Rest for Regulars

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

    Re: Rest for Regulars

    Roy, we obviously have a difference of opinion regarding a DH that is exclusivley a DH. Up until only recent history this was a position reserved for aging sluggers who couldn't run or field very well ( Frank Thomas, Jim Thome....etc.). Only Edgar Martinez was even close to playing almost his entire career as a DH.

    Ortiz is easily the greatest DH ever, he may even become the first ever to make the HOF.

    But he doesn't have to bust his behind like a Salty or Pedroia. In the words of Bob from Bob's Furniture..."no way, no how!"

    Hitting is not easy, but what a luxury it is to not have to worry about half the game...defense. You could say this applies to starting  pitchers too, but a starting pitcher is not able to pitch to one batter, then go sit down for two or three innings.

    I respect your opinion, but can't agree with it 100%.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Rest for Regulars

    And Z, let's talk about the "good ol days."

    Yes, there's a lot of things I like better about baseball when I was growing up in the 1970s. But just because things were done differently back then, it doesn't mean they were better.

    First -- would you please give me the evidence that it was agents who forced managers to use five-man rotations. Like the way bullpens are used because of what LaRussa did in using relievers one-inning at a time, it sort of evolved -- the beginning of the era where they're trying to protect pitchers. We can argue all we want on whether or not pitchers are being overly protected and if it's effective, but there's a reason. Pitchers were blowing out their arms since the beginning of the game.

    Cherry-pick all you want about pitchers who had long careers and pitched a lot of innings, but I can match that and more with pitchers who flamed out after three or four years and certainly by the time they were 30. And even guys known for a long career and a lot of innings had years of their career wiped out because of injury -- Tiant for example, Palmer two times, three if you count the end of his career.

    And managers ran players into the ground. Contrary to your line of thinking, that's not a good thing. Maybe managers would have gotten more out of some players if they thought more about giving players days off before they wore out. And if you look, there are players of every generation who play a lot of games and players who play less for various reasons. You brought up Yaz. Well, today's generation has a Pedroia.

    Another thing to consider. It's not so much players were tougher back then. There many injuries that couldn't be detected or if they were fixed. If a player had a nagging injury back in the day, he couldn't go get an MRI. If he had a bad elbow, he played 'til it went. If he ripped up his knee, he hobbled through until it ended his career early, whereas today, he can get it scoped, or get ACL surgery or Tommy John surgery, etc. Yeah, the old days was so much better back then.

    Jumping sports for a minute, I would have rathered seen Bobby Orr miss the 1972-73 (I think I have the right year) season after he ripped up his knee in whatever tournament that was because he had the type of surgery and rehab that's available today then go on to play into the mid-1980s than see him gut it out for three or four years then see his career basically end at age 28.

    It's funny you brought up Yawkey. First, I'm not a Yawkey basher. I usually defend him. However, on the one hand you think today's players are being coddled yet Yawkey had a repution of coddling his players. A bit of a double-standard don't you think?

    And Yawkey was one of the first "modern" owners. How do you think he built his first teams. He "signed free agents." OK, not technically, but he was a rich, big-market owner who bought Lefty Grove, Jimmy Foxx, Joe Cronin among others from poor and in some cases, small-market teams to build his first teams in the 1930s. And if you're going down that rout about how unfair it was that the team didn't win for Yawkey, maybe the Sox would have won more if he signed a Willie Mays a Jackie Robinson or one or two of the other top black players back in the late '40s or early '50s. He's accused of being racist. I'm not going to make accusations I can't prove. But he wasn't open-minded enough or courageous enough to sign a Mays or an Aaron who could have put the Sox over the top. So Yawkey didn't love the game enough to overcome his own prejudices.

    Henry, on the other hand, might have faults. But his desire to put a winning product on the field to me surpasses Yawkey in that he thinks outside the box. He hasn't been afraid to try new methods of evaluating players and put money into ALL aspects of the organization. He's made money and won titles. And yes, he's made mistakes.

    I'm not going to judge how much an owner loves the game simply by how many games he attends. First, I don't know how many games Yawkey attended or Henry attends. From what I understand, Yawkey didn't go to as many games as he used to in the early 1960s and took less of an interest in the team, not keeping Fenway in good shape. The good that came out it was that he gave Dick O'Connell a free hand, and O'Connell was able to bring in players like George Scott, Reggie Smith, Jim Rice and others.

