PDA

View Full Version : Bobby?


Lip Man 1
07-17-2007, 10:35 PM
Is it possible Bobby's hurt? Or is it simply his confidence (like everyone else's in the bullpen) is totally shot?

He's suffered through his poorest strech since joining the team in '05. It's not like him to toss away four games since 6/20 when he had the lead and was within a few outs of the save.

Does he look any different pitching-wise now as opposed to a year ago?

Lip

Patrick134
07-17-2007, 10:36 PM
Is it possible Bobby's hurt? Or is it simply his confidence (like everyone else's in the bullpen) is totally shot?

He's suffered through his poorest strech since joining the team in '05. It's not like him to toss away four games since 6/20 when he had the lead and was within a few outs of the save.

Does he look any different pitching-wise now as opposed to a year ago?

Lip


Nah his fastball was up over 97 tonight. Bad pitch selection to trot nixon with 2 strikes, and the count got him with garko.

oeo
07-17-2007, 10:37 PM
Is it possible Bobby's hurt? Or is it simply his confidence (like everyone else's in the bullpen) is totally shot?

He's suffered through his poorest strech since joining the team in '05. It's not like him to toss away four games since 6/20 when he had the lead and was within a few outs of the save.

Does he look any different pitching-wise now as opposed to a year ago?

Lip

He hit 97 on the gun tonight. It was mental, just like the rest of the bullpen (I'm not saying that's the whole problem...definitely not, but it's one of them). After he gave up the homer, he got three easy outs. Until these guys put together a stretch of scoreless late innings, they're always going to be thinking about ****ing up.

JorgeFabregas
07-17-2007, 10:38 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong. He's not getting his curve over.

SluggersAway
07-17-2007, 10:38 PM
He has been consistently hitting 4-6 mph lower on his fastball.

He hasn't been able to throw the heat like he used to.

AJ Hellraiser
07-17-2007, 10:39 PM
Until recently his fastball has been down in the low 90's... it just doesn't seem like as many balls are missing bats as they used to... even when things were going well, the strikeouts were down

I don't know what his problem is, but it just adds to the story of the season... no matter how well the offense or starting pitching performs the rest of the season, we can never come close to getting back in the race because of the bullpen

Jenks is extremely tradable and I am not over-reacting... if a contender is willing to give up some quality players then you gotta let him go.... a good/above average closer on a bad team is worthless

oeo
07-17-2007, 10:39 PM
He has been consistently hitting 4-6 mph lower on his fastball.

He hasn't been able to throw the heat like he used to.

He's been topping out at 94 most of the year. Yesterday and today he's hit 96 and 97.

Bobby is not a guy that needs to rely on that fastball, anyway. You must be thinking he's Billy Koch if you think so.

CWSpalehoseCWS
07-17-2007, 10:40 PM
Bobby is being over-used IMO. Since the bullpen is so bad, they turn every game into a save situation, and Jenks has to come in. If Jenks is hurting, I don't even want to think about the pen.

JB98
07-17-2007, 10:40 PM
Nah his fastball was up over 97 tonight. Bad pitch selection to trot nixon with 2 strikes, and the count got him with garko.

I agree completely. He had Nixon 1-2 and left an offspeed pitch up. That's an easy pitch to hit. He wiped Nixon out last night with a breaking ball in the dirt. I assume that's what AJ wanted him to do again, but that pitch was WAAAAAAY too hittable, especially ahead in the count.

And as you say, he fell behind 2-0 to Garko.

This is Bobby's worst stretch in a White Sox uniform. Ironically, his much-talked-about velocity is up, yet he's getting his brains beat in.

I don't think there's a physical problem. Bobby needs to locate his pitches better.

sox1970
07-17-2007, 10:40 PM
He had a 4.00 ERA last year, he has a 3.89 ERA this year. He is who he is. He's good, but he's not that great.

dickallen15
07-17-2007, 10:41 PM
The gun is quick in Cleveland. It had Contreras at 94 and scouts had him between 87 and 91. It had Garland at 92. He doesn't throw 92, and Byrd at 87. He doesn't throw 87, so Jenks' 97 was false. The way speed guns vary, I wonder if the rate of error is the same when they get you speeding. He's lost a bit off his fastball, and I think scouts have probably detected a pattern. I think hitters are more comfortable hitting against him now than in the past.

JB98
07-17-2007, 10:41 PM
He has been consistently hitting 4-6 mph lower on his fastball.

