ptatc

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 09:44 AM) And all but two happened in the 1940's or earlier. Everyone is satisfied with 1985, though. Perhaps they're more like the Pittsburgh Pirates or the San Francisco Giants (before this year) of the NFL. My point remains. They've hardly done anything in over 50 years. your point was they've have never done anything to earn a reputation has a "historically" good team and are just like the Cubs where they've never done anything to earn that reputation. Your point is still wrong. They have earned the title as won of the best franchises in the NFL, historically. If you want to qualify and say modern era or Super Bowl era, you have a small point, as they've won only one Super Bowl. However, the Cubs haven't even done that.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 09:26 AM) My point is that they have an historic reputation as a storied franchise despite not having much to show for it. And I disagree that they don't have much to show for it. They have more NFL championships than all but a couple of teams. They were a long time ago but they historically are one of the best teams in the NFL as far as the number of championship is concerned.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 23, 2011 -> 11:47 PM) Very true, and as much as a lot of us are pissed at Cutler, the MRI this week is important because a torn ACL could really hurt next year also. If this is the case they better fire the Tim Bream and the Northwestern physicians. They sure didn't care of him like he had an ACL tear or any other significant injury.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 09:08 AM) The thing I hate about being a Bears fan is that they're basically the Cubs of the NFL. A "storied" franchise with just one Super Bowl to their name, the last one being over a quarter century ago. Where the Cubs are "loveable," the Bears are "tough." That is a poor comparison. The Cubs have one WS title in their history. The Bears have won multiple championships albeit in the 40's and before. At least the Bears earned their reputation at one point in their history. The Cubs never did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) Here's my problem though...how is he calibrating his model? If he knows a bare minimum about statistics, which something tells me he does...he should know that there's going to be an average drop in performance from AAA to the bigs, with populations at the average, and others towards the extremes, probably looking something like a bell curve. If he's historically constantly overestimating the average performance of a rookie, that means that he doesn't know how to calculate an average. If I had 25 years of data and a day or two, this is something I could figure out easily. If his model consistently overestimates people, then why is he even publishing it? I'm sure you've read all of James' material as I have. He creates many of his stats and projections on what he feels are the important variables, not necessarily what anyone else thinks are important. There is alot of subjectivity to it. In this type of projection he look at Morel's projected tools and thinks that his contact rate makes him a better candidate to succeed at the next level than others (that is just an example, I have no idea if it's true). He has all of the data from the minors and could easily just take the average decrease as you say but he uses alot of subjective information to create his models. this is why you see the variability in the projection and probably an overestimation. As with many here he likes to study the minor leagues and likes to be overly optimistic on the unknowns because it's more fun to project what someone could be not just study who they are once they get to the majors. That's how he sells books.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 08:11 PM) No one really knows what the recovery time or effect on Peavy this injury will have because it is unique. There is nothing to base it on. I've never heard of a pitcher with the same problem. We have to be happy nothing was torn, just detached, not that that seems minor. Throwing off a mound with almost 3 months until the season starts is highly encouraging. He was really starting to pitch well when he went down last season. He's a gigantic question mark. He may be ready to pitch opening day, he may not. He may be able to give you 50 innings or maybe 210. He may be horrible or he may contend for a Cy Young. Anyone who claims they really know how this is going to play out is full of it. Who knows what happens. Maybe his stuff isn't what it was, maybe its the same or better, because maybe this has actually been an issue for longer than we can imagine. Maybe he'll never have a problem with it again, or maybe it detaches again after a month or two. We just have to hope he's somewhere near the pitcher we belived KW traded for. I haven't seen a pitcher with this injury either. Howevewr, I have worked with other types of overhead athletes, javelin and discus throwers. Once they returned to competition, they had no further difficulties. Tendon reattchments here and elsewhere in the body tend to be stronger than before due to the length of time of the internal fixation. So I think that once he returns to competition the lat will be fine. They will just want to watch him to make sure he doesn't alter his mechanics and injury something else.