PDA

View Full Version : Jerry Manuel interview


pesettles
01-13-2003, 05:52 PM
I saw a Manuel interview (NBC - maybe) where he gave a witness (as to his faith in Christ). I'd REALLY like to get a video file of that interview.

Any ideas?

:D:

Daver
01-13-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by pesettles
I saw a Manuel interview (NBC - maybe) where he gave a witness (as to his faith in Christ). I'd REALLY like to get a video file of that interview.

Any ideas?

:D:

Hey welcome aboard! :redneck


Try contacting NBC and asking them for a video transcript.

gosox41
01-13-2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by pesettles
I saw a Manuel interview (NBC - maybe) where he gave a witness (as to his faith in Christ). I'd REALLY like to get a video file of that interview.

Any ideas?

:D:

Too bad he can't show as much faith in Buehrle during close games instead of always worrying about his pitch count.

Bob

Brian26
01-13-2003, 07:23 PM
:farmer

John and I always invite some of the players to go to mass with us on Sunday mornings. Except on Willie Wonka's Kids Day. We try to get to the park early for that.

nut_stock
01-13-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Too bad he can't show as much faith in Buehrle during close games instead of always worrying about his pitch count.

Bob



As the season went along I though he loosened up a little bit. I think he had 2001 in the front of his mind with all the injuries and all...

Daver
01-13-2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by nut_stock
As the season went along I though he loosened up a little bit. I think he had 2001 in the front of his mind with all the injuries and all...

No,after the All star break he did not have Nardi and his pitch counter on the bench next to him,he had a real pitching coach,Don Cooper has little use in using a pitch count to gauge pitchers.

jeremyb1
01-13-2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by daver
No,after the All star break he did not have Nardi and his pitch counter on the bench next to him,he had a real pitching coach,Don Cooper has little use in using a pitch count to gauge pitchers.

yeah. arm injuries, what are those? they're completely unrelated to how much you throw.

gosox41
01-14-2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
yeah. arm injuries, what are those? they're completely unrelated to how much you throw.

I do blame the Sox for the rash of 2001 injuries and don't blame them for watching the pitch count. However, I think it's OK to extend your starter once in awhile. The Yankee series at Comiskey in May or June comest mind. Buehrle was cruising. Why take him out? It's a big game, the team was fighting for first place, etc. These are professional athletes. It's OK to extend them once in a while if they're still young.

Bob

hold2dibber
01-14-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
yeah. arm injuries, what are those? they're completely unrelated to how much you throw.

I think Daver's point (and correct me if I'm wrong, Daver) is that strict adherance to pitch counts alone as a gauge to when a pitcher has "had enough" is a flawed approach, because pitch counts don't tell you everything. A good pitching coach may be able to tell, based upon the pitcher's mechanics, velocity, location, body language, etc., how much gas he has left, regardless of the pitch count. This makes sense to me. However, I still think pitch count is a good thing to keep in mind and is a useful tool, because even if a pitcher is not "out of gas" at 125 pitches, that doesn't mean that repeatedly throwing that many pitches won't have an adverse affect upon his health.

hold2dibber
01-14-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
However, I think it's OK to extend your starter once in awhile. The Yankee series at Comiskey in May or June comest mind. Buehrle was cruising. Why take him out? It's a big game, the team was fighting for first place, etc.

Please, please, can we never speak of that game, ever again? Just thinking about it gives me the hives, the heaves, the cold sweats, the shakes, a mean twitch in my left eye, uncontrollable sobbing, a bleeding ulcer and makes my hair fall out in clumps.

voodoochile
01-14-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I do blame the Sox for the rash of 2001 injuries and don't blame them for watching the pitch count. However, I think it's OK to extend your starter once in awhile. The Yankee series at Comiskey in May or June comest mind. Buehrle was cruising. Why take him out? It's a big game, the team was fighting for first place, etc. These are professional athletes. It's OK to extend them once in a while if they're still young.

Bob

Exactly, in fact it is probably good for them to push their limits a couple of times a year at least. In that Yankee game, Buehrle was just over 100 pitches as I recall. He could have probably thrown 25 more and it was a good time in the season to do so - still early enough where the arm is reletively fresh, not so early that it isn't ready for an increased load.

Pitch counts are a tool, not the be all and end all of pitcher maintenance...

jeremyb1
01-14-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I do blame the Sox for the rash of 2001 injuries and don't blame them for watching the pitch count. However, I think it's OK to extend your starter once in awhile. The Yankee series at Comiskey in May or June comest mind. Buehrle was cruising. Why take him out? It's a big game, the team was fighting for first place, etc. These are professional athletes. It's OK to extend them once in a while if they're still young.

that's fine with me. i just get nervous whenever anyone talks of abandoning pitch counts. i get chills evertime i hear hawk trot out his terrible logic about how all the pitchers should be throwing 150+ pitches per game and that they'd be fine if we just let them throw more. to me that's spitting in the face of science. its like arguing the world is flat. i have no problem letting guys throw 120 pitches occassionally as long as its not at the beginning of the season. i think the sox have done a good job with the young pitchers. if you check out the abuse points over at baseball prospectus, we're towards the bottom. the reason for that is that our pitchers don't go much over 100 pitches all that often and very very rarely throw in the 130s or 140s.

mrwag
01-14-2003, 03:34 PM
I wonder where the Cubs rank... Woods and Prior come to mind.

