670 The Score‏Verified account @670TheScore 4h4 hours ago #WhiteSox GM Rick Hahn: 'Not unrealistic' for Reynaldo Lopez, Lucas Giolito to reach 200-inning threshold in 2018 http://cbsloc.al/2yEKgN4

 

 

I hope that they don't. They're not ready yet, imo.

Lopez in 2017: 168.2 innings

Giolito in 2017: 174 innings

 

So yeah that seems reasonable.

 

I kinda hope we try and develop starters that eat innings.

Lopez in 2017: 168.2 innings

Giolito in 2017: 174 innings

 

So yeah that seems reasonable.

 

 

I kinda hope we try and develop starters that eat innings.

 

Agreed and agreed. If you want to win the WS in 2020, you are likely gonna need multiple pitchers going 200 IP.

15 pitchers threw 200+ innings this year.

 

30 starts/180 innings would be great.

15 pitchers threw 200+ innings this year.

 

30 starts/180 innings would be great.

Push them to 200 and if they wind up with 180 because a few short starts or a short DL stint...that's not a big deal.

 

Basically, they start every 5th game unless they're hurt. No innings limits unless there are injuries. No extra rest unless they ask for it.

Lopez in 2017: 168.2 innings

Giolito in 2017: 174 innings

 

So yeah that seems reasonable.

 

Yeah 25-30 innings is a pretty normal jump season over season.

Yeah 25-30 innings is a pretty normal jump season over season.

 

Agree but with some reservations. I assume both will be in majors opening day. Going 175- 200 would be pretty normal for a ML pitcher. But I would think the stress of pitching in the majors is higher than at AAA. So maybe the normal jump is not the same between AAA and Majors.

 

If we're expecting to contend as early as 2019 the pitchers must be able to exceed 200 innings. So 200 in 2018 doesn't sound like too much of a stretch.

I love that they are getting them ready for it, but as was noted in this thread, only pitchers went above 200 IP last year. I expect that number to slowly shrink the next few years as well.

 

With all that said, if they get to 200, that’s fantastic.

I believe part of the thinking is getting these pitchers to pitch to contact for quicker outs. Lowering the pitches per at bat will allow them to pitch longer in each game. 200IP is a target to shoot for but that's about it.

Meanwhile we hope for 200IP from Rodon between 2018-2020

I love that they are getting them ready for it, but as was noted in this thread, only pitchers went above 200 IP last year. I expect that number to slowly shrink the next few years as well.

 

With all that said, if they get to 200, that’s fantastic.

Yes, the trend lately is to burn the starters early in the game. I really dislike the trend as it leads to injuries so I hope the Sox do not follow the trend and teach the young pitch to pace themselves and go deeper into games.

I believe part of the thinking is getting these pitchers to pitch to contact for quicker outs. Lowering the pitches per at bat will allow them to pitch longer in each game. 200IP is a target to shoot for but that's about it.

This unfortunately is the opposite of the current trend in pitching with most of the advanced metrics teaching pitchers that K's are a thing they control and the the defense is something they cannot. Thus, they overthrow too much and try to K everyone. This in turn leads to higher pitch counts, shorter outings and more injuries.

This unfortunately is the opposite of the current trend in pitching with most of the advanced metrics teaching pitchers that K's are a thing they control and the the defense is something they cannot. Thus, they overthrow too much and try to K everyone. This in turn leads to higher pitch counts, shorter outings and more injuries.

http://www.twinkietown.com/2011/5/10/21633...hing-to-contact

 

There's no evidence that pitching to contact actually leads to lower pitch counts or longer outings though. At bats that end in a ball in play do have fewer pitches on average than those that end in a strikeout, but while the latter is a guaranteed out (except for rare dropped 3rd strikes), many balls in play fall in for hits and will prolong the inning, so pitching to contact often actually leads to higher pitch counts, especially if you don't have a good defense behind you, which the Sox have rarely had.

Edited November 8, 20178 yr by OmarComing25

http://www.twinkietown.com/2011/5/10/21633...hing-to-contact

 

There's no evidence that pitching to contact actually leads to lower pitch counts or longer outings though. At bats that end in a ball in play do have fewer pitches on average than those that end in a strikeout, but while the latter is a guaranteed out (except for rare dropped 3rd strikes), many balls in play fall in for hits and will prolong the inning, so pitching to contact often actually leads to higher pitch counts, especially if you don't have a good defense behind you, which the Sox have rarely had.

The problem is for some reason 100 pitches is a magic number.

 

But the max effort to get every MPH out of yourself as possible, while maybe productive in the short run, I wonder how sustainable it is.

