Lillian

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 6, 2011 -> 07:48 PM) If the team doesn't recover by June and someone will take aj, you don't worry about that. Half those pitchers will be leaving too Yes, if they hold a "fire sale" and trade "half" the staff, you're right.

I think that you have to keep A. J. to handle the pitching staff. Changing in mid season would be very problematical Castro could handle the job cabably, but he isn't up to catching the bulk of the schedule.

You would hope that K.W. would point out how consistently good Danks has been in his brief career. He has had more quality starts than any Sox pitcher I can remember in recent history. The Sox have had an incredibly difficult time giving him any run support, even when they were scoring runs for the rest of the staff. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted to go somewhere else for that reason alone. He is definitely pitched in "hard luck".

Most of us probably agree that it's time for some kind of shake up. Perhaps they should start by benching a couple of guys. The player who has most earned some time on the bench is Rios. Pierre and Beckham are vying for second place in that race. You simply can't have your leadoff hitter with a .286 OBP, and just 2 extra base hits, while being caught stealing 7 out of 12 attempts. As for Beckham, he just may have been better off spending a couple seasons in the Minors. He'll likely be a star, but these prolonged slumps suggests that he may not be quite ready. Unfortunately, the Sox don't have anyone in the minors who is making a case for a call up. Here's my attempt at a shake up line up: CF Lillibridge 2B Vizquel RF Quentin DH Dunn 1B Konerko SS Ramirez LF Teahen C A. J. 3B Morel So I've benched the 3 worst performing guys, save Dunn, whose LH presence they need in the lineup. Vizquel is a consumate pro, and would be able to handle the #2 hole responsibilities quite capably, while providing stellar defense Lillibridge deserves a chance a some regular playing time. He's already out "slugged" Rios in a quarter as many AB's. Let him play until he earns his way back onto the bench. I put Teahen in LF because at least he hasn't sucked at the plate, and his LH bat would give the lineup better balance, at least until Dunn actually starts to contribute. I know that this represents a pathetic 'stab' at trying to fix what appears to be broken, but maybe it would wake some people up. It's either something like what I'm suggesting, or firing the manager and coaches, or a fire sale. This team simply can't be allowed to perform this badly with complete impunity. Someone has to be held accountable.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 10:35 AM) What do Rios, Peavy, and Dunn have in common? They're all way overpaid.

While we're venting, would someone explain to me what is good about Rios' approach at the plate? I've always thought that it's amazing that he ever hits with his mechanics. Do any of you see anything positive about his mechanics? He holds his hands in front of his stomach until the last instant. His crouch is very awkward looking, and his lead foot tapping just makes him way to "busy". Alex needs to have a lot of moving parts be perfectly in sink and timed just right to ever have success with that approach. I can't see how his head can be sufficiently "quiet" with all of those moving parts to his swing. If I were trying to give myself the best chance for success, I'd look at an approach like Konerko's and I'd try to use it as a model of perfection. Now that is a thing of beauty, isn't it? At least when he doesn't have success, you don't have the impression that it was because of his mechanics. Hitting is funny that way. It's one of the few sports activities in which so many different fundamental approaches are acceptable. You can imagine how frustrating it would be for a hitting coach to refrain from trying to get Rios to change his mechanics.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 14, 2011 -> 08:08 AM) A lot of Little League coaches have developed and morphed the idea to have their two best starters go 3 innings back-to-back each game I remember most leagues had a 10 IP limit per week, something like that. It's kind of like battling the teachers' unions over tenure. As soon as a single pitcher went down with injury who was a part of your revolutionary system, it would be scrapped. Heck, the World Baseball Classic has been put in jeopardy (and certainly in terms of full participation by all the best American-born players) due to the extra wear and tear of adding 10-14 more days of pitching and injury risk into the season. I think the only way it could be adopted would be if you could find a battery of surgeons like Jobe and Andrews who supported the idea that allocating pitches thrown in this manner would lead to fewer or the same amount of arm/shoulder/elbow/labrum injuries, not MORE. While I agree with the fact that any team picking their 6 best pitchers out of 12, from a statistical probability theory, has some credence...it also falls to pieces when you consider all those starts where the pitcher gets knocked out in under 3 innings pitched. If one of the two guys simply didn't have it, you can't radically recalibrate their pitches thrown allotment without seriously having to rearrange the entire "rotation" from week to week. Then you run the risk of a pitcher coming out of the top 6 or entering the top 6 having an injury because he hasn't fully adjusted. It's hard to imagine your #7 guy getting the kind of work he'd require (it would be all mop-up/blow out) on the major league roster. He'd probably have to be waiting in AAA getting a regular and consistent workload of pitches so he would be ready to jump into the "rotation." So then you'd have agents for pitchers 7-9 on the roster feeling their clients were getting buried in AAA because their workloads were less (not being able to accrue service time and get to arb/FA) or not having the ability to showcase their talents, like in the 50's and 60's when players like Roberto Clemente were "hidden" in the minor league systems of loaded major league teams (in that case, the Brooklyn Dodgers). You raise interesting points. I don't really see that much of a problem regarding the seventh guy, as I think the staff could retain a bullpen with a few arms. However, this system certainly wouldn't require 11 or 12 pitchers. Concerning the issue of a bad start by one of your 6 starters: You would have the option of removing him earlier, if you had a capable starter ready to throw 45 pitches. Then you could turn the game over to your bullpen. Isn't that better than having to make a guy have to try to get in at least enough innings to save the bullpen, or turn the game over to your "long man", who is likely not all that great. In this system, you could pull your starter early enough that you might avoid a blowout. Moreover, that gives your bullpen some of that need work, about which you are understandably concerned. Do you really think that an injury is any more likely because of this system? The whole idea is based upon the assumption that this would not pose any additional injury risk, so that is a critical point which would have to be carefully examined, as you suggested. Regarding the feelings of agents: Would you really care if they or their clients felt slighted? I'd rather see a more cost effective system, which would afford the team more payroll flexibility. You could pay your 6 starters more, if you didn't have to tie up money in an expensive bullpen. Moreover, you would be getting a better return on the investment if your starters could perform a couple of times a week. At any rate, your thoughful comments are well taken and appreciated

