A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'll use a pitcher's point of view: Lester threw 43 pitches in the 1st inning. You can pretend that a high-end of pitches at the start of a game doesn't gas or tax you, but the reality is it kills you. The longer you keep a SP on the hill in the 1st or 2nd inning, the shorter the guy's performance and that is how it is. It's not because of pitch counts, it because you feel so tired early. It's a matter of timing. If you throw say 10 pitches in the first, 21 in the 2nd, and 11 in the 3rd, by the time the 6th inning rolls around and you haven't thrown a 40-pitch inning (really that's ridiculously way too many pitches for any inning, hit around or not), you can make it through 8 if you are rolling along, 9 if you feel you get that 2nd burst of energy. (but I don't think that happens anymore cuz of what I said was a lack of training to go longer...that's another thread). Anyway, Lester was killed by the 1st inning and that's why he went so short...It wasn't the pitch count.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I could make a case that if you threw a 43-pitch inning at any point, your chances of getting through 6 IP is pretty low, miniscule at best.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    There are two arguments for pitch count. One is fatigue level and the diminishing returns that come from that and I think Danny makes solid points about how hard Lester hard to work early. And in general he worked pretty hard. That was not an "easy" 114. Managers including Francona talk about how different an "easy" 100 pitches are than 100 under constant stress.

    The other side of course is the now readily accepted premise that containing pitch count is good "pre-hab", in other words the best way to avoid serious injuries over time.

    Now while we debate those merits here regularly, until we can pay the $17M in sunk cost the RS have on Dice-K right now or a potential $20K in sunk cost for Lester if he went down, I suppose our opinions don't carry as much weight as those that are taking the monetary risks.

    Personally I can't see second guessing Tito on the pitching changes. Lester did not have his A game all night and with a bit of what one might call "recent Wake luck" he could have been much further behind. Bringing in Aceves would give Francona a shot to use a very short pen in a longer situation.

    Andruw Jones put an epic AB on Aceves and the game started to unfold like a cheap lawn chair. Bard got hit with RISP. What you gonna do? It happens once every month or so. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    danny & katz, both excellent posts. I still think with 2 extra days off out of his previous 3 starts and an 80 something pitch start before this game, lester was "set up" to go a bit longer last night. He didn't. I'm not making a big deal out of it. Tito made the call. I'm not trying to be a Monday morning QB. Aceves and bard did things they haven't done often. had they done what they normally do, there's no debate. The one thing i liked about our chances going into this series was the fact that we had extra rest 92 days off), the yanks had played 3 games in 2 days, and our starters had an extra day of rest coming into this big series. I was hoping we'd use that to our advantage. I think we might have missed it by a little bit.

    Great games. We made it a close game at the end. I am still proud of this team.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Mr. Moon
    Have you seen Iglesias's 2011 splits:

    RHP  249  AB    .486  OPS
    LHP    95  AB    .694  OPS

    Very premature I know, but this might have some bearing on his future.  Of course, it is way early to restrict him to platoon duties, but down the road?



     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Danny, in no way was I comparing Reddick to Evans! In fact you brought up Evans as one of a handful of outfielders our farm has produced that have actually had productive careers here. My ONLY point was that Evans took some time to develop into the player he became, especially offensively. (He was pretty polished defensively right out of the shoot!) And Reddick is at a similar point, age and experience wise, as Evans. I still feel like Reddick will be a productive MLB outfielder, whether with us or another team, but he is still about 2-3 years away from entering his peak years.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I agree 100% about the first inning setting the tone for the entire game for Lester. He did a great job not breaking and minimizing the damage but his outing was already determined to be short by that very taxing inning. And as someone else mentioned, if Bard and Aceves had pitched as they have most of the year, we'd all be talking about what a gutsy win that was for Lester and the staff. 

    The biggest at bat of the game, besides Agon in the ninth, was Jones' 14 pitch epic against Aceves. He should have come out then and there as far as I'm concerned because when a pitcher loses a battle like that, especially a reliever late in the game, he's usually toast from then on.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I believe it was Softy who first used the term on here "drive-by idiotic post". Isn't it ironic that he has now become the master of what he formally claimed to detest?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Mr. Moon Have you seen Iglesias's 2011 splits: RHP  249  AB    .486  OPS LHP    95  AB    .694  OPS Very premature I know, but this might have some bearing on his future.  Of course, it is way early to restrict him to platoon duties, but down the road?
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    Well, it doesn't match up well with Jed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]I'll use a pitcher's point of view: Lester threw 43 pitches in the 1st inning. You can pretend that a high-end of pitches at the start of a game doesn't gas or tax you, but the reality is it kills you. The longer you keep a SP on the hill in the 1st or 2nd inning, the shorter the guy's performance and that is how it is. It's not because of pitch counts, it because you feel so tired early. It's a matter of timing. If you throw say 10 pitches in the first, 21 in the 2nd, and 11 in the 3rd, by the time the 6th inning rolls around and you haven't thrown a 40-pitch inning (really that's ridiculously way too many pitches for any inning, hit around or not), you can make it through 8 if you are rolling along, 9 if you feel you get that 2nd burst of energy. (but I don't think that happens anymore cuz of what I said was a lack of training to go longer...that's another thread). Anyway, Lester was killed by the 1st inning and that's why he went so short...It wasn't the pitch count.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    To take this one step further: If you saw Lester's reaction after he walked off the mound in that fist inning, you could see how angry he was. Angry with the officiating, but perhaps moreso with his continued 1st inning difficulty of establishing some kind of command. He knew his outing was shot.

    Part of this is becoming a two-pitch pitcher when he has a 4-pitch arsenal.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    He knew his outing was shot?

