PDA

View Full Version : Vazquez confirms what we suspected


JB98
09-01-2007, 10:09 PM
Comments from Joe Cowley's story tonight:

“Right now, we’re going out there with no emotion or anything,’’ Vazquez said. “It does surprise me. I think we should go out there with more fire.’’

The right-handed pitcher, who allowed three earned runs in six innings of work, was then asked if it seemed like there were too many players just counting down the days on the calendar.

“You have to ask everybody else,’’ Vazquez said. “I still have a few starts left and I want to win. We don’t have a chance (for the postseason) but everyone should have pride and go out to beat teams like Cleveland, Detroit and Minnesota. We still have them on the schedule.’’

CLR01
09-01-2007, 10:12 PM
Comments from Joe Cowley's story tonight:

“Right now, we’re going out there with no emotion or anything,’’ Vazquez said. “It does surprise me. I think we should go out there with more fire.’’

The right-handed pitcher, who allowed three earned runs in six innings of work, was then asked if it seemed like there were too many players just counting down the days on the calendar.

“You have to ask everybody else,’’ Vazquez said. “I still have a few starts left and I want to win. We don’t have a chance (for the postseason) but everyone should have pride and go out to beat teams like Cleveland, Detroit and Minnesota. We still have them on the schedule.’’


This team wouldn't quit on Ozzie. **** Javier, what does he know anyway.

SluggersAway
09-01-2007, 10:38 PM
Ozzie has already quit on this team, just look at his quotes, he is begging to be fired.

He got a big head after winning the World Series and has been sailing ever since with no effort whatsoever.

Martinigirl
09-01-2007, 10:48 PM
He got a big head after winning the World Series and has been sailing ever since with no effort whatsoever.

I am not sure if I would use the word 'effort', but I totally believe that Ozzie, and the other coaches, really believed their own hype. They just assumed that everything they would ever touch would turn to gold, and now that that isn't the case, they do not have a clue how to fix it.

Brian26
09-01-2007, 11:15 PM
“Right now, we’re going out there with no emotion or anything,’’ Vazquez said. “It does surprise me. I think we should go out there with more fire.’’’

Where was this killer instinct from Javy last year?

If Vazquez had shown any semblance of guts in the first half of '06 and down the stretch as the fifth starter, we might be looking at the two-time defending World Champions. I'm glad he finally wants to win now. This is a guy who lost eight of his last ten decisions down the stretch, and that grand slam to Monroe in Detroit was completely demoralizing to the team.

“You have to ask everybody else,’’ Vazquez said. “I still have a few starts left and I want to win.

Those would be garbage time victories.

oeo
09-01-2007, 11:19 PM
Where was this killer instinct from Javy last year?

If Vazquez had shown any semblance of guts in the first half of '06 and down the stretch as the fifth starter, we might be looking at the two-time defending World Champions. I'm glad he finally wants to win now. This is a guy who lost eight of his last ten decisions down the stretch, and that grand slam to Monroe in Detroit was completely demoralizing to the team.

Or maybe if Buehrle didn't suck? Maybe if we had a good bullpen? Some hitting in the second half? Javy pitched well to end the year last year, and has continued pitching well into this year. Since the end of last year, Javy has probably been our best pitcher. Actually, I know for a fact that he has been...Buehrle was crap to end last year, Contreras has been crap since July of last year, and Garland has been absolutely awful in the second half.

Those who were ripping his re-signing (as well as those who wanted him traded) are looking awfully dumb right now.

chisoxfanatic
09-01-2007, 11:22 PM
Or maybe if Buehrle didn't suck? Maybe if we had a good bullpen? Some hitting in the second half? Javy pitched well to end the year last year, and has continued pitching well into this year. Since the end of last year, Javy has probably been our best pitcher. Actually, I know for a fact that he has been...Buehrle was crap to end last year, Contreras has been crap all year, and Garland has been absolutely awful in the second half.
I agree. Vazquez is the only pitcher right now who I don't say "Gee, how are we gonna lose this time?" for whenever he pitches. The other four rotation spots? Ehhhhh!

oeo
09-01-2007, 11:24 PM
I agree. Vazquez is the only pitcher right now who I don't say "Gee, how are we gonna lose this time?" for whenever he pitches. The other four rotation spots? Ehhhhh!

I wouldn't say he's the only one. Buehrle has been his consistent self this year. But since about August of 2006 to now, Vazquez has been our best starting pitcher.

Javy Vazquez has been one of the very few bright spots of this season. He's earning his money, and people still want to whine about him. Yet I don't see anyone whining about Garland, who hasn't been worth crap since about June. Teams are batting something like .340 off of him in the second half.

Brian26
09-01-2007, 11:25 PM
You can call them that, but he's continued pitching well into this year. Since the end of last year, Javy has probably been our best pitcher. Actually, I know for a fact that he has been...Buehrle was crap to end last year, Contreras has been crap all year, and Garland has been absolutely awful in the second half.