One of the other points that I made in the paper I wrote on this subject was that 5 days in between pitching appearances is probably not the optimum time to achieve the best performance. I made that assertion based upon the limited understanding that I have about sports medicine and human physiology. It doesn't take the body that long to recover from strenuous physical activity. Intense weight training is probably about as demanding as any physical activity there is. A weight lifter, or body builder will routinely take 2 days rest in between training any given body part. Squats and other leg exercises are probably the most grueling exercises one can do. Even those exercises can best be performed, with the least amount of soreness, if done every 3rd or 4th day. Pitching 45 to 90 pitches should not be near enough to cause injury, and therefore an athlete should be able to repeat that effort after a couple of days of rest. It is widely recognized that the more frequently the body is asked to perform a task, the better condition in which it will become. Of course, there is a point at which the body is taxed too frequently, and can't sufficiently recover, but 2 or 3 days should be enough rest. In fact, pitchers do throw a side session in between starts. The more frequent performance of a given physical activity, short of over taxing or injuring the body, should result in a better conditioned athlete, and improve the skill performed. How sharp would a basketball player's shooting skills be, if he played once every 5 days? We all know how much more pitchers used to throw in years past. Many of us have long been critical of this notion that a well conditioned athlete can't safely throw more than 100 pitches any more frequently than once every 5 days. If you never allow the body to become conditioned to anything more, it won't be. However, that is not to say that the body can't be conditioned to do more.

Giving Santos an opportunity should be easy to do at this point. Ozzie can spin it in a way that won't be devastating to Thornton's psyche. He can simply say that "Santos has earned a shot at it, by having gone unscored upon all Spring and thus far in the season." It should be more about Santos earning a promotion, than Thornton and the others getting demoted. Of course, who knows if he'll be any better. "Geees", I hope so.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 13, 2011 -> 09:15 PM) Lillian I loved your theory. Somebody should do an article on that or ask Bill James his opinion. Awesome stuff. Can you send it to Bill James and ask what he thinks of it? I like your theory. I'm glad you like the idea. It seems pretty compelling to me. It's a lot easier to find and pay 6 really good pitchers, than it is 12. As I stated, I wrote a paper on it which I still have a copy of somewhere. I gave it to Don Cooper at the end of the 2009 season. I have no idea what he thought about it, or even if he really read it, although he promised to do so. I'd be very interested to get the input from some of the astute observers on this board, if they would carefully consider the concept.

