel free to jump on that bandwagon.

CoopaLoop
07-01-2013, 12:15 AM
I've got better things to do but feel free to jump on that bandwagon.

Solid retort. I am on no bandwagon. But if you think he is full of ****, find a real argument and stay away from the lazy zingers.

blandman
07-01-2013, 12:52 AM
I've got better things to do but feel free to jump on that bandwagon.

I'm being an *******, but I'm only being an ******* because you were being an ******* first. It's not a schtick. It was an accurate statement. If Chris Sale pitched his entire career injury free without changing his throwing motion, he would be the FIRST starter in baseball history to do so with his motion. There's a lot of different things out there on the inverted W being safe or not. There was a big deal a few years back when some guys "disproved it" by pointing to variations on it, and then the people talking about how horrible it was clarified to mean a specific motion in which the elbow raises above the shoulder at a certain point in the motion, and then the guys who said it was "safe" said, "oh, you're cherry picking and changing your argument." I could care less about the semantics, the truth is that Sale throws it the only way that's actually been proven to be 100% detrimental to the structure of his elbow and shoulder. So when I say that using baseball history to say that Sale should throw more would be an inaccurate statement it's because even the guys that threw more that had his mechanics got hurt.

Frater Perdurabo
07-01-2013, 07:29 AM
To claim "100%" of pitchers who threw with the "inverted W" had career-ending injuries, one would need to produce video or photographic evidence of every major league pitcher who had ever thrown that way, along with substantiated newspaper accounts, or preferably, medical records, for every one of those pitchers.

Without that, it's unsubstantiated hyperbole.

doublem23
07-01-2013, 08:14 AM
Have fun y'all

SI1020
07-01-2013, 09:33 AM
To claim "100%" of pitchers who threw with the "inverted W" had career-ending injuries, one would need to produce video or photographic evidence of every major league pitcher who had ever thrown that way, along with substantiated newspaper accounts, or preferably, medical records, for every one of those pitchers.

Without that, it's unsubstantiated hyperbole. Exactly. You just can't lob a grenade out there like that and expect people to say hosanna. Some of us have actually studied this and I at least found very little consensus on much of anything. Including exactly what constitutes an inverted W pitching motion.

blandman
07-01-2013, 10:47 AM
Here's a pretty good read I found that goes over some of what I've been saying (http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/PitchingMechanics101/Essays/DeathToTheInvertedW_FAQ.html).

This guy pretty much wrote the book on the difference in inverted W's (countering famed Dr Mike Marshall's claims about how and why the inverted W is bad). Unfortunately, I can't link the book (obviously). You'll have to go out and buy it. But this and some of the other site links provide a decent synopsis of a lot of his main points.

CoopaLoop
07-01-2013, 01:52 PM
Has CJ Wilson ever had a big arm issue?

blandman
07-01-2013, 02:22 PM
Has CJ Wilson ever had a big arm issue?

Yes, he fell apart last year and they had to clean up spurs from his elbow this past off-season.

And before someone says no big deal, think about what has to happen to cause a bone spur there. Bones spurs are pieces of bone.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/los-angeles-angels-starter-c-j-wilson-looks-163700978--mlb.html

"I tried to make a million adjustments to get around it, to the point where now I'm standing on the first-base side, trying to get an angle because I can't throw sinkers anymore because my arm doesn't work right,"

DeadMoney
07-01-2013, 02:34 PM
Has CJ Wilson ever had a big arm issue?

Yes, 2003 Tommy John Surgery (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=31711). And, I'm not joining in on one side/the other of the argument here, just presenting the facts.

I will add - I do think pitchers are babied these days, but I also think that an arm/serious injury for damn near every pitcher is inevitable. And if an individual pitcher is one of the lucky few who don't have issues, they should consider themselves lucky/gifted.

blandman
07-01-2013, 02:38 PM
Here's another really good read (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7712916/tommy-john-surgery-keeps-pitchers-game-address-underlying-biomechanical-flaw-espn-magazine) on the topic of arm mechanics, and the war between doctors/biomechanic-specialists/science and traditionalists.

