Bruce Jenkins on the Rangers, Mike Krukow, and pitch counts
Bruce Jenkins has a column up that has a couple of items of note...
First, on the Rangers and Vicente Padilla:
The Texas Rangers have to get Vicente Padilla out of their rotation before he ruins a promising season. This is an exciting, first-place team, but there was Padilla (3-3, 5.57) in his usual head-hunting fury against the Yankees last night, hitting Mark Teixeira twice and generally stinking up the place. Padilla draws no respect from the opposition, he hurts his own team, and with Josh Hamilton (sports hernia) possibly out for a period of months, the team needs to pull together -- without hotheads . . .
So if Josh Hamilton were healthy, we could live with Padilla, but without Hamilton, the Rangers needs to not have "hotheads"?
And then there's the latest screed against pitch counts, with Jenkins boot-strapping on the comments of Mike Krukow:
Mike Krukow had some scathing, spot-on comments about pitch counts yesterday on the Gary Radnich show. Krukow plays it close to the vest during telecasts, honoring the game's trend toward caution and protecting young arms, but he revealed his true feelings with Radnich, ridiculing the notion of effective pitchers being replaced after 100-odd pitches and calling it "the stupidest thing I've ever seen."
As if on cue, there was a scene at Dodger Stadium last night that showed exactly what Krukow was talking about.
The Arizona Diamondbacks are really struggling right now. They'd like to think they're a lot better than their record shows, and there's no better place to make a statement than L.A., where the Dodgers are threatening to run away with the division. Dan Haren, last night's starter, is pitching as well as anyone in the game. Through seven innings, he was working on a masterful two-hitter and had a 5-1 lead.
If manager A.J. Hinch had been watching the game, instead of monitoring Haren's pitch count (110), he would have left him in the game for a dominant, influential victory. But no, 110 means curtains in today's game. Haren's gone. Off to the clubhouse before he even sniffed a crisis. The move might have been explainable if the Diamondbacks had a decent bullpen, but they've been a joke in that department most of the season. Sure enough, Tony Pena started the eighth, the revitalized Dodgers mounted a rally, and by the time Pena and rookie Daniel Schlereth finished making a mess of things, the Dodgers had a 6-5 victory.
As Krukow told Radnich, the way you become a winning pitcher is by finishing a game, working your way through a batting order three or four times. Anyone can win the first couple of matchups, but once you've figured out how to out-perform that guy every time, especially when it counts, you're a better pitcher and a better man. Krukow said he routinely had 150-pitch games during his career, clearing 190 a couple of times in college, and that if you decide to stick with a pitcher who has it all going, after 110-120 pitches, "It's not going to hurt him, OK?" said Krukow. "It's just not."
The worst of it is, Hinch probably won't even think twice about his decision. He and a thousand other managers will take the paranoia route every time. That's how you lose games, respect and any chance of making an impression in this division.
One of the commenters points out the flaw in Krukow's argument:
What's ironic is that Krukow was never good enough to pitch deep into games. Go right now Bruce and check his game logs: you'll see strings of games where he only pitched 4 to 6 innings with an occasional 8 or 9 inning outing - year after year, save for one - the season he won 20 games. And that season of exceptionally high workload marks his last year of being an effective starter. He was never the same again, and was soon done as a player.
Krukow wasn't a very good pitcher -- he was a low-K, middling walk guy. If you apply tangotiger's pitch count estimator to his lines during his heyday, it doesn't appear he was ever going more than 110-120 pitches.
And Hinch, of course, is a front office nerd who was hired by another front office nerd to replace a real baseball man, which means that Jenkins and his ilk aren't going to cut him any slack anyway.
In any case, it is worth noting that we have pitch counts for the final two years of Krukow's career, covering a span of 28 starts. He threw more than 100 pitches four times in those 28 starts, with only one game involving a pitch count higher than 108 -- a June 25, 1988, outing in which he threw 123 pitches, his last start before a stint on the d.l. that sidelined him until mid-August.
0 recs |
40 comments
|
Comments
Yawn
The key isn’t being able to pitch 190 pitches in a game so you can get through the lineup 4 times. The key is being efficient with your pitches so you can get through the lineup 3 and maybe 4 times in less than 120 pitches.