He hasn't been able to throw the heat like he used to.

You didn't see tonight's game, did you?

Velocity is the least of Jenks' problems.

russ99
07-17-2007, 10:41 PM
I think maybe Bobby's been used a little too much over the last week and he's a bit shaky from all the bullpen troubles.

The overarching problem here is that Ozzie doesn't trust anyone else in the pen right now, and as far as I'm concerned he's got a reason not to.

Regardless of Haeger's good performance tonight and Wasserman's impending arrival, it's time for Kenny to make a trade for a reliever. I may sound like a broken record on this, but Ozzie's starting to sound like one too.

Patrick134
07-17-2007, 10:41 PM
I agree completely. He had Nixon 1-2 and left an offspeed pitch up. That's an easy pitch to hit. He wiped Nixon out last night with a breaking ball in the dirt. I assume that's what AJ wanted him to do again, but that pitch was WAAAAAAY too hittable, especially ahead in the count.

And as you say, he fell behind 2-0 to Garko.

This is Bobby's worst stretch in a White Sox uniform. Ironically, his much-talked-about velocity is up, yet he's getting his brains beat in.

I don't think there's a physical problem. Bobby needs to locate his pitches better.


Plus with the recent bullpen struggles, he has to feel a lot of pressure to carry these guys every night.

oeo
07-17-2007, 10:42 PM
He had a 4.00 ERA last year, he has a 3.89 ERA this year. He is who he is. He's good, but he's not that great.

He's better than this, though, and definitely better than most closers in baseball.

JB98
07-17-2007, 10:43 PM
Until recently his fastball has been down in the low 90's... it just doesn't seem like as many balls are missing bats as they used to... even when things were going well, the strikeouts were down

I don't know what his problem is, but it just adds to the story of the season... no matter how well the offense or starting pitching performs the rest of the season, we can never come close to getting back in the race because of the bullpen

Jenks is extremely tradable and I am not over-reacting... if a contender is willing to give up some quality players then you gotta let him go.... a good/above average closer on a bad team is worthless

You're overreacting.

This is a Web site full of BA fan boys and supporters of other crap players. Yet I'm confident people will turn their back on Bobby as he struggles, despite how good he has been for us over the last two years.

Noneck
07-17-2007, 10:44 PM
Is it possible Bobby's hurt? Or is it simply his confidence (like everyone else's in the bullpen) is totally shot?

He's suffered through his poorest strech since joining the team in '05. It's not like him to toss away four games since 6/20 when he had the lead and was within a few outs of the save.

Does he look any different pitching-wise now as opposed to a year ago?

Lip

I don't know pitching mechanics, but it sure seems as tho his eating mechanics have improved from last year.

kitekrazy
07-17-2007, 10:44 PM
Stink spreads.

Jenks put the first guy on trying to use finesse. I blame that on A.J. as well. If you throw 97 why not keep the ball inside?

This is a demoralizing loss. I doubt the Sox will ever win an extra inning game the rest of the season.

AJ Hellraiser
07-17-2007, 10:45 PM
You're overreacting.

This is a Web site full of BA fan boys and supporters of other crap players. Yet I'm confident people will turn their back on Bobby as he struggles, despite how good he has been for us over the last two years.

I love Bobby OK... I am not overreacting... all i am saying here is that he, like everyone BUT Konerko, Buehrle and AJ can be had if the price is right...

If he can fetch a lot in a trade you do it... he is far from untouchable... if we rebuild over the next 3 years we don't really need a stud closer... and maybe Bobby isn't as much of a stud as he once was..

So, all I'm saying is that you move him if the return is great

dickallen15
07-17-2007, 10:45 PM
Jenks has pitched exactly the same amount of innings this year and in 2005. 39 1/3. He struck out 50 in 2005 and 36 this season. That's quite a drop. His stuff isn't as good. Maybe his big belly is taking a toll.

kitekrazy
07-17-2007, 10:47 PM
Jenks is extremely tradable and I am not over-reacting... if a contender is willing to give up some quality players then you gotta let him go.... a good/above average closer on a bad team is worthless

Not over reacting? :rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

AJ Hellraiser
07-17-2007, 10:47 PM
Jenks has pitched exactly the same amount of innings this year and in 2005. 39 1/3. He struck out 50 in 2005 and 36 this season. That's quite a drop. His stuff isn't as good. Maybe his big belly is taking a toll.