I couldn't agree with you more, Greg. The current standard method of managing pitching staffs is very expensive and ineffective. A team can have 5 terrific starters, but unless they pay and get good performances from several relievers, they are likely to experience exactly what has happened to the Sox lately. They are wasting great starts by insisting upon using the pen every game. Since baseball seems reluctant to return to the days of letting pitchers throw 150 pitches per outing, there has to be another way for a team to still get their money's worth out of their high priced starters. A few years ago I devised a method of utilizing pitchers in a more efficient and cost effective way. I wrote a paper on it. The basic idea is to select your 6 best pitchers and divide them into 3 pairs. Each starter goes approximately 80 to 90 pitches and his "partner" finishes the game providing he can do so in 40 to 50 pitches. Since starters routinely have a side session in between starts, this method would utilize that 40 to 50 effort in a game, rather than a bullpen session. The 3 teams of two starters each, working in tandem would take their turn in those first 3 games. The next 3 games would use the same 3 teams of 2 starters each, but with their roles reversed. So the starter who threw 90 pitches, 3 days earlier, would only throw approximately 40 to 50 pitches in his second appearance. The consequence of this system is that a starter would work every 3 or 4 days, taking turns between 90 pitch appearances and 45 pitch efforts. The advantage to this approach is that you get your 6 best pitchers working more often. That means the team is getting more productivity out of them. It also means that you don't need to commit lots of money to an expensive bullpen, to which you must entrust the huge responsibility of preserving a good effort by the starter. The function of the bullpen would be to take over in blow out games, rather than waste both starters in either a hopelessly losing effort, or in a game where the team is coasting, after a huge early lead. Our current staff might look something like this: Game 1 Jackson 90 Danks 45 Game 2 Buerhle 90 Floyd 45 Game 3 Peavy 90 Sale 45 Game 4 Danks 90 Jackson 45 Game 5 Floyd 90 Buerhle 45 Game 6 Sale 90 Peavy 45 The rest of the staff would be reserved for special situations and blow outs. They can all compete to earn a place as a "main pitcher", and always have a chance to take over a spot in the rotation, if they earn it. There would be no need to use 3 or 4 pitchers in a well pitched game, the way starters are routinely automatically removed after 6 innings, with the first reliever pitching the 7th, a second reliever the 8th, and the closer finishing. That is too many pitchers to depend upon being effective. The odds of one of them being off that game are too great. I'd rather depend upon 2 of my best 6 pitchers every day, than one of my best and 3 more lesser guys every game. It seems rediculous to pay a guy $15 million per year to have him throw 100 pitches every 5 days!

I didn't read all of the posts, and I realize that the thread was supposed to be about Pierre. However, regarding Thornton; He doesn't appear to have quite the velocity he has had in the past. I haven't seen many of his fastballs hit 97, which is what he used to consistently throw. He isn't striking people out. Maybe that's the reason that he has thrown so many more breaking balls. Perhaps he realizes his velocity is down. He really doesn't have enough of an assortment of pitches to be a closer, where he has to face all hitters in the 9th. He's much better suited to be a set up man, and can be removed vs right handed hitters. I like Santos as a closer. He appears to have the mentality, and the right assortment of pitches.

Was that really a slider that Jackson was throwing? I've never seen a slider with that much downward movement. The ball was diving straight down, as if falling off a table. That looks more like a splitter to me. The velocity was pretty consistently around 87 to 89. Does that seem a little high for a split finger fastball?

That slider breaking straight down looks unhittable. That's the best stuff I've seen from a Sox pitcher in a long time.

Have any of you noticed that Carlos is back to extending the thumb on his top hand? He presses that extended thumb right up against the handle. He's the only player whom I can ever remember doing that. I always thought that is was a very dangerous thing to do. If he were to hit an inside pitch on the handle, couldn't he sustain a pretty serious bruise to that thumb? Especially in the Spring, with the cold weather, it would have to really hurt. Then there is the issue of the bat breaking and the portion against which that thumb is pressing breaking in the direction of the extended thumb. Couldn't he hyper-extend it? Is this a legitimate concern?

Floyd looks like he's shot putting the ball. God, you'd think he'd finally have his mechanics down to where he could pitch in his sleep. That 89 mph fastball won't cut it.

Have you all seen these Gordon Beckham training videos? http://stacktv.stack.com/video.aspx?videoID=90594432001_666 Sorry, I misspelled "Training" in the thread title.

I think that this discussion should really begin with the question of where Dunn should hit. Once that issue is decided, the other pieces fall into place fairly easily. As I stated in another thread; Batting Dunn third diminishes the value that his left handed bat was intended to provide. He was acquired to fill the void of a left handed bat to break up the right handed heavy lineup. If Dunn bats third, you still have Konerko, Quentin, Rios, and maybe even Ramirez, hitting consecutively, and they're all right handed. Moving Dunn to clean up resolves that issue. Then the only qestion is who is better suited to bat 3rd? Rios is not even close to a prototypical number three hitter. He has never produced the kind of power numbers that are expected from that spot in the order. If he were the only power hitter on the team, perhaps it could be justified, but on this team it makes no sense. Moreover, I still like the idea of having a "second leadoff" hitter heading up the bottom half of the order. Rios would be perfect as a 6th hitter. He could still drive in the good hitters in front of him, and if he leads off, he is a threat to steal. That makes Quentin the default candidate for the third spot in the lineup, and if he hits anywhere near his 2008 performance, that is precisely where he belongs. A healthy, productive Carlos Quentin fits the bill of a number three hitter to the "T". To me the right, left, right combo of Quentin, Dunn and Konerko is the obvious choice. To answer those who say; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", we should remember that they've only played two games, and the results are likely not the result of the batting order. When a team puts on that kind of dominant offensive demonstration, it's likely more the consequence of ineffective pitching.

