PDA

View Full Version : Sox will just miss having 5 starters throw 200 innings


A. Cavatica
09-29-2006, 10:59 PM
The Sox are going to finish the season with four 200+ inning starters, and a fifth (Contreras) who threw 196. That's assuming Vazquez can hang in there for two innings or more on Sunday.

This seems like an amazing feat. When was the last time a team had five starters throw 196 or more innings? Of course, Buehrle (4.99 ERA) and Vazquez (4.77) shouldn't have pitched that much, and probably wouldn't have under a different manager.

I don't see why we perceive the bullpen as having being exposed because of the starters' failings...every one of the starters averaged more than six innings per start.

SluggersAway
09-29-2006, 11:07 PM
That is not an amazing thing, nor a good thing. It is a recipe for disaster and injury.

ondafarm
09-29-2006, 11:12 PM
Last year the Sox had four guys over 200 innings. Buehrle over 220 innings. They also required only 390 innings of relief pitching and the leader was Vizcaino, who almost never pitched in on the line games.

The 2006 White Sox are already requiring over 415 innings of relief work this season.

JB98
09-29-2006, 11:16 PM
That is not an amazing thing, nor a good thing. It is a recipe for disaster and injury.

No, that is a very good thing. Guys who make 30 starts a year and throw 200 innings a season are gold.

A. Cavatica
09-29-2006, 11:23 PM
I disagree. 200 innings isn't an extreme workload. This is a recipe for disaster:

The 1980 A's, under Billy Martin, had five starters over 200 IP (Langford 290, Norris 284, Keough 250, McCatty 221, Kingman 211). The highest ERAs on that staff were 3.86 and 3.83. The closer, Bob Lacey, had 6 saves. The starters ranged in age from 28 (Langford) down to 24 (Keough).

In 1981, Langford threw 195 innings, McCatty 185, and Norris 172, despite a strike that erased a third of the season. Keough threw 140 and Kingman 100.

In 1982, Langford and Keough were again over 200 IP, but Norris was down to 166, McCatty 128, and Kingman 122.

None of these guys ever threw 200 innings again.

soxinem1
09-29-2006, 11:25 PM
It showed two things. That these guys can work deep in games, as I believe ChiSox starters led the ML in IP/start.

It also showed Ozzie had no confidence in his relievers, as 400 or so innings is not a lot at all, especially by todays standards.

soxinem1
09-29-2006, 11:46 PM
I disagree. 200 innings isn't an extreme workload. This is a recipe for disaster:

The 1980 A's, under Billy Martin, had five starters over 200 IP (Langford 290, Norris 284, Keough 250, McCatty 221, Kingman 211). The highest ERAs on that staff were 3.86 and 3.83. The closer, Bob Lacey, had 6 saves. The starters ranged in age from 28 (Langford) down to 24 (Keough).

In 1981, Langford threw 195 innings, McCatty 185, and Norris 172, despite a strike that erased a third of the season. Keough threw 140 and Kingman 100.

In 1982, Langford and Keough were again over 200 IP, but Norris was down to 166, McCatty 128, and Kingman 122.

None of these guys ever threw 200 innings again.

You can take that a step further, as after 1982 only Steve McCatty was able to throw over 100 innings in a season.

The irony of this group is that only Norris could be considered a hard thrower, the rest were sinker/slider type guys. Even off-speed guys cannot be worked hard, as thiese guys demonstrated.

FielderJones
09-30-2006, 12:57 AM
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/images/Walsh_Ed_3.jpg
"200 innings? Wimps! 464 (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Pwalse101.htm), baby!"

DumpJerry
09-30-2006, 12:58 AM
Ok, it's not a bad thing. It never is a bad thing. This is how bullpens stay fresh.

You cannot look at teams in the past because when the mound was higher, starters routinely went 300+ innings per season because they did not wear their arms out with breaking stuff as much.

JB98
09-30-2006, 01:02 AM
It showed two things. That these guys can work deep in games, as I believe ChiSox starters led the ML in IP/start.

It also showed Ozzie had no confidence in his relievers, as 400 or so innings is not a lot at all, especially by todays standards.

Our bullpen threw fewer innings last season. It isn't that Ozzie lacks confidence in his relievers. He has A LOT of confidence in his starters. In fact, he has more confidence in them than he should at times.

oeo
09-30-2006, 01:13 AM
It showed two things. That these guys can work deep in games, as I believe ChiSox starters led the ML in IP/start.

It also showed Ozzie had no confidence in his relievers, as 400 or so innings is not a lot at all, especially by todays standards.

I think it's more of his confidence in the starters, than lack of confidence in his relievers. How many times did he trot Cotts and Politte out there, when time after time, they did more harm than good? That's confidence right there.

He has confidence in everyone (except BA, for some unknown reason)...often he has too much confidence (Politte, Cotts, etc.).

doctorlecter
09-30-2006, 01:18 AM
That is not an amazing thing, nor a good thing. It is a recipe for disaster and injury.
Starters are supposed to throw 200 innings. They'll get 33-35 starts per year, at 6 innings per start. Do the math before you freak out about numbers.

Gregory Pratt
09-30-2006, 03:48 AM
Starters are supposed to throw 200 innings. They'll get 33-35 starts per year, at 6 innings per start. Do the math before you freak out about numbers.

Right on.

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 04:06 AM
No, that is a very good thing. Guys who make 30 starts a year and throw 200 innings a season are gold.


Ummm...yeah, that's not the case for Mulder and Hudson and probably Zito in the end.

Look at where Garcia was in 1999 or 2000 and what his arm strength is now. Look what happened to Steve Avery with the Braves...or how many times Smoltz has had injury problems.

Buehrle had almost 260 IP last year if you include 3 playoff starts.

Lip Man 1
09-30-2006, 01:49 PM
It's always interesting to me how now apparently 200 innings is 'to much' for a pitcher.

It's always amazed me how thirty, forty, fifty years ago pitchers were expected to throw AT LEAST 200 innings. Most threw 240, 250 or even 280 innings without complaint and without injuries.

Stop 'babying' these overpaid prima donnas.

Like Daver says, they need to throw more, not less to build arm strength. Look at the Braves under Mazzone.

These guys train now year round, have the best doctors, the best medical care, the best conditioning, trainers and so forth and you're telling me they can't throw more then guys who took off in the off season because they actually had to get a job to make end meets and feed their families?

Lip