Great stat to prove mine and other's points... this means that:

a) his stuff isn't as good

b) hitters are finally onto him and not nearly as confused in the batter's box

c) a combination of the 2 above

oeo
07-17-2007, 10:47 PM
Jenks is extremely tradable and I am not over-reacting... if a contender is willing to give up some quality players then you gotta let him go.... a good/above average closer on a bad team is worthless

Until next year when we do need a closer and don't have one. Look around the league and there are a lot of teams that would gladly take Jenks as their closer.

Good closers don't grow on trees. We were lucky in 2005 when Shingo pitched like crap, and Hermanson stepped up...then when he got hurt, Bobby came in. We have had no such luck with our bullpen this year, I see no reason to think we would next year.

JB98
07-17-2007, 10:48 PM
I love Bobby OK... I am not overreacting... all i am saying here is that he, like everyone BUT Konerko, Buehrle and AJ can be had if the price is right...

If he can fetch a lot in a trade you do it... he is far from untouchable... if we rebuild over the next 3 years we don't really need a stud closer... and maybe Bobby isn't as much of a stud as he once was..

So, all I'm saying is that you move him if the return is great

I don't think KW is going to rebuild, so we do need a stud closer.

And since Jenks is struggling right now, I don't think we're going to get "a lot" for him in a trade at the moment.

As I've said many times, it doesn't make sense to trade the only guy you have in the bullpen who is worth a crap. Especially when he's young and nowhere near free agency.

SluggersAway
07-17-2007, 10:48 PM
This is a Web site full of BA fan boys and supporters of other crap players.

What does that stupid observation have to do with anything he was saying?

Patrick134
07-17-2007, 10:50 PM
What does that stupid observation have to do with anything?

He was making a point that guys will blindly pledge allegiance on guys that have done nothing, yet turn their backs on guys that have done a lot.

AJ Hellraiser
07-17-2007, 10:50 PM
Let me just pose a question to all those who think I am overreacting by suggesting we trade Bobby:

If the Red Sox decided to move Papelbon into the rotation (say maybe Schilling can't return) so they need a closer...

If they were willing to part with Manny Delcarmen or that other youngster that was up briefly last season and Ellsbury, maybe one other prospect... to get Jenks..

Would you do it?

I'm not saying to openly put him on the trade block... I'm saying that for the right package of pieces he should be available

SluggersAway
07-17-2007, 10:51 PM
Jenks is not throwing 97 at the moment. Period.

oeo
07-17-2007, 10:51 PM
Jenks has pitched exactly the same amount of innings this year and in 2005. 39 1/3. He struck out 50 in 2005 and 36 this season. That's quite a drop. His stuff isn't as good. Maybe his big belly is taking a toll.

His big belly? He lost weight over the offseason. He's a big guy, always has been and always will be.

I think everyone is overreacting. We've seen this from Jenks before, and then he goes on a run of 15-20 straight saves. He's up and down...that's who he is. The only bad part right now is he has no help. He's picked up this bullpen since day one. He has to be mentally beat...I think skipping the All Star Game would have been good for him.

He will work through it, though, he has before.

dickallen15
07-17-2007, 10:52 PM
Until next year when we do need a closer and don't have one. Look around the league and there are a lot of teams that would gladly take Jenks as their closer.

Good closers don't grow on trees. We were lucky in 2005 when Shingo pitched like crap, and Hermanson stepped up...then when he got hurt, Bobby came in. We have had no such luck with our bullpen this year, I see no reason to think we would next year.

That's the thing. I wouldn't mind dealing Jenks, the problem is there is no one who can take his place. Even with his struggles, he is head and shoulders the best pitcher in the bullpen. If some of these guys like MacDougal, Aardsma, Sisco etc. were anywhere near where the White Sox projected them, trading Jenks would be a definite option. It really isn't now.

kitekrazy
07-17-2007, 10:52 PM
I love Bobby OK... I am not overreacting... all i am saying here is that he, like everyone BUT Konerko, Buehrle and AJ can be had if the price is right...

If he can fetch a lot in a trade you do it... he is far from untouchable... if we rebuild over the next 3 years we don't really need a stud closer... and maybe Bobby isn't as much of a stud as he once was..

So, all I'm saying is that you move him if the return is great

Then you find yourself shopping for a closer. They guy hasn't been in the big leagues a full 3 season's yet.

What do you expect in return?

What makes you think the Sox are going to rebuild?

oeo
07-17-2007, 10:52 PM
Jenks is not throwing 97 at the moment. Period.