What is your definition of "since the end of last year?" Does that include any part of '06? Or do you mean from the beginning of this year? Vazquez ended '06 on a 2-8 slide down the stretch. If you're talking about this year only, I'd agree he's right up there with Buehrle as the top two starters on our team.

I'm trying to recall if Dye, Konerko or Thome publically questioned Vazquez's desire last year when he couldn't get passed the 6th or 7th inning as the 5th starter.

oeo
09-01-2007, 11:28 PM
What is your definition of "since the end of last year?" Does that include any part of '06? Or do you mean from the beginning of this year? Vazquez ended '06 on a 2-8 slide down the stretch. If you're talking about this year only, I'd agree he's right up there with Buehrle as the top two starters on our team.

I'm trying to recall if Dye, Konerko or Thome publically questioned Vazquez's desire last year when he couldn't get passed the 6th or 7th inning as the 5th starter.

Oh wow, win-loss, what a great statistic for pitchers.

Maybe you missed when our offensive woes started at the end of last season. He wasn't getting run support, that's why he was 2-8.

Brian26
09-01-2007, 11:29 PM
Javy pitched well to end the year last year

He lost his last six games in a row, and he lost eight of his last ten. His ERA went down by a half point, so I'll concede he wasn't getting as much run support in some of those games, but he certainly wasn't lights out in giving up four or five runs each time.

Domeshot17
09-01-2007, 11:30 PM
Brian, while I agree, lets be fair. Javier-Buehrle-Contreras and a god aweful bullpen did us in. Add them with Joe Crede's disappearing act (albiet with a bad back) in September along with Brian Andersons revert to a first half clueless rookie after 2 solid months and we were doomed. Don't blame Javier for telling it like it is, blame the 25/40 guys on the roster who aren't bringing it. These guys need to get back to what made them great. Hard Work and Heart. We have no fundamentals out there. There is a difference between fundamental baseball and the national league team Ozzie wishes he had.


He is right though, we just don't bring it. We make stupid errors, miss bunts, bad pitches, terrible situational hitting. Look at guys like Pods who can't stay healthy, Garland who has been leaving everything up for 4 months now, Contreras who can't check his baggage at the door, AJ who is too busy finger pointing and belly aching, this is a complacent team. There are about 5-7 guys right now who I feel like are giving it everything they have. Jenks Thome Dye Konerko (maybe I think he is really worn down honestly) Fields and Owens (probably Burls too). The problem with that is you still have a bullpen blowing games, Fields struggling to make consistent contact, Owens who is giving everything he has but just isnt any good, we need 25 guys pulling together. They need someone to light a fire under their asses next year. Be it a new GM, Manager, Coach, Team mate anyone. This is a team that for 2 months has played with no heart.

If Im ozzie guillen make an example out of Andy Gonzalez the other night. 3 errors, middle of the inning, I pull him and tell him to pack his bags. Let it be known this is not tolerable at any level at any point of the season. He has no reason to be here anyway so he is the perfect guy to use. Give the other guys a wake up call hopefully. You got a month to keep your job, otherwise, have fun on a new team.

oeo
09-01-2007, 11:33 PM
He lost his last six games in a row, and he lost eight of his last ten. His ERA went down by a half point, so I'll concede he wasn't getting as much run support in some of those games, but he certainly wasn't lights out in giving up four or five runs each time.

He was 2-2 in August...3.41 ERA. 0-3 in September with a 3.82. The records just aren't matching his pitching performances.

He carried that into this year, having a 3.75 in April, a bad May with a 5.03, but bounced back with a 3.15 in June, 2.96 in July, and a 3.86 in August.

He's been terrible.

Brian26
09-01-2007, 11:36 PM
He was 2-2 in August...3.41 ERA. 0-3 in September with a 3.82. The records just aren't matching his pitching performances.

Agreed- I pulled up retrosheet as we're talking here. I have no idea how he lost his last six in a row because he actually went 7 IPs many times with 1,2 or 3 ER's. Amazing.

Vazquez has been solid this year. With Buehrle, he's been one of the top two starters for the Sox.

EndemicSox
09-01-2007, 11:39 PM
This is friggin baseball, not football, not hockey, not a sport where pure aggression is a good thing. All these words that the media eat up like "fire" and "heart" are worthless. Get Ozzie some ballplayers...

oeo
09-01-2007, 11:40 PM
Agreed- I pulled up retrosheet as we're talking here. I have no idea how he lost his last six in a row because he actually went 7 IPs many times with 1,2 or 3 ER's. Amazing.

Our offense was anemic to end the year last year (a lot like this year). Had they not been so bad, we may have gotten back to the postseason and who knows what could have happened there. Garland was great, Freddy was great, Javy was great. We had three pitchers throwing the ball very well, we could have done some damage had our offense not totally lost it.

Brian26
09-01-2007, 11:43 PM
Our offense was anemic to end the year last year (a lot like this year). Had they not been so bad, we may have gotten back to the postseason and who knows what could have happened there. Garland was great, Freddy was great, Javy was great. We had three pitchers throwing the ball very well, we could have done some damage had our offense not totally lost it.