"The picture that emerges is of baseball at war with itself over the health of its arms. In one corner stands a cottage industry of scientists and biomechanics-promoting coaches who study motion for a living and have determined, through high-speed video analysis, that the sport's ignorance of arm-saving science is a shameful oversight. In the other is major league baseball, which, with rare and fleeting exceptions, clings to a deep-rooted tradition..."

voodoochile
07-01-2013, 02:45 PM
I think the pitchers are babies/weaker argument is a bit overblown.

First, there are a ton more pitchers in use in MLB than there were "back in the day". Really the number of guys whose arms can stand up to that kind of abuse probably isn't able to keep up with the demand for said arms.

Second, I'd guess (not having checked the stats) that the average pitcher has a longer career today than he did 40 years ago.

Third, I think some of this issue is perception. I mean we remember all these long lived great pitchers from days of yore because they were great long lived pitchers. You aren't going to remember the hundreds/thousands of guys who were 1-5 season MLB pitchers who blew out an elbow or ended up simply sucking their way out of the league. Thus our perception of how macho/strong/powerful the pitchers back then were because we only know/remember the guys who lasted a long time and pitched well. For every Walter Johnson there are 500 nameless wannabes none of us can name.

I won't comment on Sale because I cannot speak with any authority on the issue. However I will ask this question: Some people have compared him to Randy Johnson's throwing motion. I don't know whether Johnson had a classic inverted W or not, but how true is this analogy and how much of a difference does it make?

blandman
07-01-2013, 03:02 PM
I think the pitchers are babies/weaker argument is a bit overblown.

First, there are a ton more pitchers in use in MLB than there were "back in the day". Really the number of guys whose arms can stand up to that kind of abuse probably isn't able to keep up with the demand for said arms.

Second, I'd guess (not having checked the stats) that the average pitcher has a longer career today than he did 40 years ago.

Third, I think some of this issue is perception. I mean we remember all these long lived great pitchers from days of yore because they were great long lived pitchers. You aren't going to remember the hundreds/thousands of guys who were 1-5 season MLB pitchers who blew out an elbow or ended up simply sucking their way out of the league. Thus our perception of how macho/strong/powerful the pitchers back then were because we only know/remember the guys who lasted a long time and pitched well. For every Walter Johnson there are 500 nameless wannabes none of us can name.

I won't comment on Sale because I cannot speak with any authority on the issue. However I will ask this question: Some people have compared him to Randy Johnson's throwing motion. I don't know whether Johnson had a classic inverted W or not, but how true is this analogy and how much of a difference does it make?

The biggest difference in Johnson (and Chris O'Leary does mention this) is that he never saw the timing issues that, say, a Mark Prior, Chris Sale, or Stephen Strausburg did. The inverted W can be safe, it's just nearly impossible for it to be unless your timing is perfect. In all of the latter cases, the arms are routinely later than the rest of their body (causing it to raise above the shoulder and become the sole focal point for the body's momentum). Later in his career, Johnson was able to prevent this (essentially changing his form to a safer "borderline" version of the inverted W and building up his body to reduce the effects of the previous damage he caused. I think the biggest thing for people is the terminology. They're all inverted W's, yes. But when people talk about the danger, they're really only talking about one type.

CoopaLoop
07-01-2013, 09:18 PM
To claim "100%" of pitchers who threw with the "inverted W" had career-ending injuries, one would need to produce video or photographic evidence of every major league pitcher who had ever thrown that way, along with substantiated newspaper accounts, or preferably, medical records, for every one of those pitchers.

Without that, it's unsubstantiated hyperbole.

You know what would be easier than that? Giving an example of one guy who didn't.

Mr. Jinx
07-01-2013, 09:44 PM
I think the pitchers are babies/weaker argument is a bit overblown.