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 07:13 PM) How can you say that so definitely? Because of a couple of reports from Cooper saying Jake is 'ahead of schedule' and 'on track'? Used to hear that all the time with Wood and Prior. Not saying Peavy is at that level of injury risk yet. But he's getting there. Just hope for the best but expect something in the middle is my philosophy. You can never say definitely but generally when someone is coming off of surgery and progressing well the only thing that holds them back is a separate injury. In the case of Wood and Prior, most of the time they were coming off an injury that they were resting and doing rehab not surgeries. The resting and rehab stints are different because your trying to get something to heal and set backs are more common. coming off surgery the problem has been corrcted he had months to heal and is wroking on strengthening so the timeline is more concrete. All that being said this is a unique injury for a pitcher so you can use general timelines for strengthening but no one really knows for sure how long it will take for the strength to fully return. I'm stciking by my prediction of no more than a few weeks into the season and most likely he will be ready for the season. But that's just an educated guess based on rehab of other athletes with the same problem. I still think the greater concern will be is if he can be effective with not dropping down as much because I'm pretty sure they aren't going to let him do it, especially early on.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 10:11 PM) Well I recall internal and external rotation both were very bad. The basic test they did on all athletes was to have you try to clasp your hands behind your back, one reaching from above one from below. I still can hardly reach my throwing hand above my waist from that below position for that test. Those tests are basic tests for internal and external rotation. The one by the waist is for internal rotation. This is not uncommon for pitchers. Your best bet is to continue to do that type of stretch to improve the range. Again no one has tied to specific injury. But some think it may lead to stretching out the capsule and creating a "loose" shoulder.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 08:32 PM) The trainers here at college have found that I have really poor flexibility in both shoulders and especially my throwing arm vs my non-throwing. They were really concerned but never acted on it (probably forgot). What kind of ramification do you think this has? It's very common to have less flexibility in internal rotation from one shoulder to the other. Some researchers have speculated as to reasons why. It depends on what motions are tight as to what some of the ramifications may be. Do you remember which motions they were discussing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:51 PM) Wait, so there is actually a Dr. House? Tom House is a pitching coach and baseball coach. I don't believe he has a doctoare. But like Don Cooper he may have an honorary one. (and yes I know you were joking)

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 04:40 PM) O'Leary points out a commonality in Prior and others' motions that he believes led them to injury, you may want to check that out. Basically, when the elbow is higher than the shoulder before acceleration begins, the instance of injury seems much higher (I say seems because he hasn't done an empirical study, just looking at patterns). It has been noted that Prior has changed this in his latest comeback attempt, which is in progress. Guys like Clemens and Maddux didn't have this particular trait and of course have had long careers. Once again, it is hard to say whether that their durability is because of that or something else or pure luck. I was never a big fan of the towel drill either, I rarely do it because normally the towel becomes distracting and you tend to cheat just to succeed in the drill. I like several of his drills, but I don't do the towel drill nor do I throw a football. My arm angle is too low for the football drill to make as much sense. His focus with me was getting momentum towards home/stride length maximized and maximizing hip/shoulder separation. Be careful with letting your stride length get too long . This is one reason some pitcher's elbow gets too high. They get off balance and attempt to compensate. I would agree with the point about the elbow height. This will cause an impingement of the rotator cuff in the shoulder. There really is no one perfect model for mechanics. Some pitcher can get away with what many people would say were awful mechanics and never have a problem. It's only when problems occur that they need to be addressed. This applies to prfessionals after they,ve been pitching awhile. yooung pitcher's just need to work on repeating a delivery which is what the article that started this post talked about.