PDA

View Full Version : Attack of the innings eaters


downstairs
04-20-2006, 09:53 AM
Part of the reason for the Sox success in 2005 was, and my prediction for the #1 "thing that has to happen" for the Sox to succeed in 2006 is for our starters to eat a lot of innings.

5 games in a row now with our starter pitching at least into the 7th. (Not counting Garcia and the rain-shortened game, but he technically pitched a complete game there.)

9 of our 10 wins went to the starting pitcher.

Keep it up, and the wins will flow...

Hitmen77
04-20-2006, 10:07 AM
Even before his '05 breakout year, Garland was an innings eater. So, if I'm not mistaken, we have MB, JG, JV, and FG all being consistent 200 inning pitchers over the past 5 years. Contreras doesn't have that track record, but he's been a stud out there since last year's all-star break.

Frater Perdurabo
04-20-2006, 10:11 AM
I agree.

Bullpen pitchers (with the exception of a select few guys, like John Smoltz and Brandon McCarthy, and a few others) by nature are not good enough to be starters. They only have one or two good pitches. That's why they got sent to the bullpen in the first place! If they have to pitch to a lot of batters, they get overexposed. Hitters are able to hit them the second time they face them. Bullpen pitchers are most effective when they don't have to throw to very many batters. Consequently, if the starters stay in the games into the seventh inning (as Sox pitchers did on average last season), the bullpen guys will not have to throw as much, which means they will be more effective.

A strong starting rotation always improves a bullpen.

batmanZoSo
04-20-2006, 10:46 AM
Even before his '05 breakout year, Garland was an innings eater. So, if I'm not mistaken, we have MB, JG, JV, and FG all being consistent 200 inning pitchers over the past 5 years. Contreras doesn't have that track record, but he's been a stud out there since last year's all-star break.

And you better belive JC will pitch over 200 innings this year along with the rest of them.

Just think, in 2000, we didn't even have one guy* who was good enough to consistently last long in games to log 200 innings. Now we have five. I wonder why we got swept that year. :?:


*Maybe you could argue that Sirotka or Baldwin were good enough, and Manuel was definitely trigger happy even for him that year, but honestly, neither of those two would have a prayer at cracking a spot in this rotation--and both had career years.

ondafarm
04-20-2006, 10:50 AM
I've always heard 170 innings as a key stat. The number of starters you have who threw 170 innings last year is an important predictor of subsequent success.

MisterB
04-20-2006, 11:06 AM
I've always heard 170 innings as a key stat. The number of starters you have who threw 170 innings last year is an important predictor of subsequent success.

You been hanging out with Phil Rogers? :smile:

viagracat
04-20-2006, 11:06 AM
Garland probably could've gone at least 8 the other day, but Ozzie apparently pulled him early to ensure a positive outing after the two rough ones earlier.

Plus, you have to give McCarthy and the other guys in the pen some work.

Too much pitching? No such thing, but right now the Sox have a great "problem". I imagine KW gets calls every day.:smile:

SoxSpeed22
04-20-2006, 11:17 AM
Bullpen pitchers (with the exception of a select few guys, like John Smoltz and Brandon McCarthy, and a few others) by nature are not good enough to be starters. They only have one or two good pitches. That's why they got sent to the bullpen in the first place! If they have to pitch to a lot of batters, they get overexposed. Hitters are able to hit them the second time they face them. Bullpen pitchers are most effective when they don't have to throw to very many batters. Consequently, if the starters stay in the games into the seventh inning (as Sox pitchers did on average last season), the bullpen guys will not have to throw as much, which means they will be more effective.

A strong starting rotation always improves a bullpen.This was the case with Cotts. Because his fastball and change-up were getting hammered by the 3rd inning. Having a rock-solid rotation is great because of not having to throw anyone in the fire when they don't have the pitches to start.

spiffie
04-20-2006, 11:18 AM
*Maybe you could argue that Sirotka or Baldwin were good enough, and Manuel was definitely trigger happy even for him that year, but honestly, neither of those two would have a prayer at cracking a spot in this rotation--and both had career years.
To be fair, Sirotka's year in 2000 compares pretty favorably with the current rotation.

Sirotka (2000): 15-10, 197 IP, 3.79 ERA, 136 ERA+, 1.38 WHIP
Garcia (2005): 14-8, 228 IP, 3.87 ERA, 115 ERA+, 1.25 WHIP
Garland (2005): 18-10, 221 IP, 3.50 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.17 WHIP
Vazquez (2005): 11-15, 216 IP, 4.42 ERA, 99 ERA+, 1.25 WHIP
Buehrle (2005): 16-8, 237 IP, 3.12 ERA, 143 ERA+, 1.18 WHIP
Contreras (2005): 15-7, 205 IP, 3.61 ERA, 123 ERA+, 1.23 WHIP

Only Buehrle had a better ERA+ than Sirotka in 2000, simply pointing out that Sirotka's ERA was especially low in a year that was awash in offense (the 2000 AL ERA was 5.17 while the 2005 AL ERA was 4.45).

Not sure what the point was other than it let me play on baseball-reference.com for a few minutes and remember the 2000 team. Oh yeah, and that it's a damn shame that Sirotka got injured.

ondafarm
04-20-2006, 11:18 AM
Right now the White Sox are 4th in the league in runs scored and 4th (best) in the league in runs allowed. That is a pretty good combination and supports the Sox likely being a playoff team this year.

hawkjt
04-20-2006, 01:08 PM
I heard tim kuertchen on espn today saying there is an epidemic of hurting pitchers around the league which just highlights the need for depth. I trust that Kenny knows that he cannot let any pitching go- ever.

Hawk was saying yesterday that haeger , broadway, and others were putting up some good numbers early. Great cuz you never know when you need them. With two Indian relievers going down yesterday in that baltimore game I just feel that health of pitching is the difference in winning and not. And the less our relievers are on the mound the less the chance of injury.

Go sox.

Huisj
04-21-2006, 11:08 AM
To be fair, Sirotka's year in 2000 compares pretty favorably with the current rotation.

Sirotka (2000): 15-10, 197 IP, 3.79 ERA, 136 ERA+, 1.38 WHIP
Garcia (2005): 14-8, 228 IP, 3.87 ERA, 115 ERA+, 1.25 WHIP
Garland (2005): 18-10, 221 IP, 3.50 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.17 WHIP
Vazquez (2005): 11-15, 216 IP, 4.42 ERA, 99 ERA+, 1.25 WHIP
Buehrle (2005): 16-8, 237 IP, 3.12 ERA, 143 ERA+, 1.18 WHIP
Contreras (2005): 15-7, 205 IP, 3.61 ERA, 123 ERA+, 1.23 WHIP

Only Buehrle had a better ERA+ than Sirotka in 2000, simply pointing out that Sirotka's ERA was especially low in a year that was awash in offense (the 2000 AL ERA was 5.17 while the 2005 AL ERA was 4.45).

Not sure what the point was other than it let me play on baseball-reference.com for a few minutes and remember the 2000 team. Oh yeah, and that it's a damn shame that Sirotka got injured.

And also, to be fair to that 2000 team, the rotation in the first half was quite good. Sirotka ate a lot of innings, Baldwin ate a lot of innings, Eldred ate a lot of innings, and even Parque ate a lot of innings. They built their huge lead that year during the first 3 months of the season, and I don't doubt that it was in part due to the good starting pitching and innings of those guys. The injury bug hit in the second half, and by the playoffs, those pitchers were hanging by a thread rather than being innings eaters.