Or like you said, if Buehrle showed up on those Sunday blow-out games, or if Vazquez could have made it past the 7th a few times. We only finished six games out. In the playoffs, the Sox could have been dangerous again.

Patrick134
09-01-2007, 11:45 PM
Or like you said, if Buehrle showed up on those Sunday blow-out games, or if Vazquez could have made it past the 7th a few times. We only finished six games out. In the playoffs, the Sox could have been dangerous again.


If i remember correctly, Javy had a way of pitching great for 5 innings, then giving up a couple huge runs around the 6th inning in a bunch of games.

oeo
09-01-2007, 11:46 PM
Or like you said, if Buehrle showed up on those Sunday blow-out games, or if Vazquez could have made it passed the 7th a few times. We only finished six games out. In the playoffs, the Sox could have been dangerous again.

This is what I continue to say. If Buehrle has a career normal year, we get back to the postseason, and anything could have happened there (I mean, it likely would have been the Tigers who were sitting at home...and they ended up making the Series). I'm not blaming last year on Buehrle, because there were multiple other problems, but what bad timing that year was by Buehrle. If he had it this year, oh well, everyone sucks; last year really hurt, though.

ZombieRob
09-02-2007, 12:55 AM
Does anyone other then me buy into the fact last year the Sox arms were tired from pitching big innings in 2005?Seems the only two pitchers that haven't recovered from that are Garland and Jose.But I do think it's more mental with Garland than Jose.And how do you Approach Dank's offseason?Do you ask him to pitch winter ball and try and build stamina? or do you rest him in the offseason?

Nellie_Fox
09-02-2007, 12:59 AM
Does anyone other then me buy into the fact last year the Sox arms were tired from pitching big innings in 2005?Seems the only two pitchers that haven't recovered from that are Garland and Jose.But I do think it's more mental with Garland than Jose.No. Pitchers used to routinely pitch more innings per game (far more complete games) and many more innings per season (four man rotations) and recovered just fine. Go look up White Ford's record. He pitched more innings every year than any Sox pitcher did in '05, and just kept getting better.

CLR01
09-02-2007, 01:00 AM
Does anyone other then me buy into the fact last year the Sox arms were tired from pitching big innings in 2005?Seems the only two pitchers that haven't recovered from that are Garland and Jose.But I do think it's more mental with Garland than Jose.And how do you Approach Dank's offseason?Do you ask him to pitch winter ball and try and build stamina? or do you rest him in the offseason?

Sure there's a few other people that will buy anything anyone tries to sell them as an excuse for why they fell apart in the second half and missed the playoffs.

ZombieRob
09-02-2007, 01:08 AM
No. Pitchers used to routinely pitch more innings per game (far more complete games) and many more innings per season (four man rotations) and recovered just fine. Go look up White Ford's record. He pitched more innings every year than any Sox pitcher did in '05, and just kept getting better.
Weren't pitchers in that era a diffrent breed than they are now?I can only wish players were like that in todays game.

Edit:Whitey Ford vs Billy Pierce and Biased aside,who was better?My Gramps said if Pierce played behind the Yankee teams he'd have 20 more lifetime wins than Whitey.

Grzegorz
09-02-2007, 04:47 AM
If Im ozzie guillen make an example out of Andy Gonzalez the other night. 3 errors, middle of the inning, I pull him and tell him to pack his bags. Let it be known this is not tolerable at any level at any point of the season. He has no reason to be here anyway so he is the perfect guy to use. Give the other guys a wake up call hopefully. You got a month to keep your job, otherwise, have fun on a new team.

I am by no means a Guillen fan but the way he handled Andy Gonzalez was excellent. AG was in the starting lineup the next night.

I understand the argument that Guillen has an obligation to put the best lineup out in the field in order to satisfy the competitive clause.

He also has an obligation to the Chicago White Sox. It is paramount that Ozzie/Kenny determine who can and cannot be counted on for 2008.

southside rocks
09-02-2007, 07:44 AM
I am by no means a Guillen fan but the way he handled Andy Gonzalez was excellent. AG was in the starting lineup the next night.

I understand the argument that Guillen has an obligation to put the best lineup out in the field in order to satisfy the competitive clause.

He also has an obligation to the Chicago White Sox. It is paramount that Ozzie/Kenny determine who can and cannot be counted on for 2008.

I agree with this.

Tadahito Iguchi once in 2005 made three errors in one inning. Should he have been sent packing?

Errors happen for a lot of different reasons, and just the fact that someone makes an error does not mean that he's incompetent. The manager and coaches are noting every play and they see how much of any error was avoidable and how much was just a bad break.

Gonzalez got plunked down at third base with no warning and no preparation. I'd cut the guy some slack. I'm not saying he's a major-league caliber player, but geez, he's also not the biggest problem on this squad this year, and shouldn't be anybody's whipping boy.

dickallen15
09-02-2007, 08:36 AM
Those who were ripping his re-signing (as well as those who wanted him traded) are looking awfully dumb right now.
Why are they (we) looking dumb? You do know he was under White Sox control next year don't you? What if he gets injured or has a bad 2008, then who looks dumb? Vazquez has shown throughout his career that he is far more comfortable pitching for second division teams.

dickallen15
09-02-2007, 08:36 AM
I am by no means a Guillen fan but the way he handled Andy Gonzalez was excellent. AG was in the starting lineup the next night.

