Leaving Slowey in

by snolls on May 29, 2008 10:47 PM EDT Comment 34 comments

I wish Slowey had gotten the shutout, so this post wouldn't sound affected by the run he gave up.

Gardenhire shouldn't have left Slowey in the game for the 9th, and possibly even the 8th. In light of the low pitch count, and especially the heavy innings the bullpen got in this series, I understand the 8th inning, but the 9th was a mistake. This is a pitcher that has been injured, and isn't as "stretched out" as other major leaguers. He was clearly already getting tired, as his fastball was registering 89-90 in the 8th and 9th. While he still pitched fine tonight, this will catch up to him in the next start. While he only threw 101 pitches, remember that he threw an extra 8 warm-up pitches for each extra inning. Say thats an extra 15-25 pitches, and that is a lot.

I think they should have put Rincon in. He isn't real dependable right now, so this was the perfect outing.

Different issue: Does anyone who understands good baseball technique have any insight on Kubel's swing. It looks to me like he is opening up his front hip really early, especially against left-handers. Presumably, this is because he is trying to pull the ball. He should be staying back, and pulling the ball by getting the bat-head out in front, and hitting it the other way on the pitches he is late to. Opening up, as I understand it, means that any opposite field hits will have no power, and a lot of the powerful hits will be foul. I'm no expert though, and I'd love to hear someone else's analysis.

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You’ll notice that Kubel’s swing, fundamentally is very different from other hitters. He tends to collapse his back leg, and he does open up at the hips a bit earlier than you’d like. Those two factors together make him extremely susceptible to left-handers who can pitch him away, and you’ll notice thats pretty much every lefties game plan against him.

Kubel will have to make an adjustment to that, and he’d do well to sit down with Justin Morneau and learn how he dealt with it, since he had the same problem with lefties just pounding him away for his whole career until this season. This season Morneau is going with a lot more pitches, and in particular, has really developed an ability to look off pitches away and out of the strike zone that he would’ve chased earlier in his career. In doing so, Morneau has complete revitalized himself as a hitter in my opinion. If you were to ask me if I think he’s hitting better this year than he did in his MVP season, I’d have to say unequivocally, yes.

Corey Ettinger writes for Infieldirt.com, a site that is primarily Twins related, but which has frequent notes, stories, and thoughts from other teams around baseball, with a focus on the AL Central. If you live in the Fargo area, you can listen to Corey on the Derek Hanson show every Tuesday at 3:30 on AM1660.

by Corey Ettinger on May 29, 2008 11:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

"Going with a lot more pitches"

What does that mean? You mention it in the same sentence as strike zone, so I take it to mean that he’s seeing more pitches. But Morneau’s P/ PA is unchanged over his recent career. If you mean going to left field, he’s not doing that any more than last year, either. He’s pulled all his HRs. He’s sparying singles, as he did last year. He’s the same guy: spray the singles, pull most of the drives that result in doubles and home runs.

by Johnny Safron on May 29, 2008 11:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Going with a pitch in baseball, typically refers to a player hitting a pitch on the outside part of the plate to the opposite field. That is what I believe Morneau has done a far better job of this year, whereas in the past he was more pull happy.

by Corey Ettinger on May 30, 2008 2:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Understood

I know what “going with the pitch” means, just was unsure what you meant by “going with a lot more pitches.” Seeing more, or taking more to the opposite field.

But that is your perception. I don’t see where he has revitalized himself, save for the fact he was pretty damned bad the last two months of the 2007 season. Overall, Morneau remains the hitter he’s been the past two seasons, save that he’s pulled all his home runs in ‘08. He usually hits a few to the left of center. But he’s not going with the pitch more often, based on his charts.

by Johnny Safron on May 30, 2008 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Slowey

pitch count for Slowey the last games, before tonight

107, 109, 104

tonight, 101

by DedicatedFollowerOfFashion on May 30, 2008 12:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

He had 89 pitches going into the 9th, with only four singles, no walks and two DPs behind him. Meaning he had faced two over the minimum in his eight innings of work. In his previous starts, he went over 100 pitches. He was pitching a shutout. The bullpen has been overused of late. For all these reasons, leaving him in was a no-brainer.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 30, 2008 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just to piggyback a little

