Big Three Redux?
by Oaktown Oaks on Mar 11, 2009 4:57 PM PDT
77 comments
With all their talent it is very tempting to let Cahill, Mazzaro and Anderson pitch and pitch a lot. How best to use them and maximise their effectivness?
Cahill, Mazzarro, Anderson, probably nothing could be worse for this franchise than to over pitch and ruin those three young pitchers. With their success in this early part of spring it also must be oh so tantalizing to the A's brass to run those guys out there and see what they can do. All common sense tells you send those guys down let them mature and wait for another day. Let's throw out common sense for a minute and consider this.
The A's go to a four man rotation, two of those spots are made up of a tandem of Duchscherer, Cahill, Mazzaro and Anderson. Each tandem is strictly limited to 50 pitches, which would not over strain their arms, and still give them regular set work. This would result in roughly 120 or so innings for the year for each of them. The idea being build the young guys stamina and at the same time utilize their great talent and hopefully keep Duke pitching and off the disabled list. For your two other starters, throw in, Eveland and Braden, and strictly limit their pitches to 80 a game, which gives them roughly 200 innings for the season. That leaves probably 550 to 600 innings that need to be covered by the bullpen. I see the 25 man roster something like this
C Suzuki
C Bowen or Powell
1B Giambi
2B Ellis
3B Chavez
SS Cabrera
OF Sweeny
OF Buck
OF Holliday
DH Cust
INF Garciaparra
INF Crosby
OF Davis
INF Petit or Barton
SP Duchscherer
SP Eveland
SP Braden
SP Cahill
SP Mazzaro
SP Anderson
RP Gallagher or Outman or E Gonzalez
RP Gio or Springer or Williams
RP Ziegler
RP Wuertz
RP Devine
0 recs |
77 comments
Email
Print
Comments
So you've got 550 to 600 innings
to split between Gallagher, Gio, Ziegler, Wuertz and Devine?
by NateHST on Mar 11, 2009 5:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah - including Devine is iffy as well.
I understand your logic but 50 pitches could be the 3rd inning still.
I see this as taxing the bullpen even more.
sanity is insanities underpants...
by brian.only on Mar 11, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this post makes no sense to me at all........
plus, what does the Big Three Redux have to do with the entire “roster”?
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Mar 12, 2009 5:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would start out that way and hope they could fill the majority of those innings. I know the A’s would have to utilize more than 11 pitchers during the year, but that is not any different than other years.
by Oaktown Oaks on Mar 11, 2009 5:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, just listen to BB
He told Buster Olney yesterday (reported today) he’s absolutely considering one or more of these guys for the rotation— said the team could go either way (kids in rotation and kids to minors) and that they (MAC) might be the best option right now.
Whatever happens, this notion that somehow the A’s will “overpitch and ruin” any of these three is simply not supported by any empirical evidence. Their experience with young, highly-touted pitchers has, in a word, been terrific. Only Mulder took the better part of a season to work the kinks out— Hudson, Zito, Harden— even Lidle and Blanton— were quality AL starters from the get-go. The truly great pitchers— unless retarded by injury of some sort— generally demonstrate real ability and good results at a very young age. And the sooner they learn the sooner they become great, if that is their destiny.
i don’t know, and you don’t know, that any or all of these three are going to become great. But the possibility exists, doesn’t it? the fact that it is nearly mid-March and Beane is talking these guys up suggests that the guys who know best are seriously contemplating one or even two of them in the rotation either in April or soon thereafter.
Which means that in all likelihood, at least one and possibly two, of the following will not be part of this rotation for long: Duke (bullpen?), Gallagher (AAA?), Eveland/Braden (trade??). Not many around here would have forecast anything other than rotation spots for those four, but now it appears that something else might be in store. This is a team committed to winning— now and in the future— if one or more of MAC gives them the best chance to win, so be it.
by windyfelix on Mar 11, 2009 5:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
and oh by the way
the 4 man "mini"rotation is a) nuts and b) will never happen. Duke may need to be babied, or shutdown, or put in the bullpen— but 21-22 yr old kids who have talent can throw 180-200 innings in a every 5th day rotation.
by windyfelix on Mar 11, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+2 windyfelix
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Mar 12, 2009 5:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, remember that if these young guys were in Sacramento
they’d be throwing 7 IP / 90 pitches, so there’s no particular need for them to be limited to 50 pitches as major leaguers. Sure you want to limit their season total for innings, and be ready for the occasional short outing, but I don’t see why any or all of those guys, if put in the big league rotation, couldn’t go 6-7 IP and/or 90 pitches any start where they were effective.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Mar 11, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wish you'd include links to your sources
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Mar 11, 2009 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Found it
But as the days go by, and Anderson, Cahill and Mazzaro keep demonstrating superlative talent and getting hitters out, the chances of at least a couple of them opening the season in the Oakland rotation are getting better. “We are open-minded to the possibility,” said Athletics general manager Billy Beane. "We haven’t decided which way to go.