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 10:45 AM) Mike Marshall is a strange bird and it's hard for the layman to understand his reasoning at times because he refuses to present his reasoning in a way that is easy to understand. You'll see O'Leary started changing his mind about Marshall: Linky I've worked with Tom House instructors and briefly House himself all my life and generally agree with their principles. Prior became the poster boy and of course that hurts House's credibility, but the pitcher that truly embodies the House method is Nolan Ryan, and of course that is a much better track record. What I appreciate most about House is that he bases his mechanical philosophy off of scientific study of proven pitchers, and his "ideal motion" is thus fluid as more technology becomes available. Many pitchers that have never been associated with House have motions that would almost completely satisfy him as well, interestingly enough. The Rocket would be one instance that comes to mind, and even Maddux. Surely there is more than one way to skin this cat, and of course genetics/work ethic/other variables can cause one instructor to look better or worse than he really is. I'm not particularly a fan of House and his methods. Prior was one example and so is Strasburg. Larry Rothschild is also a big proponent of Houses's method from their time together here in Homewood. While all pitching mechanics are debatable, the thing I don't like about it is that he based most of it on working with Nolan Ryan and a few others. It really wasn't a scientific study as much as just seeing what made some successful. A prime example is teaching to throw the curve. House like the football toss as a way to teach it as it teaches you to ulnarly deviate or move the wrist toward the little finger. It makes for a great curve however it puts a great deal of stress on the elbow as this is where the muscles for this action originate. I also think the towel drill which he teaches creates too much extension and leaves the shoulder in a poor mechanical advantage. I prefer a biomechanical model to distribute the forces throughout the body. I have a good general article on mechanics based on this approach but it's too big to attach here as it contains a number of pictures during the pitching motion.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 08:36 AM) It makes them 'slightly' better. But I mean, c'mon. One, you've got the injury history. And Soriano has never produced three good seasons in a row. Two, you lose two draft picks in which the upcoming draft is believed to be loaded for a guy you might get 150-175 innings out of over the life of the deal. And you can have a bullpen with multiple Mariano's. Starting pitching will always take precedent over relief pitchers. It's not even really close. And other than Sabathia, they're going to have troubles getting to the 'pen with leads consistently with that rotation. I don't think people realize how bad Burnett was last year and how Hughes really fell off a cliff the second half. This is absolutely true. The Yankees were stuck though because every starter they tried to get didn't work out. This deal was the best thing they could currently do to imporve the pitchining staff and win games.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 10:53 PM) ptatc, have you heard much about Mike Marshall's pitching techniques? Do you think that they are valid options to combat arm/shoulder injury? http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/baseba...hanics_001.html Yes, I'm familiar with Marshall's approach. I'm not totally aginst it but I don't like the way he has them lock the front knee. It really stops the monmentum and you lose alot of kinetic energy. It does put more stress on the legs and spine which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I haven't worked with anyone who has used it so I have no direct knowledge of injuries or lack thereof. Like with any pitching model there are just a few things that make me hesitant. I prefer the kinematic pitching model which just takes into account each joint or segment and tries to minimize the forces in all of them. There are a few good articles which describe it and although it's somewhat mainstream I think it's still the best approach.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:46 PM) I didn't read all the way through since much of it is way over my head. But why measure in innings? That seems so imprecise, why not have a pitch count? You could do it either way. Since it was done with collegiate pitchers (where most are starters and relievers) they did simulated games to be as close to real pitching as possible.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 04:17 PM) Thanks for the article. Any chance at getting a layman's summary? That was way over my paidgrade! Basically what it means is that even after only 3 innings the pitcher is no longer unconsciously aware of the position of his elbow. He will have difficulty repeating his motion because neurologically he doesn't know where the angle of his elbow. Some ramifications are: Maybe young pitchers need time to develop more neurologically (through repetiton) in the minors realy more than innings or physically Maybe injuries can be prevented or rehabbed through different neuro methods than previously thought. Maybe its neurologic fatigue not physical fatigue that causes pitchers to lose their mechanics and increase stress on their arms. Just an intersting food for though article. It's a very important concept from a mechanics standpoint that they lost it after just 3 innings.

here is an excellent study showing how difficult it is to replicate the throwing motion. The pitchers all had decreased proprioception (unconscious awareness of joint postion) after just three innings of a simulated game. Think of the implications on an injured elbow. elbow_position_replication.pdf