I think a bigger outcry would have been heard had he been taken out. You better have a pretty darn good reason for taking a pitcher out who has a shutout going and has only thrown 89 pitches. The only reason I can think of is if Slowey would have asked to be taken out.

by eswanson55 on May 30, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fastballs at 89-90

Not to piggyback too much, but i did want to comment on the fastball velocity. I actually noticed that his fastball was a little bit slower throughout the game, and even the last couple of games than his first few starts. I actually see this as a positive. Earlier in the year, we actually saw him at 93, even 94, at times. First, his control wasn’t as good. Second, his pitches had a lot more movement at the lower velocity, which of course is more important than sheer velocity. I take it as Slowey relaxing and as Gardy has said he needed to do, stop overthrowing. He’ll be fine.

by SethSpeaks on May 30, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

I dont want to read the mind of Ron Gardenhire, but what I have heard and read over the years is that unless a pitcher pitchcount is obscene, or if the close is super close, the pitcher is going out for the 9th to get that shutout.

The Royals were pretty feeble tonight. Slowey notching a season high in strikeout. Yeah, he gave up a run, but meh, the team still got the win.

Maybe both Blackburn (who pitched into the 9th for the first time in his MLB career Tuesday) and Slowey (his longeser outing was 7 innings, and that was last year) can use thier long outings into learning experiences. Now they know what it feels like to pitch in the 9th inning, they can now make adjustments to get batters out in that inning

Thats just my opinion

by DedicatedFollowerOfFashion on May 30, 2008 12:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think

In addition to some of the points made above, I think I it is helpful to be stretched into fatigue at times. you have to learn how to pitch while you tired healthily. That means keeping clean mechanics and not resorting to unhealthy heaving the ball. I think not enough pitchers learn to do this anymore and it results in injuries.

"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane

by AdamOnFirst on May 30, 2008 12:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That makes some sense

I’ll accept that as a valid reason, though I have no opinion as to whether it is a good reason.

My main point is that the shutout is the wrong reason to leave him out there. This isn’t fantasy baseball. A shutout is one run better than what he threw. I know that a lot of pitchers want the opportunity, and I know there is a big deal made of no-hitters and perfect games, but if him throwing the ninth means he will be less effective his next start (remember that we play something like 20 straight, so there won’t be extra days off), than it isn’t worth it.

My point about the number of innings is that even if he had thrown 107, 109 and 104 pitches in his last couple of starts, those were 6 or 7 inning starts, meaning that he threw an estra 15-25 warm-up pitches tonight. That makes his pitch count the equivalent of 120 tonight, which sounds like a lot to me.

by snolls on May 30, 2008 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is a possibility

That he won’t pitch as well in his next start but you can use the same argument to say that the next 2 or 3 games the bullpen might be a lot better after all of them getting a full day of rest. I doubt pitchers go all out in their warmup tosses so I wouldn’t count those in the final pitch count, they don’t count them for any other inning so why for the last 2?

I actually get pissed at Gardy when he pulls a guy who’s having a good game early. I am all in favor of letting some of these guys stretch out to 120 pitches if they’re getting guys out. That’s just my opinion, the pitch count is overrated, Maybe I’ve been listening to Blyleven too much but I don’t know what has changed in pitchers that they can’t reach back and throw an extra 15-20 pitches more to get through a game or at least through the seventh and eighth innings.

Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?

by halfchest on May 30, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope Bert doesn't visit this site

He’d blow his top with all this stuff and for the most part I have to agree. I see nothing wrong with Gardy letting him pitch in the 9th.

It’s true this isn’t fantasy baseball and that is why you need to include a human element in how decisions are made. Slowey maybe fired up now b/c his manager let go back out there. He may pitch even better on his next start or he may not as you suppose. Thing is there is no way to really know for sure. I understand why you might think that this will have a negative effect but you can’t know for sure.

Going back to Bert, he is right starters don’t have to work as hard today. Pitchers used to want to pitch a CG and it seemed to be expected for the top tier guys. As far as I know players are in better shape now than then so why can’t today’s pitchers do what Slowey did yesterday and be fine? I’d rather see Slowey go back out there and learn how to pitch a CG than not.

by caluofmn on May 30, 2008 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever, Blyleven was a pussy compared to pitchers from before his time

Cy Young started 815 games and 749 of them were complete games. Blyleven started 685 games in his career and finished 242 of them (not even half!) No wonder he can’t get elected to the Hall. I suppose the next thing you’re going to tell me is that he was never in a three-man rotation.

by ubelmann on May 30, 2008 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

angry much?

doesn’t change the fact that he (Bert) is always going on about how current pitchers do not pitch deep into games anymore. The fact that he didn’t practiced what he now preaches doesn’t really matter.