I understand the argument that Guillen has an obligation to put the best lineup out in the field in order to satisfy the competitive clause.

He also has an obligation to the Chicago White Sox. It is paramount that Ozzie/Kenny determine who can and cannot be counted on for 2008.

It would be best for the Chicago White Sox if Andy Gonzalez was on some other roster.

cheezheadsoxfan
09-02-2007, 09:38 AM
Weren't pitchers in that era a diffrent breed than they are now?I can only wish players were like that in todays game.

Edit:Whitey Ford vs Billy Pierce and Biased aside,who was better?My Gramps said if Pierce played behind the Yankee teams he'd have 20 more lifetime wins than Whitey.

I've been a fan since '59 and would agree with your Gramps.

Grzegorz
09-02-2007, 09:48 AM
It would be best for the Chicago White Sox if Andy Gonzalez was on some other roster.

So by dumping Andy Gonzalez that means Josh Fields moves back to third for the rest of the year. This move retards his development in the outfield.

Ozzie did the correct thing; he started the kid after a horrible game.

wealz07
09-02-2007, 10:36 AM
It's no surprise that the team has quit. It really shouldn't be a cause for alarm either. It's been a miserable season for a team filled with veterans - many of whom won a World Series just two tears ago. It's natural, but it's also a warning sign that they have to undergo a serious rebuild.

DoItForDanPasqua
09-02-2007, 11:11 AM
No. Pitchers used to routinely pitch more innings per game (far more complete games) and many more innings per season (four man rotations) and recovered just fine. Go look up White Ford's record. He pitched more innings every year than any Sox pitcher did in '05, and just kept getting better.

I have always wondered about that. Managers are obsessed with pitch counts and not overusing pitchers, but what about in the past? Guys would pitch more games each year because of the four man rotation and pitch deeper into the games. I'm too young to remember, but, as far as I can tell, there were not more injuries.

There always have been guys like Sandy Koufax who blow out their arms early, but that's going to happen when you move your arm in such a peculiar way.

Pitchers of the past had long, successful careers while pitching lots of innings. So what's different now?

TornLabrum
09-02-2007, 11:22 AM
I have always wondered about that. Managers are obsessed with pitch counts and not overusing pitchers, but what about in the past? Guys would pitch more games each year because of the four man rotation and pitch deeper into the games. I'm too young to remember, but, as far as I can tell, there were not more injuries.

There always have been guys like Sandy Koufax who blow out their arms early, but that's going to happen when you move your arm in such a peculiar way.

Pitchers of the past had long, successful careers while pitching lots of innings. So what's different now?

Salaries.

In addition to that, I heard it said that one big difference is that in the minor leagues these guys are on strict pitch counts. They've never had to extend their throwing time.

FedEx227
09-02-2007, 08:10 PM
I have always wondered about that. Managers are obsessed with pitch counts and not overusing pitchers, but what about in the past? Guys would pitch more games each year because of the four man rotation and pitch deeper into the games. I'm too young to remember, but, as far as I can tell, there were not more injuries.

There always have been guys like Sandy Koufax who blow out their arms early, but that's going to happen when you move your arm in such a peculiar way.

Pitchers of the past had long, successful careers while pitching lots of innings. So what's different now?

Sliders and curve balls since they were 9 years old. Pitching every other day while their arms are still growing. That's why I think when you get to the next level people are strict.

All these "old school" guys keep talking about Grover Cleveland Alexander going 98 innings in a row, blah blah, throwing 3 straight complete games on consecutive days, blah blah.

Great, he was throwing 70 mph, wasn't throwing curves, wasn't throwing sliders and wasn't being pressured by his dad and little league coaches to pitch every other day the entire summer for his little league teams and traveling teams.

It's the same reason guys are more prone to injuries these days, they've been overworked their entire careers, but at the wrong times. If anything 5-man rotations should be going on when these kids are 9-14 when their arms are still growing.

Plus, these teams have a lot more invested in pitchers these days. Multi-million dollar, multi-year contracts are risky, so they tend to baby them a bit.

But the only reason they are babied and the only reason they are a risk is because they have had so much work in their younger years. In my opinion, you can stick to your "these guys aren't the same" stuff, but honestly. Let's see Walter Johnson throw 90+ mph day in and day out in the live-ball era with an array of different pitches, necessary to get these great hitters out.

Daver
09-02-2007, 08:34 PM
Sliders and curve balls since they were 9 years old. Pitching every other day while their arms are still growing. That's why I think when you get to the next level people are strict.

All these "old school" guys keep talking about Grover Cleveland Alexander going 98 innings in a row, blah blah, throwing 3 straight complete games on consecutive days, blah blah.

Great, he was throwing 70 mph, wasn't throwing curves, wasn't throwing sliders and wasn't being pressured by his dad and little league coaches to pitch every other day the entire summer for his little league teams and traveling teams.

It's the same reason guys are more prone to injuries these days, they've been overworked their entire careers, but at the wrong times. If anything 5-man rotations should be going on when these kids are 9-14 when their arms are still growing.

Plus, these teams have a lot more invested in pitchers these days. Multi-million dollar, multi-year contracts are risky, so they tend to baby them a bit.

But the only reason they are babied and the only reason they are a risk is because they have had so much work in their younger years. In my opinion, you can stick to your "these guys aren't the same" stuff, but honestly. Let's see Walter Johnson throw 90+ mph day in and day out in the live-ball era with an array of different pitches, necessary to get these great hitters out.

People who have actually pitched in professional baseball disagree with you, as do I.

FedEx227
09-02-2007, 08:43 PM
People who have actually pitched in professional baseball disagree with you, as do I.

Link?

Preferably a pitcher post-90s. Because comparing eras in baseball is not at all fair.

2007 pitching is not 1950 pitching.

Lorenzo Barcelo
09-02-2007, 09:32 PM
I have always wondered about that. Managers are obsessed with pitch counts and not overusing pitchers, but what about in the past? Guys would pitch more games each year because of the four man rotation and pitch deeper into the games. I'm too young to remember, but, as far as I can tell, there were not more injuries.

There always have been guys like Sandy Koufax who blow out their arms early, but that's going to happen when you move your arm in such a peculiar way.

Pitchers of the past had long, successful careers while pitching lots of innings. So what's different now?


I believe Greg Maddux was once quoted that the lowering of the mound around 1970 had something to do with injuries because of the different angle toward the plate. If there were pitchers throwing 300ip after 1970 disregard this quote.

Lip Man 1
09-02-2007, 09:38 PM
Fed Ex:

Jerry Koosman for example had something to say about pitching, learning your trade in the minor leagues and pitch counts in his interview with WSI, ditto for Jack McDowell, Jim Kaat and Gary Peters.

I tend to agree with Daver. Pitchers are babied and need to throw often to build up arm strength. The simple fact is they don't.

The Braves seemed to do very well for over a decade with Leo Mazzone's philosophy of constant throwing. Tommy John (as a manager/pitching coach), Rick Peterson and the late Johnny Sain are others who advocate or advocated a lot of throwing.

It simple science, the only way to build up a muscle is by actually using it.

I do agree that kids don't need to be throwing anything but a two or four seem fastball until they hit high school...that's what happens when you have parents trying to act like they know a lot about pitching.

From someone who pitched a lot even briefly in college I can tell you 99% of the parents don't know the first thing about pitching.

And isn't it amazing that pitchers today are bigger, stronger, have better mechanics, better instruction and eat better then guys who smoked or drank or were simply small (think guys like Joe Horlen, Billy Pierce and Whitey Ford from a size standpoint) in the 50's and 60's yet can't come close to approaching the numbers those guys put up. Maybe it's because they don't throw enough.

Lip

wealz07
09-02-2007, 10:06 PM
Training methods for pitchers were not better 50 years ago. Pitchers hurt their arms back then, they just weren't diagnosed. Besides, there were only 16 teams back then. These pitchers that "didn't get hurt", I'd venture to wager were getting hurt in the minors.

FedEx227
09-03-2007, 09:11 AM
Fed Ex:

Jerry Koosman for example had something to say about pitching, learning your trade in the minor leagues and pitch counts in his interview with WSI, ditto for Jack McDowell, Jim Kaat and Gary Peters.

I tend to agree with Daver. Pitchers are babied and need to throw often to build up arm strength. The simple fact is they don't.

The Braves seemed to do very well for over a decade with Leo Mazzone's philosophy of constant throwing. Tommy John (as a manager/pitching coach), Rick Peterson and the late Johnny Sain are others who advocate or advocated a lot of throwing.

It simple science, the only way to build up a muscle is by actually using it.

I do agree that kids don't need to be throwing anything but a two or four seem fastball until they hit high school...that's what happens when you have parents trying to act like they know a lot about pitching.

From someone who pitched a lot even briefly in college I can tell you 99% of the parents don't know the first thing about pitching.

And isn't it amazing that pitchers today are bigger, stronger, have better mechanics, better instruction and eat better then guys who smoked or drank or were simply small (think guys like Joe Horlen, Billy Pierce and Whitey Ford from a size standpoint) in the 50's and 60's yet can't come close to approaching the numbers those guys put up. Maybe it's because they don't throw enough.

Lip

I totally agree with most of what you said. I've always respected what Atlanta has done with their pitches and like I said, I think at this level they are being babied quite a lot, when they should really be babied when they are 10-12 years old.

If you look at my post I'm not disagreeing with either you or Daver. In fact I even said 5-man rotations should be done in youth leagues, not in the majors.

