PDA

View Full Version : I see Glover was allowed to pitch...


Tragg
08-13-2002, 10:30 PM
8 innings with 112 pitches.

Mighty unusual.

A new philosophy?

Or is Glover on the Kenny Williams giveaway list.

Glover's been reasonably consistent this year. Not bad for a number 4 or 5. Maybe his ERA would be lower if he could have stayed in for 7 or 8 once in a while.

Jerry_Manuel
08-13-2002, 10:34 PM
Williams traded for him.

No point in using the bullpen like crazy in a blowout. I'm sure he wanted to save some for tomorrow, with 6 innings Parque on the hill.

Daver
08-13-2002, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
8 innings with 112 pitches.

Mighty unusual.

A new philosophy?

Or is Glover on the Kenny Williams giveaway list.

Glover's been reasonably consistent this year. Not bad for a number 4 or 5. Maybe his ERA would be lower if he could have stayed in for 7 or 8 once in a while.

Don Cooper believes in letting his pitchers pitch,he is not a pitch count guy,never has been.

LongDistanceFan
08-13-2002, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
8 innings with 112 pitches.

Mighty unusual.

A new philosophy?

Or is Glover on the Kenny Williams giveaway list.

Glover's been reasonably consistent this year. Not bad for a number 4 or 5. Maybe his ERA would be lower if he could have stayed in for 7 or 8 once in a while.

sorry about not posting this in the chat.

the game was a great one. paulie hr was a nice sign. jose 6 rbis and 2 hrs was a good sign. why couldn't they have done this in the beginning of the season.

Iguana775
08-13-2002, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Williams traded for him.

No point in using the bullpen like crazy in a blowout. I'm sure he wanted to save some for tomorrow, with 6 innings Parque on the hill.

6 innings?? i think that is stretching it. lol. :gulp:

Iguana775
08-13-2002, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by daver


Don Cooper believes in letting his pitchers pitch,he is not a pitch count guy,never has been.

speaking of cooper, does anyone know what the team's era is since he took over??

LongDistanceFan
08-13-2002, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by daver


Don Cooper believes in letting his pitchers pitch,he is not a pitch count guy,never has been.

doesn't that sometime lead to arm or shoulder injury.

Daver
08-13-2002, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


doesn't that sometime lead to arm or shoulder injury.

What did Nardi's regime of limited pitch counts get the Sox?

An entire staff on the DL last time I checked.

Get rid of the gun,and have the pitchers throw more,Tommy John is probably right on this one.For that matter Milt Pappas backs him up,as does Cal Eldred.

LongDistanceFan
08-13-2002, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by daver


What did Nardi's regime of limited pitch counts get the Sox?

An entire staff on the DL last time I checked.



good point. when he was with sea, they said he was a lousy coach.

what made him a bad coach

Daver
08-13-2002, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


good point. when he was with sea, they said he was a lousy coach.

what made him a bad coach

The fact that he has no idea what he is doing would be a good start,the fact that his philosphy on coaching is based on pitch count instead of mechanics and pitching ability is another.I am sure Randar can toss out some more points,he knows what I am talking about.

LongDistanceFan
08-13-2002, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by daver


The fact that he has no idea what he is doing would be a good start,the fact that his philosphy on coaching is based on pitch count instead of mechanics and pitching ability is another.I am sure Randar can toss out some more points,he knows what I am talking about.

thanks, i was wondering if this was in any way of ruining or injuring a shoulder of the pitchers?

kermittheefrog
08-14-2002, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by daver


What did Nardi's regime of limited pitch counts get the Sox?

An entire staff on the DL last time I checked.

Get rid of the gun,and have the pitchers throw more,Tommy John is probably right on this one.For that matter Milt Pappas backs him up,as does Cal Eldred.

A lot of smart, successful pitching coaches believe in pitch counts. You don't see Leo Mazzone working his guys 130-140 pitches. Bryan Price has done an excellent job in Seattle while placing an importance on pitch counts.

Nardi may have been a failure but it doesn't make everything he did wrong. Even Kenny has done some good things, like trading for Glover.

RedPinStripes
08-14-2002, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


A lot of smart, successful pitching coaches believe in pitch counts. You don't see Leo Mazzone working his guys 130-140 pitches. Bryan Price has done an excellent job in Seattle while placing an importance on pitch counts.

Nardi may have been a failure but it doesn't make everything he did wrong. Even Kenny has done some good things, like trading for Glover.