QUOTE (StatManDu @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) The Sox had four plays in MLB Network's Countdown 75 Most Spectacular Defensive Plays in MLB History: 41) Calderon's wall-scaling catch in LF at Tiger Stadium on July 27, 1987; 15) Iguchi's flying throw to first from 2B in 2006; 8) Wise's catch which preserved Buehrle's perfect game on July 23, 2009; 6) Buehrle's between the legs throw to first on Opening Day 2010 The most glaring oversight when it comes to the Sox was Uribe's diving catch into the stands in Houston in Game 4 of the 2005 World Series. Others? How about two from the "Black Out Game" when Ken Griffey Jr. threw out a runner at the plate and Brian Anderson's game-ending catch ... On Opening Day 2000, I remember Ray Durham making a phenomenal diving catch with his back to the plate. More? Daryl Boston made a full sprint dive into the stands for a catch. It wasn't just a fall into the stands it was at a full sprint.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 11:37 PM) Ptatc, that's some solid date you provided. But you're arguing something that I don't dispute. I realize what a non-exact science the MLB draft is. That's not really my point. Now look at our current situation with our starting pitching. We've got Peavy, who let's face it, will be a major injury risk from now through the end of his contract. We've got Buehrle, who's a FA after this year. We've got Jackson, who will also be a FA after next year and his agent is that Boras guy that we seem to despise. We've got Danks, who's got only got two arb years left and appears to be determined to test the FA market [hello Yankees]. We've got NOTHING in the minors in terms of SP prospects that we could at least have some hope of stepping in if need be for 2012 or 2013. We NEED Sale to be a starter. We don't have the luxury of saying 'oh well, if worse comes to worse we can stick him in the 'pen.' We're not the Rays. Who can trade a Matt Garza and not really impede their long-term pitching situation in the least. That's why the Hudson trade drove/drives me so crazy. It just wasn't a smart baseball move short or long-term. Edwin Jackson is not a difference maker. Now you go out and trade Hudson or whatever for a Dan Haren? That's a totally different story. You don't give up 6 years of a cheap Hudson for a year and two months of Jackson, especially when his agent is someone we refuse to negotiate with. Now some fans have totally adopted this 'all-in' phenomenon and only care about 2011. Well, I'm not that way. Not too many people were thinking about 2005 when we were trotting out guys like Andy Gonzalez, Jerry Owens, Luis Terrerro, Andy Sisco and Ryan Bukvich and losing 90 games in 2007. I want to go 'all-in' every year, or close to every year. I agree that the team would be better off if he can be a good starter. I hope and think he can be a good starter. However, if it turns out that he is not but is an effective reliever I don't think it is a wasted pick. Your previous point said it's a wasted pick if he is not in the rotation. The draft is so inexact that if the team get an effective player at any position it is a good pick.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 12:11 AM) Well good god damn. Sale has the ability to be an elite closer because KHP says so. Chris Sale is a very special pitcher? Wow. I'm totally stumped. How do I respond to that? Nobody compared Chris Sale to Aaron Poreda. So you can take that bulls*** somewhere else. I've explained myself over and over again regarding this topic. And I don't give a f*** who agrees or disagrees. YOU DO NOT DRAFT A RELIEVER WITH THE 13TH PICK! If you remember, and I'm sure you don't, I created a thread last year begging KW NOT to trade Chris Sale because I liked him so much. But not because I wanted a set-up man or closer. Because I wanted a number 1 or 2 type starter. Is that too much to ask? I don't know and I don't care. In sports, and life in general, you shoot for the stars. Not settle for scraps. And for the 548767843278458432 time. I don't have a problem with the pick IF he's going to be a starter. But like I said before, there were questions about his frame, durability and delivery BEFORE the draft. Now if the Sox scouts or Lauman or whatever drafted him with the idea of will try him as a starter but if worse comes to worse will make him a reliever then they f***ED UP. You can agree or disagree. I really don't care. You're delusional and have somehow created an imaginary J4L that you just feel like arguing with. I'm not doing this anymore. FOR THE LAST f***ING TIME! If Sale ultimately ends up as a reliever then it was a WASTE of a 13th pick. A third or fourth round pick? No problem. Maybe even a second round pick. I don't give a f*** if you agree with me. I'll play the role of Soxtalk villain. I really don't care. I will speak my mind no matter what the consensus is. I think that if you get a good major league player at any position it is a good (not wasted) pick. I wnet back and looked at all of the 10-15 picks in the MLB drafts from 1997-2004. I didn't go anumore recent because the players still have a chance to develop. Here are the picks: 1997 Jon Garland Chris Enochs Aaron Akin Kyle peterson Brandon Larson Jason Dellaero Garland was the only good MLB player 1998 Carlos Pena Josh McKinley Adam Everett JM Gold Jeff Weaver Clint Johnson Pena,Everett,Weaver the only good MLB 1999 Ben Sheets Ryan Christianson Brett Myers Mike Paradis Ty Howington Jason Stumm Sheets, Myers 2000 Joe Torres Dave Krynzel Joe Borchard Shaun Boyd Beau Hale Chase Utley Utley 2001 Chris Burke Kenny Baugh Mike Jones Casey Kotchman Jake Gautreau Gabe Gross Burke, maybe Kotchman and Gross 2002 Drew Myers Jeremy Hermedia Joe Saunders Khalil Greene Russ Adams Scott Kazmir Good draft all bit Myers 2003 Ian Stewart Micheal aubrey Lastings Milledge Aaron Hill Ryan Wagner Brian Anderson Stewart, Hill, Wagner 2004 Thomas diamond Neil Walker Jered Weaver Bill Bray Billy Butler Stephen Drew Walker,Weaver, mayber Butler and Drew It looks to me like from picks 10-15 teams are lucky to get good contributing players. I'll take Sale being good whther it's in the pen or starting. If he's good it will not be a wasted pick.