“No. 1, they are very talented kids. And No. 2, this might be the best way to go.”
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Mar 11, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Care
Where’s the link for those who don’t care?
by Stew's Crew on Mar 11, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I forgot
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Mar 11, 2009 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Precedents
Their experience with young, highly-touted pitchers has, in a word, been terrific. Only Mulder took the better part of a season to work the kinks out— Hudson, Zito, Harden— even Lidle and Blanton— were quality AL starters from the get-go.
All of those guys had gone to college before being drafted, and all of them were older when the A’s drafted them than any of the MAC trio is right now. And Lidle wasn’t drafted by the A’s — he didn’t reach the majors until he was 25, and the A’s didn’t get him until he was 29.
That doesn’t mean that the young guys the A’s have can’t succeed this year in the majors; but the A’s success with the Big 3 isn’t particularly applicable here.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Mar 11, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 11, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-1
“all of them were older when the A’s drafted them than any of the MAC trio is right now”
Umm, No.
MAC are: 22yrs 5 Mos Mazzaro; 21 yrs 6 weeks Anderson; 21 yrs 2 weeks Cahill
When drafted: Mulder 20yrs 10months Zito 21yrs 2 weeks Hudson 21 yrs 11 months
So Mazzaro is older than any of the Big 3 were when drafted; Anderson is older than Zito and Mulder; Cahill older than Mulder
If your point has to do with when they began their major league careers, you are correct. And of course I’m not saying all of them will join the rotation now— or even over the course of this season. But 1 or 2 might.
by windyfelix on Mar 12, 2009 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I stand corrected on their relative ages
I should know better than to do that kind of thing from (faulty) memory — shoulda checked baseball-reference.com before posting!
I still stand by the underlying point, however: the A’s do not have much of a track record at all of bringing up really young starters who had no college experience. Harden probably comes closest, and he was ridiculously dominant in the minors before the A’s brought him up, much more so than MAC have been. And I’’m not sure you could call his record with the A’s a real success.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Mar 12, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but
Harden never really got overworked. He just simply never beat the injury problems that plague him to this day.
by windyfelix on Mar 12, 2009 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but I'm not trying to prove the A's ruin young pitchers
You’re arguing that the A’s have a good track record of putting young guys in the rotation and seeing what happens, and finding lots of success. I’m saying that the guys they’ve done that with are different players from the MAC — older when called up, with college experience under their belts.
I’m not saying WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!! if the A’s put one or even 2 of these guys in the rotation. I’m just saying that the A’s can’t say, “Don’t worry, we’ve done this before.”
I don’t even know who was the last A’s pitcher whom they drafted out of high school, developed in the minors, called up to the majors and who became a success. Mike Norris, maybe? They didn’t develop a single starter between Curt Young (Michigan State) and Tim Hudson (UGA), both of whom went to college.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Mar 12, 2009 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the A"s, depending on the results from the rest of the spring, are gonna pull the trigger on at least one
at least….maybe even two if things roll right. To me, it’s just damned exciting!
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Mar 12, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For me, it's equal parts exciting and scary
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Mar 12, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm more excited than scared
since watching young players develop is so much fun.
But I really would like to figure out the last high-school-draftee pitcher whom the A’s developed into a successful major-leaguer. I really do think it was either Norris or Matt Keough — guys whom they drafted over 30 years ago. I suppose Bonderman would have been, if they’d held onto him. And, of course, they didn’t draft Anderson. But it’s just unbelievable how bad the franchise has been at this — I’d guess that they have the single worst track-record in baseball over the last 30 years.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Mar 12, 2009 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's hard to say someone is "bad" at something they don't do
Am I “bad” at marketing? I have no idea, because I hate it and have never done it.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 13, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe that the A's tried to develop pitchers between 1983 (Curt Young) and 1999 (Tim Hudson)
During that period, here is the list of good, major league starters whom they drafted, developed in the minors, and brought to the majors to have success with the A’s:
Steve Ontiveros
That’s it. After Onto — who was a kind of poor man’s Rich Harden, very talented but injury-prone — you’re looking at Todd Burns, then, I dunno, Don Wengert or John Wasdin or Joe Slusarski or someone like that. You could give them credit for Kevin Tapani, whom they drafted and developed before trading him to the Dodgers (along with Alfredo Griffin and Jay Howell for Bob Welch), I suppose, but he never pitched in the majors for the A’s. They didn’t draft Rijo or Karsay. The best reliever they developed was probably Greg Caderet or Ketih Atherton.