Wasn't Lou pinella quote saying that Nardi is the worst pitching coach he's seen? I'd take Lou's word for it. He's an OK manager.

RedPinStripes
08-14-2002, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by daver


Don Cooper believes in letting his pitchers pitch,he is not a pitch count guy,never has been.

I like that !

hold2dibber
08-14-2002, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by daver


Don Cooper believes in letting his pitchers pitch,he is not a pitch count guy,never has been.

I find this very worrisome. I don't think the pitchers should be on strict pitch counts every time out, and I don't think pitch counts are the be-all and end-all of coaching pitching, but I do think they are a tool that any decent pitching coach should be aware of and use to some extent. Going 8 innings and throwing 112 pitches at this point in the season is fine. But if they run Buehrle out there and have him throw 120-140 pitches on a regular basis, that would be a problem. Are you saying Cooper pays no attention to pitch counts, or are you saying that he is not a "strict" pitch count guy like Nardi was? In my mind, there's a big difference.

hold2dibber
08-14-2002, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by daver


What did Nardi's regime of limited pitch counts get the Sox?

An entire staff on the DL last time I checked.

Get rid of the gun,and have the pitchers throw more,Tommy John is probably right on this one.For that matter Milt Pappas backs him up,as does Cal Eldred.

My Dad was telling me about a former major league pitcher (Bill Gullickson, maybe?) who runs a pitching camp somewhere out West, and his philosophy is to have pitchers throw tons and tons to build up arm strength. I don't think they're throwing breaking balls or pitching in game conditions always, but the general philosophy is that more throwing strengthens the arm. It seems plausible when you look at the fact that guys during the first half of the century pitched way, way more often and more innings than today's pitchers.

Dadawg_77
08-14-2002, 08:31 AM
A pitching coach should use pitch counts, but they should vary between pitchers. A different pitchers have different mechanics. Those with a less taxing deliveries should be able to go longer then those with very taxing deliveries. That's the hard part of pitch counts, is knowing when the pitcher is very vulnerable to injury from pitching to much one recent example would be Kerry Wood in 98. As there are cases where pitchers could of use the extra throwing there are equal amount of cases where overtaxing of an arm has destroyed a pitcher. To dismiss pitch counts as useless is as wrong of an approach as to rely on them exclusively.

Paulwny
08-14-2002, 08:44 AM
Another theory:

Jim Kaat often condemns a strict pitch pitch count. He feels a pitcher who has had 2-3 tough innings with runners on base etc. and has a pitch count of ~ 80 has put more of a strain on his arm, shoulder etc. then a pitcher whose pitch count is > 100 but was never in any jams.

hold2dibber
08-14-2002, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
A pitching coach should use pitch counts, but they should vary between pitchers. A different pitchers have different mechanics. Those with a less taxing deliveries should be able to go longer then those with very taxing deliveries. That's the hard part of pitch counts, is knowing when the pitcher is very vulnerable to injury from pitching to much one recent example would be Kerry Wood in 98. As there are cases where pitchers could of use the extra throwing there are equal amount of cases where overtaxing of an arm has destroyed a pitcher. To dismiss pitch counts as useless is as wrong of an approach as to rely on them exclusively.

Well said.

Dadawg_77
08-14-2002, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


My Dad was telling me about a former major league pitcher (Bill Gullickson, maybe?) who runs a pitching camp somewhere out West, and his philosophy is to have pitchers throw tons and tons to build up arm strength. I don't think they're throwing breaking balls or pitching in game conditions always, but the general philosophy is that more throwing strengthens the arm. It seems plausible when you look at the fact that guys during the first half of the century pitched way, way more often and more innings than today's pitchers.

Guys in the first half the century, didn't throw as many breaking balls as they do now. The spit ball was around legally until the mid 20's, not sure when the last one retired, and the rule which prohibits pitchers from going to their month with their hands, was put in place til 1968.

Long toss is great way to build arm strength since most pitchers like to avoid weights since they believe it stiffens up there arms muscle.

LongDistanceFan
08-14-2002, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77


Guys in the first half the century, didn't throw as many breaking balls as they do now. The spit ball was around legally until the mid 20's, not sure when the last one retired, and the rule which prohibits pitchers from going to their month with their hands, was put in place til 1968.

Long toss is great way to build arm strength since most pitchers like to avoid weights since they believe it stiffens up there arms muscle.

plus they had a nice size strike zone. the strike zone today is minis cue

rmusacch
08-14-2002, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Another theory:

Jim Kaat often condemns a strict pitch pitch count. He feels a pitcher who has had 2-3 tough innings with runners on base etc. and has a pitch count of ~ 80 has put more of a strain on his arm, shoulder etc. then a pitcher whose pitch count is > 100 but was never in any jams.

Let me preface this by saying that I know nothing about pitching but that sounds like a good point.

voodoochile
08-14-2002, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Another theory:

Jim Kaat often condemns a strict pitch pitch count. He feels a pitcher who has had 2-3 tough innings with runners on base etc. and has a pitch count of ~ 80 has put more of a strain on his arm, shoulder etc. then a pitcher whose pitch count is > 100 but was never in any jams.

Makes sense. Pitching from a stretch requires generating more velocity strictly with arm muscle because of the decreased energy provided by a big wind up.

Randar68
08-14-2002, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


I find this very worrisome. I don't think the pitchers should be on strict pitch counts every time out, and I don't think pitch counts are the be-all and end-all of coaching pitching, but I do think they are a tool that any decent pitching coach should be aware of and use to some extent. Going 8 innings and throwing 112 pitches at this point in the season is fine. But if they run Buehrle out there and have him throw 120-140 pitches on a regular basis, that would be a problem. Are you saying Cooper pays no attention to pitch counts, or are you saying that he is not a "strict" pitch count guy like Nardi was? In my mind, there's a big difference.

Pitch count doesn't mean a God darned thing. A good pitching coach knows when his pitcher is fatigues or out of gas. THAT should be the only indicator used to measure when a pitcher is done or not. A lot of the crap we gave Jerry about yanking pitchers early and not letting them work out of jams fell on Nardi's shoulders. Some artificial pitch count of 100 or 105, or whatever is bullcrappy. When a pitching coach doesn't know his pitchers or shows NO confidence in any of them, you see people on hard pitch counts. Sometimes one long inning will kill a pitcher's whole outing.

The gun has caused pitchers to become throwers in th past 10-15 years especially. Guys like Garland and Buehrle could go 130 pitches every time out if they were conditioned and used to do so.

Randar68
08-14-2002, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Another theory:

Jim Kaat often condemns a strict pitch pitch count. He feels a pitcher who has had 2-3 tough innings with runners on base etc. and has a pitch count of ~ 80 has put more of a strain on his arm, shoulder etc. then a pitcher whose pitch count is > 100 but was never in any jams.

I agree with this. But, it all comes back to the coach being able to read his pitchers. Nardi was retarded when it cam to this.

Randar68
08-14-2002, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Makes sense. Pitching from a stretch requires generating more velocity strictly with arm muscle because of the decreased energy provided by a big wind up.

I don't agree with this for pitchers with good mechanics. Effort and drive should come from the legs and torso.

Paulwny
08-14-2002, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


I don't agree with this for pitchers with good mechanics. Effort and drive should come from the legs and torso.

Agree about the mechanics (legs and torso) but in the wind up a pitcher can push off the mound much easier and get more of his body into the pitch vs, pitching from the stretch.

Randar68
08-14-2002, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Agree about the mechanics (legs and torso) but in the wind up a pitcher can push off the mound much easier and get more of his body into the pitch vs, pitching from the stretch.

Pitchers usually don't/shouldn't compensate for it with added stress or effort. The only thing that will do is screw up your mechanics and/or control.

voodoochile
08-14-2002, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


I don't agree with this for pitchers with good mechanics. Effort and drive should come from the legs and torso.

I was speculating, but it seems that it would be easier to generate effort and drive when the muscles in question are tightened to their extreme and then released as with a big windup. Also, because of the force generated by unleashing a windup - due to the mass of the pitcher moving toward the plate quickly and (theoretically) having it all unleashed in the pitch.

But, I will concede that you know a lot more about this type of stuff than I do. I am glad someone responded. Learn a little bit every day...

Querstion: Why do pitchers use a big windup if there is no definite benefit? (Not trying to be a smartass here, just curious?)

Paulwny
08-14-2002, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile

But, I will concede that you know a lot more about this type of stuff than I do. I am glad someone responded. Learn a little bit every day...


Same with me.
Next Question, Isn't there a drop in the speed of a fast ball, stretch vs wind up?

Randar68
08-14-2002, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Same with me.
Next Question, Isn't there a drop in the speed of a fast ball, stretch vs wind up?

Depends on the pitcher's delivery, but I don't recall seeing anyone drop noticeably (that being more than 1-2 mph tops).

hold2dibber
08-14-2002, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Pitch count doesn't mean a God darned thing. A good pitching coach knows when his pitcher is fatigues or out of gas. THAT should be the only indicator used to measure when a pitcher is done or not. A lot of the crap we gave Jerry about yanking pitchers early and not letting them work out of jams fell on Nardi's shoulders. Some artificial pitch count of 100 or 105, or whatever is bullcrappy. When a pitching coach doesn't know his pitchers or shows NO confidence in any of them, you see people on hard pitch counts. Sometimes one long inning will kill a pitcher's whole outing.

The gun has caused pitchers to become throwers in th past 10-15 years especially. Guys like Garland and Buehrle could go 130 pitches every time out if they were conditioned and used to do so.

I'm not sure if I understand or agree. It may be that a pitching coach, on an outing-by-outing basis, should be able to tell when the pitcher is tiring and should be taken out. But that ignores the big picture - the amount of wear and tear over time, over repeated outings, that leads a pitcher to an arm injury. If you leave a pitcher in each game until he is noticably tired, that may well, over the long haul, lead to injury, whereas using a pitch count to help you determine (not to determine alone ) how long to use a given pitcher may be a better approach. I don't pretend to know the answer, but to contend that pitch counts are useless seems extreme to me.

As to Buehrle and Garland, I have no idea if they have it in them to throw 130 pitches every time out. I do know that they are both still remarkably young for major league pitchers, that both of them have the potential to be really good for a long time, and that there is (if I recall correctly) some statistical evidence to suggest that a heavy work load on a pitcher in his early 20s is often disasterous. I would preach caution with them.

Randar68
08-14-2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I'm not sure if I understand or agree. It may be that a pitching coach, on an outing-by-outing basis, should be able to tell when the pitcher is tiring and should be taken out. But that ignores the big picture - the amount of wear and tear over time, over repeated outings, that leads a pitcher to an arm injury. If you leave a pitcher in each game until he is noticably tired, that may well, over the long haul, lead to injury, whereas using a pitch count to help you determine (not to determine alone ) how long to use a given pitcher may be a better approach. I don't pretend to know the answer, but to contend that pitch counts are useless seems extreme to me.

There are significant indicators, both mechanically and emotionally on the mound that a pitching coach is PAID to understand. Some pitchers can handle the load, other cannot. On of the things that causes the arm injury in young pitchers is either bad mechanics, or pitching when fatigued. Fatigue will cause a pitcher to alter his mechanics and and make pitches in a condition that lends itself towards injury or artificial wear not related to their normal throwing habits or mechanics.

Originally posted by hold2dibber
As to Buehrle and Garland, I have no idea if they have it in them to throw 130 pitches every time out. I do know that they are both still remarkably young for major league pitchers, that both of them have the potential to be really good for a long time, and that there is (if I recall correctly) some statistical evidence to suggest that a heavy work load on a pitcher in his early 20s is often disasterous. I would preach caution with them.

Garland and Buehrle both have outstanding mechanics. Neither is a particularly hard thrower. Wright gets stronger and throws better the longer he is in a game, but I am not comfortable in preaching his mechanics. He's still a bit erratic. He has the best endurance, right now, of the young pitchers. However, I do still worry that his mechanics are not ideal.

Daver
08-14-2002, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Randar68

Garland and Buehrle both have outstanding mechanics. Neither is a particularly hard thrower. Wright gets stronger and throws better the longer he is in a game, but I am not comfortable in preaching his mechanics. He's still a bit erratic. He has the best endurance, right now, of the young pitchers. However, I do still worry that his mechanics are not ideal.

Though not ideal Randar,they are problems that a decent pitching coach can work out,especially his habit of occaisonally tipping his pitches.


As far as the whole pitch count thing,Tommy John will read you chapter and verse of why it is dead wrong to rely on pitch counts and the radar gun for judjing pitchers,because neither of them are ever a complete answer,nor will either of them tell you the complete story of a pitchers performance.That is what they pay pitching coaches to do.