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 09:54 AM) No, I didn't. If you look back at that post I said closers were a dime a dozen. It's actually harder to find consistent middle relief/set-up guys then a guy to get the last three outs of a game. But that's what bullpens are or have evolved into. I don't ever remember bullpens being so inconsistent when I was just starting out as a baseball fan. Then again I was young so whatever. But the last 7 years or so have been ridiculous. Basically, if you're going to draft a reliever or a guy who projects to be a reliever in the first round, you're doing so to make him a closer. The Red Sox didn't draft Daniel Bard to make him a 6th/7th inning guy. It was to eventually supplant Papelbon. Who I think is gone after next year. You find other aspects of a bullpen through other avenues. Whether it be FA signings, which I despise, amateur FA signings or much later on in the draft or through trades. And this is obviously no easy task. Which is why despite having a competent, good or even great closer doesn't assure you of having a good to great bullpen. Sorry, I misread. I still don't agree that closers are easy to find but that is something we've discussed before.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) Because there's more to having a great bullpen than having someone to close games? I just checked the numbers. There were 29 players in MLB with 20 or more saves last year. Know who had the worst ERA out of all of them? Bobby Jenks. Oh sure, some teams shuffled a player into and out of the closers spot, and there were closers like Dotel and Capps who were traded to bolster a team's middle relief, but think about that...there were 28 other pitchers in MLB who had 20 or more saves...all of whom had better ERA's than Bobby Jenks. His comments were in relation to middle relievers not closers. He said don't even get him started on closer. I disagree with that as well but it's a different discussion. I agree that a bullpen is more than a closer but he seems to think that good relievers are a "dime a dozen" but I just don't see them everywhere in baseball.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 09:16 AM) You just saved me a detailed post. Thanks. I still disagree. If relievers are a "dime a dozen" as you said, then all bullpens should be good. You make it sound like it'a easy to find good relievers. If it is then every team should have a good pen. Give me your detailed post as to why good relievers are a dime a dozen but why not every team has a good bullpen.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 05:58 AM) Never said they were easy to come by. This is all about efficiency. And it's not efficient from a baseball standpoint to invest such a high pick on a guy that ultimately ends up a reliever, no matter how good. Scott Shields was one of the most dominant set-up guys of the last decade and he was a 38th round pick. And please don't tell me you think Sale has a good chance to be as good as Shields, who was absolutely filthy in his prime. Octavio Dotel, Latroy Hawkins, Authur Rhodes and a s***load of other guys that I can't think of off the top of my head were either later round picks or amateur FA signings [i'm talking strictly set-up guys here]. Don't even get me started on closers. They're a dime a dozen. Aside from Rivera, of course. If this is the case why doesn't every team in baseball have a good to great bullpen?

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 01:36 PM) Have studies ever determined whether starters develop more injuries than relievers? I would think the strain of back-to-back days might be greater than the higher inning load/pitch count. There haven't been any that I know of. Injuries can be loosely grouped into two categories, static tissues such as ligaments and cartilage and active tissues such as muscles and the rotator cuff. From my experience starters have more trouble with the static structures and being generally loose. This is due to the increased in pitches thrown. Relievers have more difficulties with muscle type injuries because they aren't in a routine for coming into the game. They may warm up 3-4 times and not get in the game. Freddy Garcia is an example of a pitcher who really can't come out of the pen due to the difficulty with getting warm. In Sale's case his mechanics aren't ideal from my perspective. But they aren't as bad as some. His mechanics are similar to Randy Johnson's. He brings his elbow up first in the early cocking phase so his arm is pointing down for a long time due to the length of the arm. He brings his hand up late so he cannot get his hand up over his head. Thus he throws from a lower arm slot. Like Johnson this will improve movement on the slider but could lead to elbow problems. Some pitchers can handle the mechanics without difficult other can't. No one really knows why. I imagine the Sox will just let him go, watch him closely and see if he starts to have problems. The only pitchers you really try to alter their mechanics before they have injuries are the ones with inconsistent mechanics or ones who ones who walk alot of hitters due to poor mechanics.