Daver
01-14-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I think Daver's point (and correct me if I'm wrong, Daver) is that strict adherance to pitch counts alone as a gauge to when a pitcher has "had enough" is a flawed approach

It's a stupid approach.

If your pitching coach does not know the tendencies of his staff,or does not communicate well enough with them to know when they are feeling strained,then you damn well get a different pitching coach,because the one you have is worthless.You use a pitch count with a rookie that is not used to pitching over a 162 game season,you use it for guys that have not been with the club long enough to have known tendencies ( IE September call-ups ) ,You do not use it as your main tool for gauging your pitchers.

Pitchers develop arm trouble because they don't throw enough,pitchers should throw everyday,not off a mound,but everyday.

50 years ago pitchers pitched every fourth day and threw the other three,and injury rate was a fraction of what it is today.

kermittheefrog
01-14-2003, 08:32 PM
So Daver what do you have to say about the extremely successful pitch count based system the Oakland A's use?

Daver
01-14-2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
So Daver what do you have to say about the extremely successful pitch count based system the Oakland A's use?

That it would be vastly improved if they would work their pitchers to the best of their attainable ability,as opposed to conditioning them to a regimen that limits their abilities.

jeremyb1
01-14-2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by daver

Pitchers develop arm trouble because they don't throw enough,pitchers should throw everyday,not off a mound,but everyday.

50 years ago pitchers pitched every fourth day and threw the other three,and injury rate was a fraction of what it is today.

i have heard this argument numerous times and i think its one of the more flawed arguments i've heard. our knowledge of arm injuries years ago is incredibly limited. tommy john surgery, labrum surgery, and arthoscopic surgery didn't exist 50 years ago. science was nowhere near where it is now when it comes to diagnosing arm injuries. the injury rate was much lower not because pitchers weren't injured but because their injuries weren't diagnosed. therefore instead of developing injuries pitchers simply became "ineffective".

Lip Man 1
01-14-2003, 11:37 PM
How does one explain the incredibly durable four man pitching staffs of say the Mets in the late 60's? the four twenty game winners the Orioles produced in the late 60's - early 70's? the White Sox staffs that led the league in ERA four out of five seasons from 1963 through 1967, for that matter the durability of guys like Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz throughout the 90's (only Smoltz had any type of arm trouble and he came back from it...) or the Angels pitching staffs (Ryan, Tanana, Singer etc...) from the 70's, or the Dodgers with Koufax, Drysdale, Sutton and Osteen.

You can go back to the staffs of the Yankees and Brooklyn Dodgers that had tremendous pitching success for years in the 50's.

I think it's not a question of throwing to much or not throwing enough. I think a four man staff, all throwing over 250 innings is very possible today, IF THOSE PITCHERS HAVE THE CORRECT MECHANICS. That's difficult to spot and teach since like Jack McDowell told me pitchers throw all kinds of different ways.

I tend to think pitchers are "babied" today. The history of baseball shows far to many examples of pitchers throwing a lot, throwing a lot of innings and doing it trouble free to ignore.

Lip

baggio202
01-15-2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I think Daver's point (and correct me if I'm wrong, Daver) is that strict adherance to pitch counts alone as a gauge to when a pitcher has "had enough" is a flawed approach, because pitch counts don't tell you everything. A good pitching coach may be able to tell, based upon the pitcher's mechanics, velocity, location, body language, etc., how much gas he has left, regardless of the pitch count. This makes sense to me. However, I still think pitch count is a good thing to keep in mind and is a useful tool, because even if a pitcher is not "out of gas" at 125 pitches, that doesn't mean that repeatedly throwing that many pitches won't have an adverse affect upon his health.

i think using a pitch count along with a radar gun and info from the catcher should all be used as tools decide when to pull a pitcher...but never just one and one only...

im not a fan of the radar to judge whether a pitcher can pitch at the major league level...but it is a great tool to judge just how tired a pitcher is...if he throws 90 mph at the start of the game and in the 5th is down to 85 , then maybe its not his day and he needs to be on a short leash...or if he is throwing 92 in the 7th maybe extend him because he is gaining as he goes...combine that with the number of pitches plus what the catcher feels about his stuff and if he sees a marked difference in velocity should give any PC or manager enough info to make the right decision , imo