Current pitchers could and maybe should pitcher deeper into games and I still don’t see anything wrong with Gardy letting Slowey back out there for the 9th.

by caluofmn on May 30, 2008 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It sure worked out great for Kerry Wood and Mark Prior

But hey, at least the Cubs won a World Series by letting those guys pitch deep into the game.

by ubelmann on May 30, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

go ahead and have the last word

I don’t believe in flame wars and it really just doesn’t matter that much to me. The internet is great b/c we can all have and state our opinion. I’ve already done that.

by caluofmn on May 30, 2008 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

Ubelmann’s point was that pitchers in different eras were worked differently. Sure, pitchers today don’t pitch as long as Bert did, but Bert didn’t pitch as long as pitchers before he did. Being a bit facetious online can be confused for many things, but I don’t think he was angry about anything.

He’s welcome to correct me if I’m wrong.

by Jesse on May 30, 2008 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Considering that I haven't made any personal attacks

And have simply made comments about pitchers pitching deep into games, I would hardly suggest that I was starting a flame war, but whatever. (Unless you’re Bert Blyleven, in which case I have personally insulted you.)

There’s no evidence that it would be a good idea for pitchers today to pitch deeper into games. Hitters today are better than they used to be, all the managers who used to let pitchers go deep into games have stopped doing it because they are sick of seeing their pitchers get injured, it’s simply easier to find a pitcher who can throw one or two innings at a time than it is to find a pitcher who can pitch 8 and 9 innings at a time, and with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, the industry has decided that it’s a smart idea to protect their most valuable assets.

Old-timers like Bert can whine and complain as much as they like, but the game has been changing for 150 years now and it’s going to keep changing with or without their approval.

by ubelmann on May 30, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

There’s more evidence that large pitch counts do more long-term damage to pitchers’ arms. Dusty Baker should have been fired for what he did. It’ll be interesting to see how the Rangers do when they get rid of pitch counts. My guess is it’ll be like the good old days again, when pitchers like Bert are the exception to the rule of guys blowing their arms out before they’re 30. Considering what a precious commodity pitching is in the post-expansion era, teams just can’t afford to risk it. Ignoring that fact and pining for the past is just foolish.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 30, 2008 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tone makes a difference

1. using a swear word in your response to me, made me feel like it was less than a friendly response

2. the overboard sarcasm of your Cubs comments was ridiculous and uneeded.

Those two points for me, made me feel like it was the potential start of a flame war which I won’t be sucked into. For whatever reason you come across as really “passionate” about this issue. I guess that is the most polite way of putting it. Good for you but compared to the normal back and forth that I read on this site you came across as angry. Once again, my opinion.

It is pointless to go on and on about this (I’ve already explained myself more than I really feel comfortable with) So this is the last I’ll say about it.

by caluofmn on May 30, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

emotions

I’m happy that Ubelmann is getting in touch with his emotions. Soon this cyborg will be a real human.

In all seriousness, between Bert, Jack, and Dazzle the Twins’ broadcasts have their fill of crabby uncles.

by wcooley on May 30, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's the problem with the Internet

I know I’ve had conversations on boards and felt personally attacked because it’s really hard to realize someone’s tone when all you have is words to read. Some people come off arrogant on boards even if that’s not their intent. I think for the most part this is a friendly board and some of Ublemanns statements just came off wrong.

It’s the same reason some people get so pissed off at Gleeman when he starts responding in his comment section. He comes off as arrogant and to a point he might be, but it’s really hard to tell when all a person has to go on is words and not the nonverbals that are in everyday conversation. I’ve learned to just not take anything too personally on boards as their is nothing more pathetic than getting into a fight on a message board.

Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?

by halfchest on May 30, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I agree

the Net is tough on people because all intervening cues—body language, voice tone, emotion, facial expression—are absent, and there is nothing to go by but words.

It makes me realize just how much goes on in communication that is non-verbal, and which even happens below the surface of consciousness.