    He pitched a great game.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I meant the longevity of it. He knew he wasn't gonna go deep.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I don't know. Deep these days is 7 innings. I think he could have gone one more, but it's no biggie. We still could have won. My opinion is that in these 2 game swing games you go the extra mile.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Getting back to the Evans discussion: Evans was a different player after Houk. the averages don't accurately depict this.
    Pre Houk: Evans never hit above .287. Only twice did he hit over .275.
    Post Houk: He hit over .290 5 times.

    Pre-Houk: Evans never hit over 24 dingers, and only hit over 20 twice.
    Post Houk: He hit over 20 HR's 9 straight years. Few if any did as much.
    He hit over 30 3 times.

    Pre-Houk: Evan's OBP topped .350 4 times, never going higher than .365.
    Post Houk: nine times it was over .374! Three times it cleared .400.

    Pre-Houk: OPS was above .850 once. Only 4 times over .800
    Post Houk: Evans OPS was over .800 8 times, incl. over .900 4 times!

    This should open the eyes of those who feel coaches make a minimal difference.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Hard to know if Ralph helped him or someone else maybe, or he just was a late bloomer. I did like Houk. I'm not doubting he helped Dewey, just saying, it's hard to know. When Houk came, Dewey was 29 with a lot of experience. His prime lasted about 6 or 7 years (29-35 y/o).
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Dewey repeated it several times. He said Houk turned his game around. Who better to know? Yaz said Houk was the best mgr. he ever played for. I think maybe Houk came across as a father figure to some.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    There was a recent thread questioning the importance of home advantage in the PO's.
    The Sox put a hurt on TX in TX...without a full squad of hitters.
    Then they drop 3 of 4 in Fenway against likely PO opponents.
    Keep in mind: the pitching #'s are much better on the road...
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    just throwing this out there, and it's going to make some of you mad: Why in the f-ing world is Varitek catching Andrew Miller???? Miller threw a terrific game with Salty behind the dish, and clearly seemed to have no command with Tek in Chi-Town for instance when Tek called way too many curveballs for him. I'm sorry, Tek had no business catching Miller...none. If Salty was hurt by the 4 hour games, then he needs to suck it up. It was a mistake to have Tek catch Miller, and some guys go with certain catchers. This is one where Salty should be catching Miller and that's it, no Tek for Miller. Tek for Beckett, not for Miller. Tek for Lester, not for Miller. Big mistake by Tito.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : To take this one step further: If you saw Lester's reaction after he walked off the mound in that fist inning, you could see how angry he was. Angry with the officiating, but perhaps moreso with his continued 1st inning difficulty of establishing some kind of command. He knew his outing was shot. Part of this is becoming a two-pitch pitcher when he has a 4-pitch arsenal.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    harness, this is one of the best posts of the 18,000 plus you have ever made. great post, and I agree.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]just throwing this out there, and it's going to make some of you mad: Why in the f-ing world is Varitek catching Andrew Miller???? Miller threw a terrific game with Salty behind the dish, and clearly seemed to have no command with Tek in Chi-Town for instance when Tek called way too many curveballs for him. I'm sorry, Tek had no business catching Miller...none. If Salty was hurt by the 4 hour games, then he needs to suck it up. It was a mistake to have Tek catch Miller, and some guys go with certain catchers. This is one where Salty should be catching Miller and that's it, no Tek for Miller. Tek for Beckett, not for Miller. Tek for Lester, not for Miller. Big mistake by Tito.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Tito's decision may have had something to do with Salty catching too many games in a row. Or, it could be that Salty doesn't look like he's seeing the ball offensively very well. I'll admit, I was a bit surprised.
    Miller came off his best performance of the year with Salty. And his good game off the long layoff was with Salty as well.
    Recall how Josh's comfort zone crashed when he lost his security blanket in 2009.

    See DC, I am flexible.
    Thanks for that kind comment.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Dewey repeated it several times. He said Houk turned his game around. Who better to know? Yaz said Houk was the best mgr. he ever played for. I think maybe Houk came across as a father figure to some.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Houk convinced Yaz to quit "while he was on top"; hard to believe, but Yaz would have played a couple of more yrs otherwise. It's even harder to believe, given his longevity, that he was a smoker; he was in great shape otherwise (barring the injuries in the early 70s)
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    harness, exactly why I wanted Lester to throw to Tek, then Salty with Miller. There's the rest right there. Anyway, Miller will be thrown under a bus like he has by a lot of fans who wanted him to start game 3 of the playoffs after Texas at Texas start, but I still like him. I think Salty worked well with him. Give Miller his comfort zone just like Beckett has his with Tek, and Wake used to have his with Mirabelli back in the day. Comfort zones are good for pitchers...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    2009....you make a good point there. I soured on VMART in the respect that it still made less and less sense why the Sox were pretty inclined to give up on him. They really didn't want him back, certainly not as a catcher. I tried to be fair with him, but then I've seen somethings in Detroit that upholds your opinion on him. He just isn't the catcher that he probably could have been or should have been. He's a great hitter, and I miss that at times with Sox, but you have to really fall in disfavor with your organization if you get the Theo low-ball treatment. He's pretty good about overpaying, not underpaying. It was a sign to VMART---don't come back.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Houk was a genius, agreed. Yaz did say great things about Ralph. The sad part was that the Sox just weren't very good or talented during the few Houk years, not a reflection of his managing. It's why Tito has been at times crucified with the titles and playoff runs. He's simply running a team during an era where the Sox have their best talent on the field in most of his seasons in Boston, with maybe last year being the lowest due to the injuries.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'm not taking away from Tito, just saying it's ok to criticize him based on managerial game-day decisions and lineup card moves and pitching moves. It's still a game within the game. But he sure has a lot of talent at his disposal overall.
     

Share