Did you watch the game, or what?

dickallen15
07-17-2007, 10:52 PM
His big belly? He lost weight over the offseason. He's a big guy, always has been and always will be.

I think everyone is overreacting. We've seen this from Jenks before, and then he goes on a run of 15-20 straight saves. He's up and down...that's who he is. The only bad part right now is he has no help. He's picked up this bullpen since day one. He has to be mentally beat...I think skipping the All Star Game would have been good for him.

He will work through it, though, he has before.

If he lost it, I think he found it. He's as big as ever.

Patrick134
07-17-2007, 10:53 PM
Jenks is not throwing 97 at the moment. Period.


Well the game is over, it'd be kind of silly to be throwing pitches now. But, in the game, he did throw 97mph.

SluggersAway
07-17-2007, 10:53 PM
He was making a point that guys will blindly pledge allegiance on guys that have done nothing, yet turn their backs on guys that have done a lot.

That had nothing to do with his post, why bring it up? Address the specific issues in his post, it doesn't add anything to his argument only deflects from the specific issues raised.

SluggersAway
07-17-2007, 10:54 PM
I watched the Cleveland feed and never did it rate 97 for Jenks' fastball.

kitekrazy
07-17-2007, 10:54 PM
Good closers don't grow on trees. We were lucky in 2005 when Shingo pitched like crap, and Hermanson stepped up...then when he got hurt, Bobby came in. We have had no such luck with our bullpen this year, I see no reason to think we would next year.

That's probably the first time a team ever went to a 3rd closer and won the World Series.

dickallen15
07-17-2007, 10:54 PM
Well the game is over, it'd be kind of silly to be throwing pitches now. But, in the game, he did throw 97mph.
Quick gun. He was most likely at 93-94.

AJ Hellraiser
07-17-2007, 11:10 PM
What makes you think the Sox are going to rebuild?

Over the last week, I've had numerous conversations with various members of the Chicago media I trust and a couple people in the Sox front office... KW's statements tonight were merely posturing and setting up a smokescreen..

By July 31, any and all of Dye, Uribe (if anyone will take him), Iguchi, Contreras, Javy and/or Garland, Pods, will be gone... Erstad and some others will follow in the offseason...

In 2008, you're looking at a whole new OF, SS, 2B (Richar probably) and a young bullpen and starting staff....

On a side note, how many closers in baseball have had a sustained run of success with the same team for 5 years or more? I can only think of 3: Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera and Francisco Rodriguez... pretty elite company... I guess I'll even throw Joe Nathan in there since he is in his 4th and Billy Wagner despite switching teams.... a closer role is changing constantly...

So, the conclusion is if we are rebuilding then you trade Jenks if you get good return for hm... bottom line

JB98
07-17-2007, 11:29 PM
What does that stupid observation have to do with anything he was saying?

My point is we have a lot of people here who will throw our very best players under the bus when they have a bad week or two. Meanwhile, they pledge allegiance to players that have done absolutely nothing for this franchise, even going to the point of offering various conspiracy theories and such.

I knew a thread like this was coming tonight. Boo hoo hoo. Jenks has had a rough July. Big deal. He's still an above average closer, and I have tremendous faith in him.

thomas35forever
07-17-2007, 11:29 PM
Bobby HAS been overused this year IMO. He's had to bail out this bullpen so many times this year I'm not surprised that he's slipping right now. You gotta discredit him for not getting the job done himself, but OTOH, his arm's getting tired for helping out the crap that is the 2007 bullpen.

JB98
07-17-2007, 11:34 PM
Bobby HAS been overused this year IMO. He's had to bail out this bullpen so many times this year I'm not surprised that he's slipping right now. You gotta discredit him for not getting the job done himself, but OTOH, his arm's getting tired for helping out the crap that is the 2007 bullpen.

If he is tired, I think it might be more mental fatigue. Take last night. It's 11-2 in the sixth. He's probably thinking, "I have tonight off." Before you know it, he's in there pitching with the tying run in scoring position.

This situation has to be wearing on the whole team. We're definitely going to struggle for the rest of the year. Basically, we need the season to be over, so we can make a fresh start in 2008.

SluggersAway
07-17-2007, 11:39 PM
Jenks has had a rough July. Big deal. He's still an above average closer, and I have tremendous faith in him.