Some people around here, like Ubelman, think I’m an ass, even though they’ve never met me—all the while, in real life, I’m just a good-natured school teacher beloved by all…

Vicariously I get to feel what it is like to be considered a jerk.

by Old Twins Cap on May 30, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am passionate about the issue

I’m sick of hearing over and over on Twins broadcasts how pitchers just need to essentially man up, grow some testicles, and pitch until the end of the game. I find it to be an incredibly naive point of view, and I’m sick of being beaten over the head with it. At the end of a complete game, I ought to be happy that our pitcher just threw a complete game, but instead I find myself irritated because every time the Twins have a complete game-or even come close-it is time for Bert Blyleven to deliver his sermon on how they just don’t make ‘em like they used to. It has become extremely tiresome.

If any of these old-timers complaining about the past had any sort of appreciation for the history of the game, they would realize that when they were players, things had already changed quite a bit from when baseball had first started out. Night games are here to stay, batting helmets are here to stay, and managers are going to continue to monitor pitch counts.

I’ve got nothing against you at all, Caluofmn, I’m just sick of hearing about how things aren’t what they used to be. Things are the way that they are now for a reason, and we shouldn’t just dismiss those reasons because we think that pitchers today are mentally or emotionally weak or whatever, because there’s no real evidence that today’s pitchers are any less stubborn or mentally strong than pitcher’s of yesteryear.

by ubelmann on May 30, 2008 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also think

that the game is much more highly competitive today than in previous decades. Hitters, even low in the order, can drive the ball like nobody’s business, and that can easily mean the difference between winning and losing.

Every pitch is measured, charted, analyzed—pitchers train year round. This ain’t my daddy’s world anymore.

As good a curve ball as Blyleven had, and I watched him throw his first one in the majors-yes, it was a good curve-today’s players would learn to look for it and are capable of taking it out of the park if it were above their shoetops.

When a manager knows that he has a 90% chance of winning a game by turning to his bullpen after the starter has thrown a 100 pitches, well, he wouldn’t have a job anymore if he ignored that.

by Old Twins Cap on May 30, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bert is nothing if not for tiresome expressions

He really does believe it, as does Jack Morris. But he says it often because he thinks it’s fun to say the same things over and over and over again until we want to puke all over the TV:

It’s 343 days ‘till my next birthday
#There’s not as much foul territory here as there is in Oakland
#Pitchers just are not trained to have the stamina they did when I pitched

He relies so much on his tiresome schtick, he’s losing his ability to actually call the game in front of him. The other night, he refused to believe the umpire made a bad call on a foul ball even though the ball left an imprint on the chalk line. Then he defended Delmon Young’s bonehead play as though there really was nothing he could do to stop an inside-the-park homer by a lumbering slugger.

I’m starting a new campaign: Fire Bert Blyleven.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 30, 2008 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But to your point...

...the game evolved from Cy Young to Blyleven, just as it has from Bert to Boof, so although Blyleven’s complete games paled in comparison to those of Young, it’s likely Bert threw as many or more pitches per start, but 100 pitches didn’t go as far in Bert’s day as in Cy’s day. Think of it as pitch inflation. Just because Blyleven doesn’t favor the game’s obsession with pitch count - and rightfully so in some cases, such as this one, where a fan is complaining because a guy threw nearly 90 pitches in 8 innings, so the manager should have pulled him - doesn’t make him a pussy. And if these guys pitching today didn’t feel the need to waste every goddamn 0-2, 1-2 pitch, maybe they could complete some ballgames. In general, more throwing is better than less, so in general, I think the pitch count is overblown. Pitchers have been coming down with sore arms since they started throwing hard overhand to spots that the hitter didn’t pick.

by Johnny Safron on May 30, 2008 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Expecting more pitches per game to lead to fewer injuries is completely counterintuitive

I would need some evidence before I believed such a claim.

The reason that pitchers wind up wasting more pitches these days is two-fold—hitters are more willing to take close pitches (not as concerned about protecting the plate) and as mentioned elsewhere, there are a lot more dangerous hitters in the 7-8-9 spots of lineups these days. You have to be more careful when mistakes get punished more often. Also, better hitters are going to be better at wasting close two-strike pitches when they are protecting the plate.

I don’t think that pitch counts should be strictly followed (there’s some evidence that the most dangerous thing for a pitcher is throwing a lot of pitches in one inning), but I think that they are an awfully good guideline in general. I would rather see a return to the 4-man rotation before I saw pitch counts totally go away.