I just think it's sad when you see 14 year old kids getting Tommy John surgery because they had to throw 70 consecutive sliders in a traveling team double header.

wassagstdu
09-03-2007, 09:43 AM
I seem to remember a game back in the late '50s when Billy Pierce started and pitched well into extra innings -- well into the teens. It was an amazing performance by Pierce, but if I remember correctly he was not the same after that, maybe ever. Anyone know the facts?

soxinem1
09-03-2007, 10:02 AM
Or maybe if Buehrle didn't suck? Maybe if we had a good bullpen? Some hitting in the second half? Javy pitched well to end the year last year, and has continued pitching well into this year. Since the end of last year, Javy has probably been our best pitcher. Actually, I know for a fact that he has been...Buehrle was crap to end last year, Contreras has been crap since July of last year, and Garland has been absolutely awful in the second half.

Those who were ripping his re-signing (as well as those who wanted him traded) are looking awfully dumb right now.

Vazquez has pitched well because the pressure is off. When the pressure is on, he folds. Sure he's pitched well, but the team has never been in it in 2007, just like the last half of last year when he folded.

Sure, stats say he had a better ERA in the second half of 2006, but with him, it's always been a case of 'blinking first'. In a tight game, he blinks first. If they didn't score a ton of runs for him pre-2006 ASB, he doesn't even get double-digit wins last year.

Vazquez a leader, what a joke...

Lip Man 1
09-03-2007, 11:37 AM
You might be thinking of these:

July 12, 1951 - Sox starter Saul Rogovin throws 16 innings against the Red Sox in the second game of a double header at Comiskey Park. He strikes out fourteen but Boston wins 5 - 4 in seventeen.

August 6, 1959 - The third and final marathon game of the 1959 season. The Sox battled the Orioles in Baltimore and played for 18 innings before curfew stopped the night game tied at one all. The game lasted only four hours. The most significant item to come out of it...the incredible performance by the Sox starter Billy Pierce. Pierce pitches sixteen innings! Let me repeat that...sixteen innings allowing one run on eleven hits.

August 13, 1954 - Sox pitcher Jack Harshman who holds the franchise mark for most strikeouts in a game, notches another milestone. On this date against the Tigers, Harshman pitches all 16 innings in the Sox 1 - 0 win at Comiskey Park. The Sox finally plate a run in the last of the 16th on a triple by "Minnie" Minoso.

Lip

FedEx227
09-03-2007, 03:48 PM
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l29/Bostnfn/PierceBilly.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/95/241573945_ca45b3f85f_o.jpg

Who's throwing delivery looks like it puts more pressure and torque on the elbow/arm?

There is more to the story then just babying. These guys are throwing MUCH faster then those before them and because of that are putting an extra amount of torque on their arms. Today's deliveries are down-right violent compared to the predecessors.

DoItForDanPasqua
09-03-2007, 04:15 PM
Sliders and curve balls since they were 9 years old. Pitching every other day while their arms are still growing. That's why I think when you get to the next level people are strict.

All these "old school" guys keep talking about Grover Cleveland Alexander going 98 innings in a row, blah blah, throwing 3 straight complete games on consecutive days, blah blah.

Great, he was throwing 70 mph, wasn't throwing curves, wasn't throwing sliders and wasn't being pressured by his dad and little league coaches to pitch every other day the entire summer for his little league teams and traveling teams.

It's the same reason guys are more prone to injuries these days, they've been overworked their entire careers, but at the wrong times. If anything 5-man rotations should be going on when these kids are 9-14 when their arms are still growing.

Plus, these teams have a lot more invested in pitchers these days. Multi-million dollar, multi-year contracts are risky, so they tend to baby them a bit.

But the only reason they are babied and the only reason they are a risk is because they have had so much work in their younger years. In my opinion, you can stick to your "these guys aren't the same" stuff, but honestly. Let's see Walter Johnson throw 90+ mph day in and day out in the live-ball era with an array of different pitches, necessary to get these great hitters out.

I'm sure you were just using Grover Cleveland Alexander as an example, but it was a bad one. Alexander had a masterful curveball that he used frequently. Are you under the impression that pitchers of the past lobbed the ball to the hitter? They had an array of pitches and could thrown quite hard.

Here's a video of Bob Feller throwing 98 mph as measured by army ballistic test equipment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMPxpOapRuU

Daver
09-03-2007, 04:53 PM
Who's throwing delivery looks like it puts more pressure and torque on the elbow/arm?

There is more to the story then just babying. These guys are throwing MUCH faster then those before them and because of that are putting an extra amount of torque on their arms. Today's deliveries are down-right violent compared to the predecessors.


You're kidding right?

FedEx227
09-03-2007, 04:59 PM
You're kidding right?

http://www.authenticsportscollectibles.com/store/images/frt-08PHGIB575-L.jpg
http://members.aol.com/voodookidd/Newhouser/1111_halpitch.jpg

or

http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/Baseball/Pitching/ThePitchingMechanic/Images/JoelZumaya_2006_002.jpg
http://www.raisport.rai.it/RaiSport/pub/static/81600/20050927MLBSanDiegoPadresJakePeavy.jpg

Daver
09-03-2007, 05:01 PM
I fail to see your point, and please stop leaching bandwidth.