First, there are a ton more pitchers in use in MLB than there were "back in the day". Really the number of guys whose arms can stand up to that kind of abuse probably isn't able to keep up with the demand for said arms.

Second, I'd guess (not having checked the stats) that the average pitcher has a longer career today than he did 40 years ago.

Third, I think some of this issue is perception. I mean we remember all these long lived great pitchers from days of yore because they were great long lived pitchers. You aren't going to remember the hundreds/thousands of guys who were 1-5 season MLB pitchers who blew out an elbow or ended up simply sucking their way out of the league. Thus our perception of how macho/strong/powerful the pitchers back then were because we only know/remember the guys who lasted a long time and pitched well. For every Walter Johnson there are 500 nameless wannabes none of us can name.

I won't comment on Sale because I cannot speak with any authority on the issue. However I will ask this question: Some people have compared him to Randy Johnson's throwing motion. I don't know whether Johnson had a classic inverted W or not, but how true is this analogy and how much of a difference does it make?

People also seem to forget that the overall level of hitting was worse back in the day too. Until the 90s, how many 2nd basemen and shortstops could take one out of the park at any time? While there were still prodigious sluggers, overall most teams had a host of all defense, no offense slap hitters up the middle.

Back in 1960 there were 2128 home runs hit
1970 - 3429 home runs
1980 - 3087
1990 - 3317
2000 - 5693
2010 - 4613

Pitchers today have to throw at maximum effort on every pitch as any batter can do real damage for a host of reasons. In the olden days pitchers could take multiple batters "off" and save up energy knowing that at worst they would give up a slap single.

SI1020
07-01-2013, 10:34 PM
People also seem to forget that the overall level of hitting was worse back in the day too. Until the 90s, how many 2nd basemen and shortstops could take one out of the park at any time? While there were still prodigious sluggers, overall most teams had a host of all defense, no offense slap hitters up the middle.

Back in 1960 there were 2128 home runs hit
1970 - 3429 home runs
1980 - 3087
1990 - 3317
2000 - 5693
2010 - 4613

Pitchers today have to throw at maximum effort on every pitch as any batter can do real damage for a host of reasons. In the olden days pitchers could take multiple batters "off" and save up energy knowing that at worst they would give up a slap single.

1960 16 teams playing 154 games
1970 24 teams playing 162 games
1980 26 teams
1990 26 teams
2000 30 teams and height of the steroid era
2010 30 teams

Total games played in 2010 is almost double that of 1960. Yes HRs are up from 1960 levels but you'll get a better historical trend line here.

http://michaelbein.com/baseball.html

TheVulture
07-01-2013, 10:40 PM
1960 16 teams playing 154 games
1970 24 teams playing 162 games
1980 26 teams
1990 26 teams
2000 30 teams and height of the steroid era
2010 30 teams

Total games played in 2010 is almost double that of 1960. Yes HRs are up from 1960 levels but you'll get a better historical trend line here.

http://michaelbein.com/baseball.html

There's more than twice as much talent available today than 50+ years ago that would mitigate that factor, not to mention the technological advances in sports medicine.

The league as a whole may play more games, but pitchers are obviously pitching much less. If it was simply that only the exceptional could face 1250 batters a year fifty years ago, we should still be seeing the elite pitchers throwing 300 odd innings a year.

edit: after more careful reading, perhaps this should have been posted in response to Voodoo's comment.

TheVulture
07-01-2013, 10:52 PM
Third, I think some of this issue is perception. I mean we remember all these long lived great pitchers from days of yore because they were great long lived pitchers. You aren't going to remember the hundreds/thousands of guys who were 1-5 season MLB pitchers who blew out an elbow or ended up simply sucking their way out of the league. Thus our perception of how macho/strong/powerful the pitchers back then were because we only know/remember the guys who lasted a long time and pitched well. For every Walter Johnson there are 500 nameless wannabes none of us can name.


That's the same as what you have now, the difference is all of them throw less. Pitchers are still sucking their way of the league and blowing elbows, but now they have effective surgeries to help them comeback. Eighty years from now, god willing, as the theists would say, we'll only remember the Verlanders and Sabathias.