 

 

http://www.twinkietown.com/2011/5/10/21633...hing-to-contact

 

There's no evidence that pitching to contact actually leads to lower pitch counts or longer outings though. At bats that end in a ball in play do have fewer pitches on average than those that end in a strikeout, but while the latter is a guaranteed out (except for rare dropped 3rd strikes), many balls in play fall in for hits and will prolong the inning, so pitching to contact often actually leads to higher pitch counts, especially if you don't have a good defense behind you, which the Sox have rarely had.

As you said there is no proof that pitching to contact leads to lower pitch counts. However there is no proof that pitching for K's do either. In other words like most things it cannot be boiled down to it's always one or the other as many people try to make it. Although you do says that at bats that lead to a ball in play do have fewer pitches on averages so the data would suggest that attempting to pitch to contact will likely lead to a lower pitch count more often than pitching to k's

 

However, the underlying point is that trying to pitch to K's leads to overthrowing more which will lead to fatigue earlier in games and I think more frequent injuries.

The problem is for some reason 100 pitches is a magic number.

 

But the max effort to get every MPH out of yourself as possible, while maybe productive in the short run, I wonder how sustainable it is.

I get the pitch count, although don't agree with 100 number.

 

It's the effort for too long and not pacing themselves that leads to injuries.

However there is no proof that pitching for K's do either.

No there isn't but there is proof that strikeouts are more effective than pitching to contact in preventing runs.

 

Although you do says that at bats that lead to a ball in play do have fewer pitches on averages so the data would suggest that attempting to pitch to contact will likely lead to a lower pitch count more often than pitching to k's

I already addressed this, yes at bats that lead to a ball in play do have fewer pitches on average but they also lead to pitchers facing more batters because many of those at bats will end in a hit rather than an out. Strikeouts average 4.8 pitches while balls in play average 3.4 pitches. However a third of balls in play end up going for hits so a pitcher only pitching to contact will need to face on average 27 batters to get 18 outs at ~92 pitches while a pitcher getting only strikeouts would need ~86 pitches to get the same amount of outs. Of course this ignores walks and double plays and so the end result is basically a wash in terms of pitch count.

 

However, the underlying point is that trying to pitch to K's leads to overthrowing more which will lead to fatigue earlier in games and I think more frequent injuries.

I don't really disagree with you here and that's why a balance should be struck but there’s a reason teams aren't trying to pitch to contact. Also, with the juiced ball making contact has become even more valuable so it’s not something I’d want my pitchers to generate more of in the current offensive environment.

Edited November 8, 20178 yr by OmarComing25

No there isn't but there is proof that strikeouts are more effective than pitching to contact in preventing runs.

 

I already addressed this, yes at bats that lead to a ball in play do have fewer pitches on average but they also lead to pitchers facing more batters because many of those at bats will end in a hit rather than an out. Strikeouts average 4.8 pitches while balls in play average 3.4 pitches. However a third of balls in play end up going for hits so a pitcher only pitching to contact will need to face on average 27 batters to get 18 outs at ~92 pitches while a pitcher getting only strikeouts would need ~86 pitches to get the same amount of outs. Of course this ignores walks and double plays and so the end result is basically a wash in terms of pitch count.

 

 

I don't really disagree with you here and that's why a balance should be struck but there’s a reason teams aren't trying to pitch to contact. Also, with the juiced ball making contact has become even more valuable so it’s not something I’d want my pitchers to generate more of in the current offensive environment.

True. Which is why I was discussing injuries and shorter starts by pitchers that are also caused by this. I wonder if runs are really saved though. Because the starter leaves the game earlier, a lesser talented pitcher comes into the game and may give up more runs. I'm too lazy to look it up have there been more runs scored in recent years?

 

Another thought, is the ball juiced or are more lesser talented pitchers getting into the game while new metrics have taught the hitters to all use an upper cut swing to increase the "launch angle?"

Edited November 9, 20178 yr by ptatc

http://www.twinkietown.com/2011/5/10/21633...hing-to-contact

 

There's no evidence that pitching to contact actually leads to lower pitch counts or longer outings though. At bats that end in a ball in play do have fewer pitches on average than those that end in a strikeout, but while the latter is a guaranteed out (except for rare dropped 3rd strikes), many balls in play fall in for hits and will prolong the inning, so pitching to contact often actually leads to higher pitch counts, especially if you don't have a good defense behind you, which the Sox have rarely had.

This strikes me as a really flawed analysis.

 

It seems as though this analysis measures the results of strikeouts and batted balls rather than an intention to do result in one or the other.

 

It would seem as though an intention to strikeout more batters might lead to batted balls occurring with higher pitches/PA.

 

I suspect this is just not something that is particularly applicable to real-world conditions.

In the World Series, Smoltz talked about the stress factor in pitching. He said pitching in stressful situations( runners on, big games. relief) forces pitchers to exert more effort. So pitchers who allow more baserunners are pitching with more stress and probably using more pitches. I wonder what the impact, if any , does pitching from the stretch have in comparison to pitching w a full windup?