FedEx227
09-03-2007, 05:09 PM
I fail to see your point, and please stop leaching bandwidth.

Your points are pretty valid as well. 1-line responses and the overwhelming amount of evidence you've shown to prove your point really validated it. You should probably add a couple of rolling eyes as well, around these parts they really show your side of the argument.

Oh and back at the earlier point in the argument... the guys at Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise conducted a study in 2002, here's some excerpts. But clearly these guys don't know a damn thing. Or should I say :rolleyes::rolleyes:

In this work, 426 pitchers aged 9 to 14 were followed for a year and questioned as to their throwing volume, pitch type, and their throwing mechanics were examined. Using throwing 200 or less pitches in a season as a reference, those players who threw 201-400, 401-600, 601-800, and 800+ pitches were at an increased risk of 63%, 181%, 234%, and 161% respectively. Considering the types of pitches thrown showed a smaller effect: throwing a slider was associated with an 86% increased chance of elbow injury while throwing a curve ball was associated with an increase in shoulder pain.

But what the hell do studies conducted by professionals in a medical journal mean. Old school baseball guys will tell you everything you need to know.

Daver
09-03-2007, 05:11 PM
Your points are pretty valid as well. 1-line responses and the overwhelming amount of evidence you've shown to prove your point really validated it. You should probably add a couple of rolling eyes as well, around these parts they really show your side of the argument.

Oh and back at the earlier point in the argument... the guys at Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise conducted a study in 2002, here's some excerpts. But clearly these guys don't know a damn thing. Or should I say :rolleyes::rolleyes:


But what the hell do studies conducted by professionals in a medical journal mean. Old school baseball guys will tell you everything you need to know.


Pitchers get hurt because they don't throw enough, throwing and pitching are two completely different things.

Brian26
09-03-2007, 05:18 PM
I fail to see your point, and please stop leaching bandwidth.

Neither do I. In fact, Bob Gibson was the first guy I thought of that would contradict his argument, yet he's using Gibson to defend his point. Very confusing. :?:

Brian26
09-03-2007, 05:22 PM
But what the hell do studies conducted by professionals in a medical journal mean. Old school baseball guys will tell you everything you need to know.


Do they acknowledge the inconsistency in their argument with the decrease by 80% with 800+ innings?

FedEx227
09-03-2007, 05:34 PM
Neither do I. In fact, Bob Gibson was the first guy I thought of that would contradict his argument, yet he's using Gibson to defend his point. Very confusing. :?:

You think this delivery: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ixTNIFlBJZQ

is more violent then this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=p6LSiNZCQMc

Zumaya much like Kerry "9 years ago" Wood will constantly be prone to injuries because the entire torque of their throw is on his elbow/shoulder not his legs. He's going tall-to-fall, while guys like Gibson and the later ones had it right using an amazingly large amount of their legs to get that speed. But wait, "pitchers get injured because they don't throw enough"

You're going to tell me the only reason Wood and Zumaya have had so many injuries is because they've haven't thrown enough in-between starts? Wood could have prevented his sprained UCL, his reconstructive right elbow surgery, his left oblique strain, his tricep strain and shoulder strain by throwing enough in-between starts?

Apparently I'm missing something?

Brian26
09-03-2007, 05:50 PM
All these "old school" guys keep talking about Grover Cleveland Alexander going 98 innings in a row, blah blah, throwing 3 straight complete games on consecutive days, blah blah.

Great, he was throwing 70 mph, wasn't throwing curves, wasn't throwing sliders .....Let's see Walter Johnson throw 90+ mph day in and day out in the live-ball era with an array of different pitches, necessary to get these great hitters out.


Zumaya much like Kerry "9 years ago" Wood will constantly be prone to injuries because the entire torque of their throw is on his elbow/shoulder not his legs. He's going tall-to-fall, while guys like Gibson and the later ones had it right using an amazingly large amount of their legs to get that speed. But wait, "pitchers get injured because they don't throw enough"

You're changing your argument in mid-stream.

Your original premise was that the older pitchers didn't throw as hard, so they weren't producing as much stress on their arm. You said that here:

There is more to the story then just babying. These guys are throwing MUCH faster then those before them and because of that are putting an extra amount of torque on their arms.

I mentioned how Gibson contradicts this logic because he was throwing super hard and was using an insane curveball, and now you're changing your argument that the current guys don't use their legs as much and have more violent landings. I'm having a hard time following your logic.

Daver
09-03-2007, 05:56 PM
Apparently I'm missing something?

Yes you are.

FedEx227
09-03-2007, 06:38 PM
You're changing your argument in mid-stream.

Your original premise was that the older pitchers didn't throw as hard, so they weren't producing as much stress on their arm. You said that here:

I mentioned how Gibson contradicts this logic because he was throwing super hard and was using an insane curveball, and now you're changing your argument that the current guys don't use their legs as much and have more violent landings. I'm having a hard time following your logic.

Not really. Basically what I've been saying from the beginning is two-things: for one guys all-around are not throwing as hard. It's true. I'm sorry I don't care if Bob Feller and Bob Gibson did, the majority of top-line pitchers these days with a few exceptions are expected to pitch 90+ mph. To me, that has to put more strain on the arm.