Then say that and address reasons why we shouldn't trade him instead of throwing the commentator under the bus and lumping him in with a bunch of fools with man love for Rowand, BA, and Willie Harris.

JB98
07-17-2007, 11:51 PM
Then say that and address reasons why we shouldn't trade him instead of throwing the commentator under the bus and lumping him in with a bunch of fools with man love for Rowand, BA, and Willie Harris.

I have. Many times. And I obviously haven't changed a single mind, so I don't know why I waste my time.

oeo
07-18-2007, 12:19 AM
If he lost it, I think he found it. He's as big as ever.

Definitely not. You must have missed him last year.

He's always going to be big...

oeo
07-18-2007, 12:20 AM
Then say that and address reasons why we shouldn't trade him instead of throwing the commentator under the bus and lumping him in with a bunch of fools with man love for Rowand, BA, and Willie Harris.

Why shouldn't we trade him? Where are we going to get a closer from? Let's just add another hole that needs to be filled in the offseason...there's a good idea. :rolleyes:

SluggersAway
07-18-2007, 12:25 AM
I never said we should trade him, I just said JB should deal with the facts of AJ's post and not call out some anonymous posters for their affinity for some players.

TDog
07-18-2007, 12:49 AM
That's probably the first time a team ever went to a 3rd closer and won the World Series.

That's not true. A lot of teams have won the World Series without a single designated closer. Granted, it's been a few years. The 1967 St. Louis Cardinals, a team from your lifetime, for example, had (or would have had if the save rule had been an official stat at the time) had nine pitchers record saves. Joe Hoerner had 15, but Bob Willis had 10. Nelson Briles had six, and he started 14 games. The pitching staff recorded 45 saves and 44 complete games, including four by Briles. The 1959 Dodgers didn't have anyone who would have had double-digit saves under the save rule adopted in 1968. Larry Sherry, who had two saves and two relief wins against the White Sox that year, was third on his team in regular-season saves.

The value of closers, like the need of five-man rotations, is overrated. But neither concept is going to change.

Grzegorz
07-18-2007, 04:55 AM
Not exploring the return Jenks could garner would be foolish.

BTW, if it is a choice of trading Jenks or a starter, especially one like Garland, I trade Jenks.

SpringfldFan
07-18-2007, 07:28 AM
I like Jenks attitude and effort and all, but I really do think he has lost something in the last couple years. Folks are arguing velocity was not the problem because he was hitting 97. Well, as mentioned, the gun in Cleveland is fast, but even if I grant 97 was authentic, it is quite different to the 101 he had in 2005. 97 with a great curve will make you very successful. However, 101 with a great curve makes you legendary, and often you can just rely on heat, mano a mano, when the curve is not working.

My opinion, YMMV

SFF

Luke
07-18-2007, 08:33 AM
I like Jenks attitude and effort and all, but I really do think he has lost something in the last couple years. Folks are arguing velocity was not the problem because he was hitting 97. Well, as mentioned, the gun in Cleveland is fast, but even if I grant 97 was authentic, it is quite different to the 101 he had in 2005. 97 with a great curve will make you very successful. However, 101 with a great curve makes you legendary, and often you can just rely on heat, mano a mano, when the curve is not working.

My opinion, YMMV

SFF

97, 101 I don't think it matters when you don't locate your pitches. Most MLB hitters can get on any fastball if they're sitting on it.

Gregory Pratt
07-18-2007, 08:45 AM
Jenks is a big fat guy with screws in his elbow and a now two-year pattern of falling apart post-ASB. He's not going to be pitching particularly long because of his elbow and he's not THAT good, either. He generally closes the door but he will always be a high-ERA, high-conversion rate closer. Good, but not fantastic.

I doubt he has more than three years left, but I know a ton of teams would kill for Jenks right now, so I think he should be put on the market and dealt away, along with either Garland or Vazquez, depending who fetches more, as well as Contreras to be rid of his contract. Thome has to go, as well, but I doubt anyone will take him. (Thome will never be healthy for more than two thirds of a season again.)

But this team's going to be bad for a long time. This organization is bad. We won't pay for top-flight free agents that don't have a "White Sox Connexxxion!" (and even then we won't give up no-trades); we won't pay for Boras draft picks, which are usually top players; our General Manager believes Gavin Floyd, Jon Adkins and Danny Richar are studs. (Richar's doing all right, but not when you look at his awful, awful splits, or his terrible defense.)