    There's good and bad with all eras. I don't like everything about free agency, but the reserve-clause system was hardly fair to the players, and owners like Charlie Comiskey were hardly good for the game. You wouldn't have wanted to work for an owner like that or in the system that existed back then. Sure, there are players who get a little soft because of the big money. But it is an overblown cliche too. Most athletes remain competitive. The J.D. Drews of the world, assuming he even fits your cliche, are the exceptions, not the norm.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Rest for Regulars

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    Roy, we obviously have a difference of opinion regarding a DH that is exclusivley a DH. Up until only recent history this was a position reserved for aging sluggers who couldn't run or field very well ( Frank Thomas, Jim Thome....etc.). Only Edgar Martinez was even close to playing almost his entire career as a DH.

    Ortiz is easily the greatest DH ever, he may even become the first ever to make the HOF.

    But he doesn't have to bust his behind like a Salty or Pedroia. In the words of Bob from Bob's Furniture..."no way, no how!"

    Hitting is not easy, but what a luxury it is to not have to worry about half the game...defense. You could say this applies to starting  pitchers too, but a starting pitcher is not able to pitch to one batter, then go sit down for two or three innings.

    I respect your opinion, but can't agree with it 100%.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells




    All this may be true, although the DH has always been a variety of different type of players. Martinez and Ortiz are two of the few (only two?) who have spent nearly their entire careers primarily as a DH. Otherwise, there's been a variety of players who have manned the position, not just the no-defense, aging slugger type. Eddie Murray won rookie of the year as mostly a DH and Rice played a lot of DH early in his career too. Young players have often gotten their chance in the majors as DH because they were blocked in the field by a veteran.

    But what does that have to do with Ortiz being used as an example for your point on "scheduled days off." As I stated before, if you add games he likely would have played had the game not been in NL ballparks, his missed games would have been even less.

    Beyond that, except for a year like this when he's coming back from an injury, I've never heard 'scheduled day off' as a reason for him not playing back in the Francona years. That doesn't mean he might not have been given a day off because Tito thought he needed a day off, but there weren't many. Just because a guy is a DH, it doesn't mean he's just sitting around during the game. Ortiz is often/usually in the batting cage between innings hitting or doing other things to stay loose. If he's in the batting cage, that's more strenuous on the body than an outfielder who might have just stood around all inning.

    Add that to the work in the cage done before the game, and DH or not (and I don't want to overstate), he is putting in a lot of physical activity. And just like with any activity, a day off can be good even if it is a game.

    BUT AGAIN, Ortiz simply doesn't fit the profile of a guy whose had a lot (if any) "scheduled days off" except when he was coming back from an injury.

    I DO AGREE in general in that I don't complete get the idea for a "scheduled day off." You don't want to wait until a guy is completely worn out to give him a rest, but I don't see the need to schedule it too far in advance. To me, you get to know your players and play it by ear. You know what guys need days off now and then and what guys don't. It never made sense to give a guy a day off when he's hot and feeling good.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from CTJake14. Show CTJake14's posts

    Re: Rest for Regulars

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    but he doesn't love his team and attend every game the way Mr. Yawkey did.( Henry has soccer teams, NASCAR and racehorses too) It is a real shame that the Sox couldn't win for Tom Yawkey as he really was a baseball owner in a era when you didn't buy your teams or shop for players on the Free Agent market.

    you should read Summer of '49 if you admire Yawkey.  it will correct your skewed view.



     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Rest for Regulars

    Fragile Freddy Lynn never played more than 150 games in one season.

    For six seasons, Rick Burleson played in an average of 153 games per season. After that, his careeer was pretty much done. For the next 6 seasons, he averaged 52 games per season.

    Lynn played 17 seasons, Burleson played 13.

    What does this prove? Nothing. It just shows that every player is different, no matter what era they played in.





    "Hold it fellows, that don't move me. Let's get real, real gone for a change."