There HAS to be something said for the increase in speed and the increase of injuries. It's not a surprise that most of the guys throwing the top-tier speeds are the most prone to injuries.

Which I think steams alot from not only the velocity but the motion these guys are doing. Most of the top-speed guys these days have terrible, terrible deliveries. Ask any baseball expert and they'll tell you most of these guys (the Kerry Woods) have god awful mechanics. It's also not surprising that those that have these bad mechanics are also much more prone to injury. You look at BJ Ryan pitch and you wonder how his elbow hasn't fallen off, then you see that he's getting Tommy John. I certaintely don't think BJ Ryan's problem was not throwing enough, but rather how he was throwing.

I'll admit I did jump around a bit, but my premise stayed the same. Yes, I do think throwing more often non-mounted is a great idea and will help these pitchers. But they don't fix bad mechanics from the desire to throw hard. If you throw hard as a little leaguer or a high-schooler you're more likely to get picked up, drafted or looked at. Most team don't care if a guy throwing 83 MPH has a 1.89 ERA 50 K guy, instead they'd rather take a flier on the 92 MPH, 4.09 ERA but 100 K guy. This I think is causing more and more guys to throw with horrible mechanics to try and get velocity their velocity to the top.

So instead of calling me wrong with 3 word replies, tell me what I'm saying that's that horribly wrong?

Yes, I definitely agree to you that the constant babying of pitchers has caused guys to not go the distance as much as they did before. But the reason these coaches are doing the babying is because we have seen such a spike in injuries, it's not as if coaches one day just decided guys can't go CG anymore.

They have too much invested in these guys to risk injury and believe that an increased amount of pitching is going to cause these injuries. Do they? Studies have shown both sides, like Brian said these guys showed that with 800+ IP, injuries went down, but they also overwhelming rose in the other categories. Who knows?

But to completely dismiss the spike in overall, league-wide velocity and the influx of pitchers with terrible mechanics as risks to injury is stupid. There is more to injuries in baseball than throwing extra. Throwing extra helps tremendously with endurance, there's no doubt about that, but it doesn't prevent elbow ligament injuries or make the pitching motion any less un-natural.

Daver
09-03-2007, 06:49 PM
A delivery can look downright awful, and still be mechanically sound.

Teaching young pitchers how to pitch should always start with mechanics, combined with good work habits and sound practice regimens, you can list all the failures you want, but unless you know the details behind the failures, you are stating worthless facts. You have chosen to use as one of your examples a pitcher that has no mechanics, just the ability to throw hard.

Velocity is not the key to being a successful pitcher, it never has been. Velocity is a tool used by those that know how to pitch.

RCWHITESOX
09-07-2007, 12:44 PM
Or maybe if Buehrle didn't suck? Maybe if we had a good bullpen? Some hitting in the second half? Javy pitched well to end the year last year, and has continued pitching well into this year. Since the end of last year, Javy has probably been our best pitcher. Actually, I know for a fact that he has been...Buehrle was crap to end last year, Contreras has been crap since July of last year, and Garland has been absolutely awful in the second half.

Those who were ripping his re-signing (as well as those who wanted him traded) are looking awfully dumb right now.

Hey I think we almost agree on Jon Garland. Trade him in the off season and get help.

Daver
09-07-2007, 06:10 PM
Hey I think we almost agree on Jon Garland. Trade him in the off season and get help.

Get help for what, the rotation?

Trading Garland creates a hole in the rotation that a team that wants to win can't fill within with a proven pitcher.

Trade Garland if you are going to bite the bullet and rebuild, and if that is the case trade all of the veterans, including Beuhrle.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-08-2007, 08:46 AM
There is room in every championship pitching rotation for one talented rockhead. That's what Jon Garland has taught me.
:wink:

Garland (usually) pitches well when the games matter. He hasn't pitched in such a game in over 2 months. He gets a pass from me for anything stupid he says (or does) during garbage time.

Winning cures all... even rockheadedness.
:cool:

voodoochile
09-08-2007, 08:48 AM
Get help for what, the rotation?

Trading Garland creates a hole in the rotation that a team that wants to win can't fill within with a proven pitcher.

Trade Garland if you are going to bite the bullet and rebuild, and if that is the case trade all of the veterans, including Beuhrle.

ding ding ding...

Trading Garland means the Sox will have to rely on Contreras, Danks and Floyd in next year's rotation (barring a FA signing) and that's a lot of struggling/young arms to rely on for a team that is supposedly in reloading mode.

soxwon
09-12-2007, 08:53 PM
vazquez has been reliable now for a few years now.

TDog
09-13-2007, 12:10 AM
ding ding ding...

Trading Garland means the Sox will have to rely on Contreras, Danks and Floyd in next year's rotation (barring a FA signing) and that's a lot of struggling/young arms to rely on for a team that is supposedly in reloading mode.

Honestly, this point should be so obvious that it amazes me so many people seem to believe Garland must be traded.