So, why not stay expensive and bad? You know, Paul Konerko thinks we've still got a shot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gregory Pratt
07-18-2007, 08:46 AM
97, 101 I don't think it matters when you don't locate your pitches. Most MLB hitters can get on any fastball if they're sitting on it.

It makes a ton of difference. Especially now that Jenks is low-90s consistently? He's not long for this game. I can only imagine how much velocity he'll lose in this year's offseason.

palehozenychicty
07-18-2007, 08:46 AM
Bobby will be fine. He's been in nearly every game over the past week, as everyone else. If MacDougal was throwing like last year, the Sox would be in a much better place. But I digress.

jabrch
07-18-2007, 08:49 AM
I can only imagine how much velocity he'll lose in this year's offseason.

Why would you imagine he is going to lose velocity this offseason?

I'm going to imagine a big pile of hundred dollar bills show up on my doorstep. That will make it as true as this imaginary future velocity loss you are predicting.

jabrch
07-18-2007, 08:52 AM
That's not true. A lot of teams have won the World Series without a single designated closer. Granted, it's been a few years. The 1967 St. Louis Cardinals, a team from your lifetime, for example, had (or would have had if the save rule had been an official stat at the time) had nine pitchers record saves. Joe Hoerner had 15, but Bob Willis had 10. Nelson Briles had six, and he started 14 games. The pitching staff recorded 45 saves and 44 complete games, including four by Briles. The 1959 Dodgers didn't have anyone who would have had double-digit saves under the save rule adopted in 1968. Larry Sherry, who had two saves and two relief wins against the White Sox that year, was third on his team in regular-season saves.

The value of closers, like the need of five-man rotations, is overrated. But neither concept is going to change.


If you need to go back to the late 60s to tell me that this can happen, it probably can't happen.

ButtCheeseBubba
07-18-2007, 08:53 AM
Bring back SHINGO! He deserves a second chance. Keep Jenks away from Japan though for his own safety. They would carve him up and use his blubber for sushi, methinks.

:dtroll:

The Immigrant
07-18-2007, 09:01 AM
Perhaps Bobby should not be used in back-to-back games:

On the second or third straight day of pitching—which he has done 13 times—Jenks is 0-3 with three blown saves and a 5.84 ERA.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070717soxgamer,1,4296927.story?coll=chi-sportstop-hed

Of course, he wouldn't have pitched in consecutive games if everyone else in the bullpen didn't crap their pants on Monday night.

TDog
07-18-2007, 12:49 PM
If you need to go back to the late 60s to tell me that this can happen, it probably can't happen.

A lot of people around here believe in going back to the four-man rotation, which worked in the 1060s. Many scoff at "bullpen by committee." But what is a bullpen but a committee? Managers used to go with the pitcher who they believed had the best chance of getting the job done in a given situation. Larry Sherry had three saves during the 1959 regular season and two saves in the World Series. You're better off having a bullpen with three or four guys who can come in and save a game rather than having one closer.

You aren't going to get that kind of a bullpen through trades and free agency. In the age of free agency, the cost for big-saves guys will be too great, and there isn't an incentive for a closer to come to a team where he will be only a part-time closer. You need emerging pitchers that you develop or reclaim from other teams. That was the way Kenny Williams built the White Sox bullpen.

Of course, the problem with the White Sox is that Jenks comes in in save situations because he's the closer, and because there is a drop-off in the quality of the pitchers. After Thornton, there is a huge drop-off. And neither Jenks or Thornton are having great seasons. Cynics would say this is because the White Sox took them on as other teams' garbage.

If the White Sox could bring up young pitchers like Forster and Gossage, as they did in 1971, they could build a great bullpen by committee. And they would have more success than they are having by having Jenks close out every save-situation game.

MetroPD
07-18-2007, 04:26 PM
Does anyone else recall all the people saying by mid season he'll be throwing 98+ again? It only takes awhile to get back into form it was said again and again......The reality is Masset throws harder. Jenks would be a good set up guy, we need to find someone can close out games. Maybe Haeger can be a more effective Shingo?

dickallen15
07-18-2007, 05:21 PM
Why would you imagine he is going to lose velocity this offseason?

I'm going to imagine a big pile of hundred dollar bills show up on my doorstep. That will make it as true as this imaginary future velocity loss you are predicting.
Considering he's lost velocity each of the 2 seasons he's been in Chicago, its a reasonable assumption.

SpringfldFan
07-18-2007, 06:09 PM
I would like to challenge the assertion that there is no essential difference for a major leaguer hitting a 97mph fastball and a 101mph fastball - using physics and physiology. Enter exhibit A, a graphic from Robert Adair at Yale University describing the data in his studies:
http://xs217.xs.to/xs217/07294/AdairSwing.jpg (http://xs.to)


The graphic shows that a 90 mph fastball will arrive at the hitter in 400 milliseconds. I did the math; it is correct :smile:. Now, the graphic shows only 50 of those does a typical major leaguer have any control of - 25 ms to decide to swing, and 25 more do decide where to swing. Now to apply this information to our situation. Simple math says a 97 mph fastball's flight time will be 90/97th of that, or 371 milliseconds. That is 28 fewer milliseconds available to the hitter. He no longer has optimal time to decide where and/or when to swing. However, he still can complete the swing, and with a good guess on the type of pitch, might hit the ball. Now, lets go from 97 to 101. The flight time will now be 97/101th of 371, or 356 milliseconds. Now, the hitter is left with only 6 of the 50 milliseconds he needs to decide if and where to swing. In short, when you get over 100mph, you come really close to a point where it is simply physically impossible to complete a swing before the ball reaches the catcher - unless the swing is started before the ball leaves the pitchers hand. My personal feeling is that there is a real difference between Bobby's current 97 and his 101 of 2005.

SFF

dickallen15
07-18-2007, 06:31 PM
I would like to challenge the assertion that there is no essential difference for a major leaguer hitting a 97mph fastball and a 101mph fastball - using physics and physiology. Enter exhibit A, a graphic from Robert Adair at Yale University describing the data in his studies:
http://xs217.xs.to/xs217/07294/AdairSwing.jpg (http://xs.to)


The graphic shows that a 90 mph fastball will arrive at the hitter in 400 milliseconds. I did the math; it is correct :smile:. Now, the graphic shows only 50 of those does a typical major leaguer have any control of - 25 ms to decide to swing, and 25 more do decide where to swing. Now to apply this information to our situation. Simple math says a 97 mph fastball's flight time will be 90/97th of that, or 371 milliseconds. That is 28 fewer milliseconds available to the hitter. He no longer has optimal time to decide where and/or when to swing. However, he still can complete the swing, and with a good guess on the type of pitch, might hit the ball. Now, lets go from 97 to 101. The flight time will now be 97/101th of 371, or 356 milliseconds. Now, the hitter is left with only 6 of the 50 milliseconds he needs to decide if and where to swing. In short, when you get over 100mph, you come really close to a point where it is simply physically impossible to complete a swing before the ball reaches the catcher - unless the swing is started before the ball leaves the pitchers hand. My personal feeling is that there is a real difference between Bobby's current 97 and his 101 of 2005.

SFF
He's not throwing 97 either. Some people saw it on the same gun that had Contreras at 94 and Garland at 92. It even had Paul Byrd at a consistent 87. He was throwing 93-94. The proof is in the pudding. His strikeouts are way down. But really he's the best the Sox have. They better make sure they have someone who can get someone out at least once in a while before dealing him, but I don't think he'll have a very long career. Its laughable people say he's overworked. He's on pace to pitch 66 innings this season.

Gregory Pratt
07-18-2007, 09:45 PM
Considering he's lost velocity each of the 2 seasons he's been in Chicago, its a reasonable assumption.

That's right.

jabrch
07-19-2007, 11:37 PM
Hurt...must be that...or velocity...might be that...

Or the fact that he just went 1, 2, 3 vs Boston might mean that he (as even Rivera and Hoffman have from time to time) just had a few bad outings.

kevingrt
07-19-2007, 11:51 PM
Hurt...must be that...or velocity...might be that...

Or the fact that he just went 1, 2, 3 vs Boston might mean that he (as even Rivera and Hoffman have from time to time) just had a few bad outings.

It'd be nice if your though panned out to be correct. I think it is correct. A little "dead arm" period or whatever they call that even though that is not possible this far through the season. Hopefully just a rough patch and his last BS this season was on Tuesday.

jabrch
07-25-2007, 12:05 AM
Where are some of you guys when we really need you?

Not only can Bobby go on back to back days, he can go in both ends of a DH and get you 2 perfect innings.

Everyone has a bad day or two every now and then, including Bobby. But he's amongst the best closers out there. You take Accardo, Weathers and whatever other crap you want. There are very few guys I'd take ahead of Bobby at this point in time..