Why people don’t stress that the flip side of pitch counts is pitch efficiency. Any pitcher pitching well can get through 7 or 8 innings in under 120 pitches. If you stress efficiency (which I think the Rangers have been doing, but not been as vocal about), you go deeper in games.
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Jun 4, 2009 9:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The whole Pitch count and Nolan Ryan
meme beats me to a pulp.
Pitcher games over 115 Pitches
Millwood 4
McCarthy 2
That’s it. 6 games of over 115 pitches.
I think the biggest thing thats happening is the defensive improvement is allowing pitchers to pitch much deeper in games on the same number or less pitches. Its easy to burn your pitcher out in the 5 inning if you are making him get 4 or 5 outs an inning, because a ball 3 feet from your SS is a single.
If pitchers are pitching more than last year, its on the 5-10 pitch level.
"Guillermo Moscoso despite his stunning game yesterday, is not a legit prospect. He is simply too old, too skinny, too weak, and lacks the fastball to make it at the professional level. ." - crops.mlblogs.com
by DJCahill on Jun 4, 2009 9:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
x
I think the biggest thing thats happening is the defensive improvement is allowing pitchers to pitch much deeper in games on the same number or less pitches. Its easy to burn your pitcher out in the 5 inning if you are making him get 4 or 5 outs an inning, because a ball 3 feet from your SS is a single.
Bingo. I’ve been looking at Millwood’s tRA numbers and it’s incredible how similar they are to the past few seasons. You look at his traditional numbers and it looks like he’s found the fountain of youth. Much like the 2008 Rays, the defense is the main reason we’ve turned a corner.
I had a paper route when I was a kid. I was supposed to go to 2,000 houses. Or two dumpsters.
by TheBZA on Jun 4, 2009 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone DOES seem to misunderstand the point of Nolan's "edict"
He didn’t just say we’re going to make you throw more pitches, he said we want you to work deeper into games. Quit nibbling, throw strikes, get outs, and … ouila!!! you’re now blowing past the 6th inning with more regularity.
I agree that the improved defense is laregly due the credit for the improved record, but the fact that the pen is not getting trotted out there for 3-4 innings nightly is just as important.
Keep you worst pitchers out of winnable games.
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Jun 4, 2009 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the improved defense
is not only responsible for the improved record, but this years defense can get you an extra innings worth of outs which lets you pitch an extra inning. Last year, there were a lot of balls hit the same as this years that became singles.
I think if we went back to last years defense, we’d see a lot of pitchers done in the 4th and 5th innings again.
I don’t think pitchers pitching deeper into games has a whole lot to do with the pitchers.
"Guillermo Moscoso despite his stunning game yesterday, is not a legit prospect. He is simply too old, too skinny, too weak, and lacks the fastball to make it at the professional level. ." - crops.mlblogs.com
by DJCahill on Jun 4, 2009 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
pitchers
The numbers show that the Ranger pitchers are throwing more pitches per start and going deeper into games. Not only is it due to the defense but also the pitchers’ fitness and desire to pitch that extra inning.
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
Mitch Moreland - 2009 Rangers Minor League POY
by RangerMad on Jun 4, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year's defense
was the exact opposite of this year’s. While this year’s defense makes outs on what would usually be a hit, last year’s would allow a hit on what should usually be an out.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Jun 4, 2009 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait...what?
So let me get this straight….a guy can only criticize something if he has done it himself…a lot? The whole point that a pitcher wasn’t very good and didn’t pitch over 100 pitches more than a few times so he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, is extremely weak.
Tell me why his point is wrong not that he wasn’t a good pitcher. To say the “flaw” in his argument is that he didn’t pitch well is, well, stupid. I’d like to hear why pitch count is so important…not how bad a guy was at pitching.
I don’t know a ton about why teams use pitch counts now so much more than they used to, but it seems to me that if somebody is being effective at 110 pitches, you leave them in.
by Big50 on Jun 4, 2009 10:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
x
So let me get this straight….a guy can only criticize something if he has done it himself…a lot? The whole point that a pitcher wasn’t very good and didn’t pitch over 100 pitches more than a few times so he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, is extremely weak.
Tell me why his point is wrong not that he wasn’t a good pitcher. To say the "flaw" in his argument is that he didn’t pitch well is, well, stupid. I’d like to hear why pitch count is so important…not how bad a guy was at pitching.