As to the case yesterday, I didn’t have a problem at all with Slowey finishing that game. But I don’t think it had anything to do with him “learning how to pitch a complete game” as it had to do with “it’s easier to throw fewer pitches in a game when the lineup is awful.”

by ubelmann on May 30, 2008 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But I wrote -

- “more throwing is better than less.”

That is hardly the same as saying “more pitches per game lead to fewer injuries is completely counterintuitive.” I didn’t suggest that, you inferred it, and it is one huge leap to infer that. Note the word “throwing” in my post. That is not the same as “pitching.”

Pitchers need to throw. Hence: more throwing is better than less. They need to throw a lot. That’s not saying they need to throw more pitchers, or that it is OK to have a pitch count of 150, or 120, pitches a game, although it is completely idiotic that the number “100” means that the needle has hit some automatic equivalent of the red DANGER zone on the hydraulic gauges shown in the climatic scenes of most every James Bond film. And the 100-pitch mark has become that. It was the litmus test in this thread about Slowey. “Oh, my God!” 100 pitches. Why not 107? or 120?”

I’m sure Tim Wakefield is even on a pitch count. Why? Wilbur Wood started every game for the White Sox for three straight seasons from 1972-74, which is 162 starts a season, including all spring training games, plus a benefit for the East Side firefighters in August of ‘73. He threw something like 3,923 innings in those three years. You can look it up.

And if it were true there are more dangerous hitters lower in the order in this, the Golden Age of Baseball Offense, we’d see higher and higher BAs, but we don’t see that. Or increasingingly higher OB%. Pitchers don’t nibble because of some influx of dangerous batters that scare the WillieWonkers out of them, they nibble because that’s the approach today. And when these guys waste ‘em, they really waste ‘em. They IBB waste ‘em. Christ, at least make it close enough that the batter might have to worry about the ump blinking at the wrong time.

by Johnny Safron on May 31, 2008 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pitch inflation

Last night Bert said, “If they want the game to move along, instruct the umpires to call more strikes. They don’t call nearly as many close pitches for strikes as they did in my day.”

I think he hit on the root cause. Umpires have tighter strike zones than I remember as a boy. And when I played, if you had two strikes on you, anything close was going to get called, so you had to hack at it. I think the biggest difference today is close two-strike pitches typically go to the batter rather than the pitcher.

But the quoted attitude does not jive with his complaint about pitchers working deeper into games. If pitchers have to throw more pitches per out, they will not be able to work deeper into games without risking injury. You would think he’d put two and two together and stop blaiming the pitchers for something outside their control.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 31, 2008 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A quick way to look at it

Is that Gardy had two choices: 1.) Leave Slowey in. 2.) Pull him for someone in the bullpen that had probably worked a lot in the past couple days. In the #2 option, you have the chance of injuring the reliever by making HIM pitch too much on consecutive days. if you’re going to argue that a few more pitches by someone who’s already pitching is dangerous, then how about getting a reliever up and make him start working when he’s cold?

I’ll take the fresh starter for one more inning rather than making an overworked reliever work an extra day. It seemed like a smart move to me.

by Neil on May 30, 2008 12:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Gleeman

Gleeman … comes off as arrogant and to a point he might be

Gleeman thinks he discovered on-base percentage. Or at least that someone of the Bill James era did. Some sportswriters wrote about stats beyond BA 80 years ago, but people weren’t terribly receptive to hearing about numbers beyond BA. If Gleeman knows so much about baseball, he must certainly know writers nearly half a century ago tried to emphasize these numbers.

by Johnny Safron on May 30, 2008 7:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

oh please

Come on - Gleeman doesn’t say, “look at me, I invented on-base percentage!” He points out when people proudly ignore such an obviously useful statistic. Pointing out that that OBP has been known and used for 80 years doesn’t undermine his point. It undermines the justification of stat-hating purists for ignoring it. If someone mocks and bullies bloggers as out of touch stat freaks for talking about OBP and OPS so much, and claims Jason Tyner is a good hitter because of his high BA, they are going to get called out by Gleeman. Gleeman may or may not sound arrogant while doing so (I don’t personally hear Gleeman as arrogant but it’s a purely subjective metric your opinion is as valid as mine) - but he’ll still be right.

by by jiminy on Jun 2, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs