I have a comment relative to pitchers not getting run support from their team mates. I'll use Jack Mcdowell for example I don't have access to tho I those figures but Jack started on season pitching horribly his earned average started out in the 8 or nines but while he was totally ineffective our sox were giving him all the runs he needed. Here is my question can a pitcher somehow inspire his team to produce more runs? The pitcher is in a way like a quarterback can certain pitchers get more run support than others. Even taking in account where they are in the rotation. S?ome pitchers get run support others do not, personality perhaps, leadership.

 

Black Jack had the knack of pitching to the game conditions. When I think of the word "competitor" the first name that comes to mind is McDowell. If the Sox had 5 on the board, he'd give up 3 or 4. But I recall him pitching against the Twins when he had absolutely nothing, but the Sox won 1-0. The Twins had double digit men left on base ... I'm not sure but I think it was close to 15 or 16. Black Jack was pitcher in every sense of the word and not just a thrower. Don't tell me wins are a meaningless stat because I ain't buying it.

Black Jack had the knack of pitching to the game conditions. When I think of the word "competitor" the first name that comes to mind is McDowell. If the Sox had 5 on the board, he'd give up 3 or 4. But I recall him pitching against the Twins when he had absolutely nothing, but the Sox won 1-0. The Twins had double digit men left on base ... I'm not sure but I think it was close to 15 or 16. Black Jack was pitcher in every sense of the word and not just a thrower. Don't tell me wins are a meaningless stat because I ain't buying it.

When he was with the Sox, Black Jack also regularly had the best run support in MLB. The Sox bats always came out for Black Jack.

Black Jack had the knack of pitching to the game conditions. When I think of the word "competitor" the first name that comes to mind is McDowell. If the Sox had 5 on the board, he'd give up 3 or 4. But I recall him pitching against the Twins when he had absolutely nothing, but the Sox won 1-0. The Twins had double digit men left on base ... I'm not sure but I think it was close to 15 or 16. Black Jack was pitcher in every sense of the word and not just a thrower. Don't tell me wins are a meaningless stat because I ain't buying it.

Wins mean something, but not much. You just can't blame a pitcher for being outstanding but losing almost every game just because he has no support. But at the same time, you can't discredit a pitcher for holding onto leads late in the game, etc.

When he was with the Sox, Black Jack also regularly had the best run support in MLB. The Sox bats always came out for Black Jack.

Good ol' Black Jack. Didn't he pitch a game against the Brewers where he gave up a solo shot to the 1st batter and then retire the next 27 straight? Or was it just a no-hitter after the 1st batter?

 

EDIT: It's the latter.

Edited May 11, 201114 yr by BigSqwert

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/wh...that-place.html

 

NAHEIM, Calif. — John Danks was in a deep mental funk after suffering yet another loss on Tuesday night.

 

‘‘I don’t know,’’ he said. ‘‘I’m at that place.’’

 

That place is no place to be. Danks became the first Sox pitcher to start a season 0-6 since Neil Allen in 1987.

 

Danks (4.50 ERA) had been the Sox’ tough-luck guy, pitching well enough to win but getting poor run support. He wasn’t good Tuesday, though, allowing six runs and 10 hits in a 6-2 loss to the Los Angeles Angels. He talked as if he had been bad all year.

 

‘‘I’m out of reasons,’’ he said. ‘‘I don’t know. I’ve done the same thing I’ve done my whole career. I feel good. It’s just not working out. I don’t have any other way of putting it. But I’m back at it for my next start, whenever it is. We’ll go from there.’’

 

Danks said he appreciates support he’s getting from teammates, family, agents.

 

‘‘I don’t feel alone at all. At the same time, I’m more frustrated than I’ve ever been in my career,’’ he said.

 

‘‘On the whole, I feel I’ve thrown the ball better than what my record shows. But I’m still 0-6 and need to pull my weight and need to do better. Obviously, I don’t want to be the weak link on the team. Deep down, you almost feel like that.’’

I keep thinking about Roger Clemens in 2005. He got an average of 3.43 runs in run support/game that year yet finished with an ERA of 1.87 and only had a 13-8 record.

 

 

Dank so far as gotten an average of 2.59 runs of support/game.

I keep thinking about Roger Clemens in 2005. He got an average of 3.43 runs in run support/game that year yet finished with an ERA of 1.87 and only had a 13-8 record.

 

 

Dank so far as gotten an average of 2.59 runs of support/game.

 

I was thinking more of the year that Nolan Ryan led the NL in ERA yet finished 8-16.

Wins mean something, but not much. You just can't blame a pitcher for being outstanding but losing almost every game just because he has no support. But at the same time, you can't discredit a pitcher for holding onto leads late in the game, etc.

 

It's a common perception nowadays that wins mean nothing. I don't know how this perception took hold, but it's ridiculous. To be 0-6 is embarrassing.

It's a common perception nowadays that wins mean nothing. I don't know how this perception took hold, but it's ridiculous. To be 0-6 is embarrassing.

If he actually deserved the 0-6, then yes. Otherwise, I think most fans wised up and realized that too many external factors apply to the stat to really judge it as an individual stat.

I was thinking more of the year that Nolan Ryan led the NL in ERA yet finished 8-16.

I think Millwood led the league in ERA a few years ago and had a losing record. Not 8-16 though...that's insane.

Or Felix Hernandez in recent years.

It's a common perception nowadays that wins mean nothing. I don't know how this perception took hold, but it's ridiculous. To be 0-6 is embarrassing.

 

A pitcher could give up 1 run per game and pitch 9 every game and still go 0-20 on the season. Can't really fault the pitcher for that.

Black Jack had the knack of pitching to the game conditions. When I think of the word "competitor" the first name that comes to mind is McDowell. If the Sox had 5 on the board, he'd give up 3 or 4. But I recall him pitching against the Twins when he had absolutely nothing, but the Sox won 1-0. The Twins had double digit men left on base ... I'm not sure but I think it was close to 15 or 16. Black Jack was pitcher in every sense of the word and not just a thrower. Don't tell me wins are a meaningless stat because I ain't buying it.

 

I agree. Jack was an ace. Those are the guys who just make a difference by bringing confidence to a team. There might be 4 aces now in all of baseball. I believe Steve Carlton was a 20 game winner on a last place team. There's really no logic to it.

Danks may be one of those guys who will have an impressive ERA but win and losses will be around .500 no matter what team he is on. I feel that way about Zack Grienke.

 

It's a common perception nowadays that wins mean nothing. I don't know how this perception took hold, but it's ridiculous. To be 0-6 is embarrassing.

 

It was pointed out that Humber had even less run support but he still won 2 games. It's a shame that performance from the starters has gone to waste. Imagine how much better some of the teams in baseball could have benefited if they had the Sox staff.

 

I don't know about only 4, but John Danks is definitely not one of them.

 

Another definition would be someone, no matter how the team has been doing, how it's hitting, you just feel at least 85-90% confident they're going to win that game, no matter what happens.

 

Like Contreras in 2005-06 or Loaiza in 2003, Black Jack in the early 90's...sometimes it's about personality or leadership traits. Other times, it's just sheer pitching brillaince.

 

Another example would be that stretch in 2006 when Liriano and Santana just sliced through our division. You knew going into the game the chances were about 5-10% at best of beating them. Or CC Sabathia.

 

The White Sox, overall, have one of the best rotations in baseball, if Peavy is healthy.

 

They also don't have a pitcher who "scares" an opposing team or that you really have to "get up for" to face. There might be a lot of respect for our starters, but we haven't had that ace since Contreras, which is why KW went out and got Peavy in the first place.

 

 

I agree. Jack was an ace. Those are the guys who just make a difference by bringing confidence to a team. There might be 4 aces now in all of baseball. I believe Steve Carlton was a 20 game winner on a last place team. There's really no logic to it.

Danks may be one of those guys who will have an impressive ERA but win and losses will be around .500 no matter what team he is on. I feel that way about Zack Grienke.

 

Carlton won, I believe, 27 games for a horrendous Phillies team. That was just unreal.

Carlton won, I believe, 27 games for a horrendous Phillies team. That was just unreal.

 

IIRC, he won something like 40% of his teams games in 1972.

It's a common perception nowadays that wins mean nothing. I don't know how this perception took hold, but it's ridiculous. To be 0-6 is embarrassing.

Danks has suffered at the hands of the poor offense since arriving on the south side. I remember his rookie season where twice a pop up was dropped that changed the course of the game. Ozzie called him a "great teammate" for taking it on the chin. When he played the Rangers a few years ago, Andy Gonzales took routine ground balls to 3rd and overthrew to 1st...not once...not twice...but three times in one inning! There's been criticism of Danks for saying he would take a QS over Wins, and citing him as greedy and selfcentered. Anyone with ANY baseball knowledge would know that the "wins" are what will pay Danks (even tho most of his career that's been out of his control) not QS. The ignorance of some posters needs to be challenged, so I did.

Danks would be 6-0 on the Yankees, his future team.

Danks would be 6-0 on the Yankees, his future team.

There's no guarantee that D1 winds up with the Yankees. Not given the other names on the market after 2012.

Danks would be 6-0 on the Yankees, his future team.

 

For sure. Freddy Garcia (2-3) & CC (3-3) both have ERAs a run less than Danks has, and look at their records.

There's no guarantee that D1 winds up with the Yankees. Not given the other names on the market after 2012.

 

As of today, they sure are the best fit for Danks.

As of today, they sure are the best fit for Danks.

Take a look at the 2012 Free Agent Pitching class, as it currently stands.

Jared Weaver

Matt Cain

Cole Hamels

Zach Greinke

John Danks

 

Isn't Greinke the only one that the Yankees aren't the best fit for?

Take a look at the 2012 Free Agent Pitching class, as it currently stands.

Jared Weaver

Matt Cain

Cole Hamels

Zach Greinke

John Danks

 

Isn't Greinke the only one that the Yankees aren't the best fit for?

 

The fun part of that is one, maybe two, of those guys could get a Yankees test drive a little bit early depending on how their teams do.

Take a look at the 2012 Free Agent Pitching class, as it currently stands.

Jared Weaver

Matt Cain

Cole Hamels

Zach Greinke

John Danks

 

Isn't Greinke the only one that the Yankees aren't the best fit for?

If they all do go to FA, that is one damn impressive group not even including the other available starters.