Here’s what I’m criticizing:
Krukow said he routinely had 150-pitch games during his career, clearing 190 a couple of times in college,
I don’t know what he did in college, but in the majors, it certainly doesn’t look like he routinely had 150 pitch games in his career.
by Adam J. Morris on Jun 4, 2009 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The flaw in his argument is in claiming that he had high pitch counts all the time..
and that it didn’t hurt him, when the record seems to suggest that (a) he didn’t HAVE high pitch counts, and (b) when he did, it ended up hurting him.
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Jun 4, 2009 10:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
(b) when he did, it ended up hurting him.
So does that mean that he’s wrong about pitch counts? I tend to think that if somebody’s being effective you leave them in….will that ruin their career?
by Big50 on Jun 4, 2009 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For how long?
If Derek Holland is at 140 pitches after 8 innings in a 1-1 game, and struck out the side in the 8th, do you leave him in?
by Adam J. Morris on Jun 4, 2009 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure, but...
Why wouldn’t you? Obviously there’s a stud closer that we can use, but why not let him get the complete game?
by Big50 on Jun 4, 2009 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because...
…it isn’t a good idea for 22 year old pitchers to be throwing 140+ pitches in a game.
by Adam J. Morris on Jun 4, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand that's the school of thought
But why? Why is that? Back in the day guys were throwing every 4 days and throwing 200 compete games in a career.
by Big50 on Jun 4, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Back in the day
There wasn’t a DH, and most catchers and middle infielders couldn’t hit worth a lick. Pitchers could get away with not throwing their best stuff, or not throwing at max effort. They can’t do that today.
"I dont care to debate with a troll." - Sharky
by RCCook on Jun 4, 2009 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wish we had ANY sort of pitchFx data for those decades...
My gut feel is that the percentage of “junk” pitches was much higher than it is now. No way, given the advances in training and nutrition, that today’s arms are less capable of high counts than 50 years ago, unless the mix of pitches has changed dramatically.
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Jun 4, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is the oppositon from
one of Nolan Ryan’s complete games from “Back in the Day”.
I chose 1973 because it was his highest K year, and I found a 9 inning game he pitched against Texas and won 3-2.
Here was the BA/OBP/SLG of the opposition
DNelson 2B .286/.325/.378 OPS .703
VHarris CF .249/.317/.342 OPS .659
J Spencer 1B .267/.332/.352 OPS .684
A Johnson DH .287/.322/.377 OPS .699
B Sudakis 3B .255/.320/.494 OPS .816
J Burroughs LF .279/.355/.487 OPS.842
L Biitner RF .252/.307/..310 OPS .617
D Billings C .179/.237/.250 OPS .487
J Mason SS .206/.273/.290 OPS .563
"Guillermo Moscoso despite his stunning game yesterday, is not a legit prospect. He is simply too old, too skinny, too weak, and lacks the fastball to make it at the professional level. ." - crops.mlblogs.com
by DJCahill on Jun 4, 2009 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that the worst team in MLB? Also, I don’t know what the teams quality has to do with it. Aren’t we talking about pitch counts? A bad team can still make you throw 150 pitches…right?
by Big50 on Jun 4, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A bad team
means you don’t have to throw your best pitches. You can pretty much just throw fastballs around the strike zone, and not mess with hard curves or sliders.
"Guillermo Moscoso despite his stunning game yesterday, is not a legit prospect. He is simply too old, too skinny, too weak, and lacks the fastball to make it at the professional level. ." - crops.mlblogs.com
by DJCahill on Jun 4, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In terms of OPS
the Angels were worse than the Rangers.
The best team in the AL, Boston, had a team OPS of 738. League average was 710
"Guillermo Moscoso despite his stunning game yesterday, is not a legit prospect. He is simply too old, too skinny, too weak, and lacks the fastball to make it at the professional level. ." - crops.mlblogs.com
by DJCahill on Jun 4, 2009 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the whole max effort thing
is such a myth. it’s so much easier pitching to aggressive high-strikeout power hitters than patient contact hitters.
