Innings Pitched
by Black Francis on Nov 16, 2008 1:06 PM CST
20 comments
The starters have to pitch some innings. I've looked at every playoff team for the last two years and their top three pitchers in terms of workload.
2008 AL:
TAM:: 596
BOS: 565.7
CHW: 633.3
CAL: 613.7
2008 NL:
PHI: 613.7
CHC: 600
MIL: 561
LAD: 595
2008 AVERAGE: 597.3
2007 AL:
BOS: 594.3
NYY: 566.7
CLE: 648.3
CAL: 580.7
2007 NL:
PHI: 544.3
CHC: 618.3
ARI: 633.3
COL: 547
2007 AVERAGE: 591.7
In comparison, your Texas Rangers top three pitchers:
2008: 491
2007: 429
The point is pretty obvious, isn't it? I don't think one out of those sixteen playoff teams failed to have at least one pitcher throw more than 200 innings. Many had two. In any event, their top threes beat the Rangers top threes all to hell. Millwood, TEX's IP leader for both years would've have made the third pitcher on I believe only one of those teams.
0 recs |
20 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Health
Without looking it up, I would bet that a vast majority of playoff teams over the last several years have not been in the league leaders for time lost to injury. Better health means fewer spares and rookies stepping into the rotation and better performance from the guys already in it. That would go a long way towards a better rotation, more innings from starters, and a rested and effective bullpen.
And before someone posts “who cares if they’re healthy, they suck!” remember that even incremental improvements among the top 5 starters have implications for the rest of the pitching staff. Very, very rough and loose math done in my head suggests that cutting just a quarter of a point off team ERA might net around 4 wins. I think just being healthy could mean that much. I’d like to see it happen if for no other reason than we’d feel a lot more confident in evaluating talent that wasn’t pitching hurt.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 16, 2008 1:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Point Taken
Look at the Rangers going even farther back. You’ll see more of the same. Why? They don’t pitchers who can get deep into games, whether healthy or not. Playoff teams have guys who tend to stay healthy, and in the event something happens they have a little depth.
In general, though, if you look at the 16 teams above they don’t have injury problems. Why is that?
by Black Francis on Nov 16, 2008 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
...they don’t have injury problems. Why is that?
That is precisely why the club is changing things dramatically, IMO. Connor gone, Vasquez having a more prominent role, and of course the NR edict…I think those point to the fact that the club has come to the same conclusion you have.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
by Rodney on Nov 16, 2008 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Vasquez?
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Nov 16, 2008 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Woops, this guy:
Conditioning coach Jose Vazquez.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
by Rodney on Nov 16, 2008 1:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
gotcha, I guess his name isn’t one that I’ve ever had a reason to know before.
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Nov 16, 2008 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why don't playoff teams have injury problems?
Because a rash of injuries would have prevented them from making the playoffs, that’s why. People don’t like to acknowledge the role that bad luck has. If you make a list of the most disappointing teams over a period of several years, two types of teams will populate that list: 1) teams that were lucky the previous season and came back to earth and “surprised” everyone. 2) teams that could have been contenders but were derailed by several injuries that depleted their depth.
The Rangers probably wouldn’t have been contenders anyway in the last couple of years, but I really think that bad luck has played a bigger part in their recent injury history than anything else.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 17, 2008 7:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Luck
You’ll see in the list of teams above that a good many of them are there or near there every single year. Are they just lucky that their players don’t get injured? I’d argue that no, they’re not. They acquire players who stay healthy and they do a better job at keeping people healthy. And they also have more depth for when something does happen.
The Rangers may be getting there, but I’ll believe it when I see it. How many times in the since 1999 have they had two pitchers combine for 380 innings? Is that luck? Is it just unlucky that they signed a guy and let him turn into a fatass?
I can’t give them a pass on this one.
by Black Francis on Nov 17, 2008 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Talent and depth
have a lot more to do with them staying there than avoiding injuries. Teams that are deficient in talent have to sign players that are either less talented or more risky like Bradley and Jason Jennings.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 17, 2008 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
When we keep seeing things happen over and over again, odds are it isn’t luck.
As tball says right above – depth of talent in ones organization makes your team less susceptible to luck. But that only serves to confirm your point – you don’t notice injury problems on those teams because they have more than the bare minimum of 3 starters who can pitch deep routinely. They have 5, maybe 6. When one or two inevitably go down, the other guys keep going. The Rangers should be working on getting 5 guys who can pitch 200 innings – not “oh, we have 3 – we can fill out the rest of our rotation with journeymen and rookies”.
by JBImaknee on Nov 17, 2008 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
I think everyone’s on the same page, pretty much. The Rangers just need to get guys who can handle a workload and save the bullpen. The starting pitchers don’t even have to be great. Just a couple who are better than mediocre.
Until they have that, they’re not going anywhere. Is there hope of getting it from the staff next year? I don’t think so.
by Black Francis on Nov 17, 2008 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
for this organization
200 ip of mediocrity would be a step in the right direction.
In memory of Ulysses Simpson Grant Stoner. RIP Lil Stoner.
by tricer on Nov 17, 2008 9:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have thought for several seasons
that if the Rangers had 3 starters give them 200 innings each, that would be good enough for our offense to at least make things interesting in late summer.
It’s just that the Rangers haven’t developed a 200 ip pitcher that I can remember. So, Nolan’s new program with an emphasis on durability sounds good to me.
I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.
by tricer on Nov 16, 2008 1:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I often think this
Ideally your top three starters should start around 100 games and be able to average 6 innings a start. These aren’t unreasonable hopes
The problem when they don’t do this is not just that you are missing good innings from your pitchers. Its that those innings are replaced by the worst pitchers on your club (emergency starters, long relievers, etc).
by JBImaknee on Nov 16, 2008 1:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
And my question is, just because Maddux has arrived should we suddenly expect Millwood, Padilla, and another guy to combine for nearly 600 innings? 550?
I’ve just seen where people are saying they expect improvement from this team next year, and we may, but it’s not going to be anything near playoff-caliber until the starting pitching hits those marks. They don’t even have to have great ERA’s. The bullpen is a mess to begin with, and if you overwork them it’s going to be another God-awful staff. You’re not going anywhere with that. Not even to .500, no matter how good the offense is.
by Black Francis on Nov 16, 2008 2:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It shouldn't be out of the question
Padilla and Millwood have done it before. If Maddux, Nolan, and the conditioning program get them physically and mentally prepared for the season, you know they can give you some solid results for 2009 and make those 33+starts and 200 IP. Feldman is an interesting name to consider for this too.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 16, 2008 5:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to believe that
Unfortunately I will just have to wait until I see it.
by Black Francis on Nov 16, 2008 5:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