    -Elvis Presley

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

    Re: Rest for Regulars

    Starting with 1961-1970, the number of guys that played 162 games-

    • 4
    • 9
    • 3
    • 12
    • 8
    • 6
    • 4
    • 4
    • 6
    • 2

    2003-2012

    • 6
    • 4
    • 10
    • 6
    • 7
    • 5
    • 1
    • 2
    • 1
    • 4

    The first period covered 58 players and the second contained 46.

    If I had to take a guess, it is that we know a lot more about physiology now than we knew in the '60s.

    To be honest, when I saw the title of the thread, I simply assumed, without even a second thought, that this was going to be a thread saying that we were playing our regulars too much.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Rest for Regulars

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:


    Tell them that when they sit out due to injury or sit out because they need a "scheduled day off"...they don't get paid for that game.

    You'd see fewer guys on the DL and fewer guys having "scheduled days off."

    Carl Yastrzemski played 161 games in 1967 and won the Triple Crown.

    Yaz played 157 games in 1968 and won the batting title.

    Yaz played all 162 games in 1969 and had 40HR and 111RBI.

    Yaz played 161 games in 1970 walked 128 times and had the highest BA of his career .329.

    These were his peak years.

    In fact Carl played over 125 games every year except 1981....that's right evEry year of his 23 year Hall Of Fame career.

    So don't tell me players NEED scheduled days off. Don't tell me players cannot play through nagging injuries ( you think Yaz never was hampered by sore back, sore legs or headache?).

    I feel lucky that I saw a man who exemplified the true baseball player and what he should be. Fans paid to see Yaz, and he did not disappoint them. When you went to Fenway, Yaz was in the lineup...if he was sitting on that day, you would feel cheated. Fans pay to see the best players play, if they can't motivate themselves with today's pay , they never will. Yaz did not make A-Rod money, he didn't even make J.D.Drew money, yet he played and he gave us his best effort.

     

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells



    I somewhat agree but in 1967 3 guys played over 150 games same as 2011. Then you have Pedroia except for the injured year hass over 135 per year. So IMHO you theory has holes. Then you have to remember until the mid 70's it was not a business for the players. With players now making millions they are bigger than most small businesses. Thus they and their agents and financial advisors are protecting their business asare the teams. Any injury can hurt the bottom line for the team in the short run and in the long run for the player  

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Rest for Regulars

    I somewhat agree but in 1967 3 guys played over 150 games same as 2011. Then you have Pedroia except for the injured year hass over 135 per year. So IMHO you theory has holes. Then you have to remember until the mid 70's it was not a business for the players. With players now making millions they are bigger than most small businesses. Thus they and their agents and financial advisors are protecting their business asare the teams. Any injury can hurt the bottom line for the team in the short run and in the long run for the player 

    I was going to mention the business end as well.  If you have guys on 1- or 2-year contracts, like RPs, you ride them until they drop.  Once you get into long-term contracts, you need to think in the long-term.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Rest for Regulars

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    Wilbur Wood also once STARTED both games of a doubleheader!

    Many teams used a 4 man rotation before some agent got involved and the players association got their way.

    Most of the so-called "bench players" were just that. They were "reserves" in case someone got hurt real bad ( Tony Conigliaro). These guys mainly came into a game if the score was 12-1 in the 9th or they gave a catcher or shortstop the 2nd game of a doubleheader a rest....and they actually used to SCHEDULE doubleheaders back in those days!

    I use Carl Yaz as a prime example, but if you look at the careers aof Frank Robinson, Al Kaline, Pete Rose , Hank Aaron , Willie McCovey, Rico Petrocelli, Brooks Robinson and most every good player of the day and these guys weren't given "scheduled days off" , the term was unheard of. If a starter was healthy , he played.....and healthy had a whole different meaning...you played with bumps and bruises in September, if you were in a pennent race....because it was important to have your best players in every game, even if they were at 75% ,they were better than the subs.

    This was when baseball people owned teams, not corporate bigwigs. I'm sorry , but, John Henry can claim to be a baseball fan ( and I'm sure he is) , but he doesn't love his team and attend every game the way Mr. Yawkey did.( Henry has soccer teams, NASCAR and racehorses too) It is a real shame that the Sox couldn't win for Tom Yawkey as he really was a baseball owner in a era when you didn't buy your teams or shop for players on the Free Agent market.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells



    You do realize Yawkey had investments like lumber and iron!

     

Share