:nardi

You mean I have to do something besides click my pitch counter and read the gun?

kermittheefrog
08-16-2002, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Pitch count doesn't mean a God darned thing. A good pitching coach knows when his pitcher is fatigues or out of gas. THAT should be the only indicator used to measure when a pitcher is done or not. A lot of the crap we gave Jerry about yanking pitchers early and not letting them work out of jams fell on Nardi's shoulders. Some artificial pitch count of 100 or 105, or whatever is bullcrappy. When a pitching coach doesn't know his pitchers or shows NO confidence in any of them, you see people on hard pitch counts. Sometimes one long inning will kill a pitcher's whole outing.

The gun has caused pitchers to become throwers in th past 10-15 years especially. Guys like Garland and Buehrle could go 130 pitches every time out if they were conditioned and used to do so.

This has to be the most foolish thing I've read on the board. Really. Sure it's not as stupid as something bc2k would say but it's coming from an otherwise intelligent and reasonable baseball fan.

Anyway, it's obvious some guys can throw more pitches than others. Randy Johnson is a friggin' machine. Alan Benes on the other hand broke down under a big workload. There is bucketloads of evidence against a blanket statement that implies anyone can toss 130 pitches on a regular basis. If you're talking about a very talented young pitcher like Buehrle or Garland, pitch counts are important so that you don't overwork him before you've learned what his limits are.

kermittheefrog
08-16-2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


There are significant indicators, both mechanically and emotionally on the mound that a pitching coach is PAID to understand. Some pitchers can handle the load, other cannot. On of the things that causes the arm injury in young pitchers is either bad mechanics, or pitching when fatigued. Fatigue will cause a pitcher to alter his mechanics and and make pitches in a condition that lends itself towards injury or artificial wear not related to their normal throwing habits or mechanics.


So what do you think of a guy like Bryan Price in Seattle who believes strongly in pitching counts and has had a lot of success?

Or Ted Simmons who is using pitch counts very effectively in the Padres system which is rich with pitching talent?

How about the success in Oakland?

Is it just coincidental they've all been successful with an emphasis on pitch counts?

Randar68
08-16-2002, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


So what do you think of a guy like Bryan Price in Seattle who believes strongly in pitching counts and has had a lot of success?


Yeah, it sure has kept his pitchers healthy! Garcia, Halama, etc, etc.

Please. Talk to any pitcher who played before 1980. Just because a major league coach allows a pitcher to throw a lot of pitches doesn't mean jack. Today, pitchers from the age of 10 or 12 are made to believe the gun is the thing that will get them to the bigs. They overthrow from little leagues on up. Then, when they get to college or the minors, they aren't allowed to throw over 90 or 100 pitches.

THAT is why pitchers break down under extreme workloads. It's a philosophy that scouts and coaches have FOOLED people in to believing for 20 years.

You can't one day decide your pitchers are going to throw 130 pitches and have it work. It has to be taught from day freakin one. It's not something that can change overnight. However, it starts with the big league clubs and Major League scouts in what they tell coaches and young players. From 10 or 12 years old, kids are made to believe their body has a finite # of pitches in it per start, and that is total horse manure.

kermittheefrog
08-16-2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Yeah, it sure has kept his pitchers healthy! Garcia, Halama, etc, etc.

Please. Talk to any pitcher who played before 1980. Just because a major league coach allows a pitcher to throw a lot of pitches doesn't mean jack. Today, pitchers from the age of 10 or 12 are made to believe the gun is the thing that will get them to the bigs. They overthrow from little leagues on up. Then, when they get to college or the minors, they aren't allowed to throw over 90 or 100 pitches.

THAT is why pitchers break down under extreme workloads. It's a philosophy that scouts and coaches have FOOLED people in to believing for 20 years.

You can't one day decide your pitchers are going to throw 130 pitches and have it work. It has to be taught from day freakin one. It's not something that can change overnight. However, it starts with the big league clubs and Major League scouts in what they tell coaches and young players. From 10 or 12 years old, kids are made to believe their body has a finite # of pitches in it per start, and that is total horse manure.

Nice rant but you didn't address my question at all. Why have they been so successful if they are using such a stupid method of monitoring their pitchers. Especially Oakland who has done nothing other than develop 3 top tier starters.

Randar68
08-16-2002, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Nice rant but you didn't address my question at all. Why have they been so successful if they are using such a stupid method of monitoring their pitchers. Especially Oakland who has done nothing other than develop 3 top tier starters.

It's not sooooo stupid. It works because you never test the limits of your pitcher's potential in terms of endurance. It works because these kids/pitchers all grew up with a gun pointed at them and coaches telling them to throw harder.