Man, I love winning! You know? It's like better than losing!
by SteveP on Jun 4, 2009 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because it is a great way to trash their arms
by Adam J. Morris on Jun 4, 2009 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahhh
Well…ok. Thanks for the breakdown.…I was going to an ass, but I decided against it. I understand that. Here’s what I’m wondering, why could Nolan Ryan and many other pitchers in that era pitch so much more (They had DH’s then)? Is it because they conditioned them selves to do that? Why can’t we do that with young pitchers now?
If you’re point is that they’re not conditioned that way so we shouldn’t just put them in that situation without conditioning because of the “trashing” problem, I can get behind that.
by Big50 on Jun 4, 2009 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure there were that many others..
Given the number of yearsbaseball has been around (modern era), if I grant you that 100 pitchers meet that criteria of both longevity and durability, is the number of success stories all that high? Especially compared to the number of guys who only pitched 2-3 years and then spent their golden years with their arm hanging funny??
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Jun 4, 2009 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because
they were up against dogshit hitters.
View my OPS breakdown of a team he faced in 73 up above.
"Guillermo Moscoso despite his stunning game yesterday, is not a legit prospect. He is simply too old, too skinny, too weak, and lacks the fastball to make it at the professional level. ." - crops.mlblogs.com
by DJCahill on Jun 4, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
using nolan ryan as an example of someone who threw deep into games
and long into his career is kind of dumb,
remind me how many pitchers threw for 27 years in the history of baseball?
the guy made 25+ starts in 21 of 22 years in a ROW (excluding his last year) how many guys have done that before?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
-
Scout to KG: On Sandoval: "Man, that fat [expletive]-er can hit."
by knockoutking on Jun 4, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nolan Ryan was a freak
Go look at the careers of guys like Larry Dierker. Or Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale, who had their careers cut short due to arm injuries. Look at Bill Singer. Or Frank Tanana. Or Catfish Hunter.
Look at the A’s pitchers from 1980, who logged a ton of innings and then were never the same.
Look at Generation K with the Mets, more recently.
Everyone remembers the outliers, like Ryan, but forget about the guys who didn’t make it that long.
Also, it was a much lower strikeout, lower walk era back then. More balls in play means fewer pitches. In 1973, Nolan Ryan struck out more than 10 guys per 9, but only 3 other A.L. pitchers struck out as many as 7 per 9, and no one struck out 7.5 per 9 other than Ryan in the A.L.
In the A.L. this year, 8.0 Ks per 9 wouldn’t crack the top 10.
by Adam J. Morris on Jun 4, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok...I'm with you on that
So…you’re saying that unless the pitcher is a freak of nature, if they pitch 150+ all the time they’ll only be good for a handful of years?
If that’s what the numbers say, then I’ll agree with you.
by Big50 on Jun 4, 2009 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
right
pitch counts have really limited pitching injuries.
Man, I love winning! You know? It's like better than losing!
by SteveP on Jun 4, 2009 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
They’ve delayed them, theoretically. It gets the teams and players more bang for the buck before a career ends. Financially, it’s hard to argue with.
Injuries are a biomechanics issue. The healthier your mechanics are, the more pitches you can throw.
by NoNameOnCard on Jun 4, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
b/c they were trained to do so.
Man, I love winning! You know? It's like better than losing!
by SteveP on Jun 4, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's more of a selection bias.
The ones who could do it, did it. The ones who couldn’t were out of baseball.
Even some of the ones that could do it, didn’t do it for very long because their arms fell apart.
No amount of conditioning is going to save your labrum or UCL.
by NoNameOnCard on Jun 4, 2009 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think to an extent
when your paying a guy 100+ million over 4 or 5 years you should protect that investment personally. and if that means taking them out after 100 or 110 pitches, then so be it
would you rather have a guy for 100 pitches every 5 days for 3 years or a guy throw 150 pitches for 2/3rd of a season, then undergo TJ and come back maybe a year layer?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
-
Scout to KG: On Sandoval: "Man, that fat [expletive]-er can hit."
by knockoutking on Jun 4, 2009 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
good Sabernerd vs. Baseballman story..
…thanks for the vigilance AJM.
by jcAustin on Jun 4, 2009 10:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
"...you're a better pitcher and a better man."
I miss FJM.
www.mavsmoneyball.com
by Wes Cox on Jun 4, 2009 10:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 





