Batting Dunn third diminishes his value as a left handed bat intended to break up the right handed heavy lineup. If he bats third, you could have Konerko, Quentin, Rios, and Ramirez hitting consecutively, and they're all right handed. Moreover, I still like the idea of having a "second leadoff" hitter heading up the bottom half of the order. Rios would be perfect as a 6th hitter. He could still drive in the good hitters in front of him, and if he leads off, he's a threat to steal, or initiate a hit and run. Pierre Beckham Quentin Dunn Konerko Rios A. J. Ramirez Morel

Well, I guess that will officially close the book on the Swisher fiasco. So, the Sox got nothing in return for Swisher. Both Marquez and Betimet released. Oh, they do still have Nunez, don't they? What a disaster. I was actually beginning to like Marquez. That 16/2 Strike out to walk ratio in S.T. looked pretty impressive. He appears to have recovered from his surgery, and even added a cut fastball. I don't see how this organization can afford to discard young, inexpensive, serviceable arms. But what do I know?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 18, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) Our starting 5 is deeper than a lot of teams...this is discounted why? Because we don't have 30 crappy minor league starters that will probably never see the light of day in the majors?! Even if Peavy goes down, our remaining 4 are STILL deeper than what most teams have. I agree entirely. This year, the staff is good enough that even if someone were lost, it wouldn't be that hard to find another pitcher to be the 5th starter, with everyone else capable of moving up in the rotation. Next year, there will be several spots to fill. You might simply say; "Let's worry about next year, next year", and that's a reasonable position to take. My thought was that it would make sense to try to acquire a young quality arm now, as both insurance for this year, and to fill some of the holes that will need to be filled next season.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 18, 2011 -> 10:58 AM) Look at the bats that became available last year for practically nothing. Ramirez, Burrell (who went on to win a title), Jose Guillen, probably a bunch of others I'm forgetting. Well, if it's so easy to come up with productive bats, then doesn't that argue for trading some offense for pitching depth? You wouldn't argue that finding pitchers is also a simple task, would you? I don't know who should be shopped, but it just seems there is not enough pitching depth this year, and going forward.

Jordan4life, So, just whom do the Phillies think they're going to get to provide the right handed offense they need, if they aren't willing to give up anything?

Are any of you worried about the pitching depth on this team? We all love the starting rotation, one through five, and the bullpen looks balanced and solid. However, is there even a single minor league pitcher in whom you'd have confidence to step up, in case someone got injured? Moreover, Buerhle and Jackson will be free agents at the end of the year, and Danks seems reluctant to sign a long term deal. That leaves Peavy, who has yet to prove that he can stay healthy, and Floyd who has yet to prove that he can be consistent. Of course, there is Sale, but he may be needed in the Pen, and no one knows if he can provide 30 starts, with that delivery. I'd feel much better if the Sox had one more, good arm, waiting in the wings. The Phillies have a lot of pitching depth, and are growing more desperate every day for offense. Their offense, particularly from the right side, has been a question mark ever since they let Werth go. Now Utley's knee has them very worried, and with Brown lost for a while with a broken wrist, which is always scary for hitters, they might be getting desperate. The Sox have suddenly become pretty deep in the outfield, with Milledge beginning to look like he might actually realize some of that long held promise, and Viciedo needing a spot when he recovers from his injury. Why not see what kind of pitching the Phillies would consider trading for Quentin? Oh I know, a lot of you will suggest trading Teahen instead. But come on, Phillies' management isn't that stupid. I love Carlos, and think that he could well get back on track. However, you have to give up something to get something. Perhaps the Phillies like Quentin too. In fact, didn't they try to acquire him in the off season? Would they be willing to part with a promising young pitcher, in exchange for a badly need right handed slugger? Austin Hyatt is intriguing, but I don’t know if he is regarded as a potential top of the rotation starter. Who else could provide a good enough return to consider trading Quentin? Does the idea of trading Quentin for more pitching make sense to you guys?

Thanks for the responses. I'm looking forward to following him and I'm hoping for big things. I'm always intrigued by a guy who has his kind of huge upside. I think we pretty much know what Teahen is, and Morel will likely never be a big power bat. Moreover, he's another right handed hitter. But adding a left handed bat of McPherson's potential is very intriguing, assuming that his potential is realized.