I'd be willing to bet pitchers fifty or more years ago just as often as today would have had 10-15 year careers even without the benefit of modern surgery. Of course, it would be difficult to determine whether a guy in 1920 quit at age 28 due to injuries or whether it was to save the old family farm from those dang Hatchetts or something along those lines.

voodoochile
07-02-2013, 09:03 AM
That's the same as what you have now, the difference is all of them throw less. Pitchers are still sucking their way of the league and blowing elbows, but now they have effective surgeries to help them comeback. Eighty years from now, god willing, as the theists would say, we'll only remember the Verlanders and Sabathias.

I'd be willing to bet pitchers fifty or more years ago just as often as today would have had 10-15 year careers even without the benefit of modern surgery. Of course, it would be difficult to determine whether a guy in 1920 quit at age 28 due to injuries or whether it was to save the old family farm from those dang Hatchetts or something along those lines.

Yes I'm sure they would my point was that people simply have a perception that pitches were all studs back then not because they all were but because all we remember are the studs and yes the same will be true 50 years from now.

blandman
07-02-2013, 03:10 PM
If you get the right offer, you do it.

If you get close to the right offer, you do what it takes to get the right offer.

Dude is a ticking time bomb and the longer you wait the more likely it is you get nothing out of him. We aren't going to be good again during the duration of his contract.

TheVulture
07-02-2013, 03:13 PM
We aren't going to be good again during the duration of his contract.

I can't believe it, you are growing even more pessimistic. A few days ago you thought it would take five years to turn the team around, now we won't even have a shot until 2020!

doublem23
07-02-2013, 03:13 PM
If you get the right offer, you do it.

If you get close to the right offer, you do what it takes to get the right offer.

Dude is a ticking time bomb and the longer you wait the more likely it is you get nothing out of him. We aren't going to be good again during the duration of his contract.

I am tired of having every thread hijacked with this quasi-science, you're more than welcome to play doctor/scout/whatever you want in here.

blandman
07-02-2013, 03:20 PM
I am tired of having every thread hijacked with this quasi-science, you're more than welcome to play doctor/scout/whatever you want in here.

Give me a ****ing break. The thread was about whether we should trade Sale. Your vendetta against me is getting embarrassing.

I've been nothing but willing to discuss and have posted several links to show why I've come to my conclusions. If you don't agree with me, that's your business. But as I said, your inability to accept my point of view as a valid point of view after all that I've done to back it up is incredibly embarrassing, IMHO. You're trying to censor my point of view into a single thread in an attempt to invalidate it, because you can't do so with facts. How very sad and petty.

blandman
07-02-2013, 03:21 PM
I can't believe it, you are growing even more pessimistic. A few days ago you thought it would take five years to turn the team around, now we won't even have a shot until 2020!

My bad, I didn't think he was signed that long for some reason.

voodoochile
07-02-2013, 05:17 PM
Give me a ****ing break. The thread was about whether we should trade Sale. Your vendetta against me is getting embarrassing.

I've been nothing but willing to discuss and have posted several links to show why I've come to my conclusions. If you don't agree with me, that's your business. But as I said, your inability to accept my point of view as a valid point of view after all that I've done to back it up is incredibly embarrassing, IMHO. You're trying to censor my point of view into a single thread in an attempt to invalidate it, because you can't do so with facts. How very sad and petty.

It's not in the roadhouse... yet... if you want it to end up there, keep it up.

The fact is this "analysis" is only a rumor because Sale is healthy and pitching well. Thus it belongs in the rumor section.

In addition, since it's a highly volatile POV it is at our discretion to whether to leave it in the Clubhouse and allow you to dominate the discussion as it devolves into a flamewar over and over again.

This is the thread. If you persist in posting this repeatedly in other threads more steps will be taken.

I'd have preferred to have this discussion in private but since you wanted it public, here is the official response.