What IS stupid, is the NOTION that pitch counts are the end-all-be-all of a pitcher's endurance/capacity in a game situation.

Most of my rant has to do with the way pitchers are coached and scouted. It is very difficult and a slow process for a coach to now say to a pitcher: "I am not going to pull you based on pitch counts. I will pull you based on performance, your fatigue level, and your mechanics." These guys have had a pitch count drilled into their heads for years. Many of them know about where there are and are expecting to get pulled. I see this quite a bit in Jon Garland.

The focus of the process is what I am questioning.

If a coach picks a low pitch count number, you are going to generally prevent your pitchers from being injured because they NEVER pitch in fatigue. It's a way of saying "I don't have a clue how to gauge my pitcher's fatigue or mechanics while he's on the mound, so I'll invent a pitch count for each of them so I have an artificial and objective way of pulling them."

The fact that several pitching coaches have had success with strict pitch counts is meaningless. Does this take into account their abilities to deal with mechanical flaws? Does this take into account the throwing programs he has his pitchers on, in season and off season??? No.

Can you use a pitch count as an indicator to start paying more close attention to emotional/mechanical elements of your pitcher on the mound? By all means, but to say it is the best indicator of when to pull a pitcher is ignorant and only a crutch for someone who doesn't know their trade to stand on.

kermittheefrog
08-16-2002, 03:14 PM
I've never heard anyone say pitch counts are the only measure of when to pull a pitcher. It's just pointless to have a pitcher throw 130 pitches in a start when his arm is still developing. I don't think there is anyone saying every pitcher should be on a 100 pitch count in every situation. Just developing pitchers in meaningless games don't need rough workloads.

Randar68
08-16-2002, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Just developing pitchers in meaningless games don't need rough workloads.

I don't disagree with that. I like the fact that they are being careful with Kris Honel because of his slight build and tendonitis history. He's an "at-risk" pitcher.

Unfortunately, the philosophy and somewhat rigid implementation by some does more harm than good, particularly on the MLB level. Kids should throw more fastballs, less breakers, and more pitches. There is no better pitch in baseball than a well-located fastball.

Daver
08-16-2002, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


There is no better pitch in baseball than a well-located fastball.

What? I think you highly undervalue the well timed Beanball.............

Randar68
08-16-2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by daver


What? I think you highly undervalue the well timed Beanball.............

Actually, that's one of the things I'm amazed hasn't happened more from our staff. I'd like to see Jon especially belt a couple guys up and in so they don't lean out across for his slider.

Parque is the only pitcher we have that goes out there with any fire.

cornball
08-16-2002, 05:44 PM
I will throw my 2 cents in too......Pitching counts mean nothing, Randar is totally right on....the pitching coach should know when the pitcher is tired..

Typically guys with good mechanics and push off...... last longer....guys with poor mechanics ie throwing across their body dont....Kerry Wood is a great example, he sometimes throws across his body and tires quickly...

Tom Seaver was a good example of throwing with his legs and usually lasted longer. There are examples all over but these are familiar names...

By the way, Honel has very good mechanics...

Daver
08-16-2002, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by cornball

By the way, Honel has very good mechanics...

Yes he does,it helps that his dad is a former pitching coach that has been training him to pitch since he was 8 years old........

bc2k
08-17-2002, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


This has to be the most foolish thing I've read on the board. Really. Sure it's not as stupid as something bc2k would say but it's coming from an otherwise intelligent and reasonable baseball fan.

Fantastic kermitthefrog. I enjoy unprovoked, dim attacks. I'll take in the fact that you chose to name yourself after the ever popular children's fictional character, kermit. What, beanie baby was already taken? Enjoy your cartoons sweetheart.

doublem23
08-17-2002, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by bc2k


Fantastic kermitthefrog. I enjoy unprovoked, dim attacks. I'll take in the fact that you chose to name yourself after the ever popular children's fictional character, kermit. What, beanie baby was already taken? Enjoy your cartoons sweetheart.

Wait?

Did you just make fun of cartoons? 'Cuz if you did (shakes fist)

voodoochile
08-17-2002, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by doublem23


Wait?

Did you just make fun of cartoons? 'Cuz if you did (shakes fist)

Don't get mad, get even. Draw a tunnel on your computer screen and run into it. He will try to follow you and bang his head on the glass...

:)