High school guys, college guys, a Cuban star (Prieto), between Young and Hudson it was all the same — 15 years of failure.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Mar 13, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At this point I've lost the connection between what you're saying
and anything that’s relevant to the original post.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 14, 2009 1:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hopeful about MAC
but very aware that a team can go a long, long, long time without successfully developing even a single, good pitcher.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Mar 14, 2009 5:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you hate AND have never done it.
It’s safe to say right now, you’re bad at it.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Mar 13, 2009 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By my count you're looking at asking for nearly 4 innings a game from our bullpen.
That’s never a good thing. And odds are you’re not calculating the innings correctly and will wind up asking closer to 5 to 6 innings. 50 pitchers can easily be only 3 – 4 innings a game, 80 can be about 5 innings. Sometimes less.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Mar 11, 2009 6:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
IP Assumptions
What I was suggesting was a Tandem for two spots in the rotation for example Cahill 50 pitches, then Mazzaro 50 pitches. So they would pitch 100 pitches on their day. Each would prepare for that game as a starter. Somewhere I read that average inning is 16 pitches, which would get you to the 7th inning.
by Oaktown Oaks on Mar 11, 2009 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The question is, why not just let Mazzaro throw 100 pitches?
If he’s effective enough in the big leagues to help by throwing 50 pitches, why not the next 50? And if he isn’t, then why is he up? Same with Cahill.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Mar 11, 2009 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not 100
The assumption being you don’t want your young guys throwing too many innings at a young age. If you want to limit them to 150 innings for the year, how best to maximize that? Why not treat them as if they are one pitcher, taking up one spot in the rotation. Maybe it is 60 pitches, which means in that one game you get 120 pitches of Cahill/Mazzaro versus fill in the blank 5th starter. At 60 ptiches a start and 40 starts, that gets you about 150 IP’s. At least that is the theory.
by Oaktown Oaks on Mar 11, 2009 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The real problem
is that all the pre-game pitching and all the off-day pitching will be the same to keep up their rhythm and strength. At that point, with all those pitches, another 50 isn’t big deal unless they tire out at 80-90 pitches, in which case pull them.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Mar 11, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why waste two roster slots pitching two pitchers for half a season each
when you could just use one roster slot for both of them?
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 11, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly PT
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Mar 12, 2009 5:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assumptions
Why would throwing 50 pitches in a game be any better than throwing 70 or 90 (or even 110) on a regular basis. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to support that thesis.
by richwol1 on Mar 11, 2009 6:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
The key thing is limiting— and maybe even more importantly, structuring— their total workload. In any particular game, as long as Geren doesn’t do something ludicrous like leave someone in for 130 pitches, it’s not a big deal.
The problem of structuring workloads is a major one, though, for the “add them to the rotation immediately” crowd. The A’s want to get Cahill and Anderson up to— but not over— 150 innings this season. That’s not a full big-league season by any stretch. It’s not an issue for Mazzaro, who (all else being equal) should definitely be the one given the promotion.
I’d still incline (if Duke can’t go) toward a Gallagher/Braden/Eveland/Gio/Outman rotation to start the season, but you could sell me on using Mazzaro instead of Outman. Williams and Gonzalez are basically auto-losses, so I’m not going there unless I just need anyone to eat innings without rushing Cahill and Anderson.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 11, 2009 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My current thinking is this:
Gallagher, Braden, Eveland, Gio, and Mazzaro (auditioned at least until Duke gets back), with Edgar Gonzalez in the bullpen as the long man – it’s fine if Gonzalez gets Yabued, and he can step in for those inevitable occasional 2.1 IP young starter fiascos. In this role, Edgar Gonzalez is not blocking anyone or forcing a young pitcher to stunt their development in a “long relief” role.
Outman to AAA to get straightened out; he’s just a bit of a mechanical mess right now from all accounts. Cahill and Anderson to the minors waiting for the right time to get the call. Jerome Williams wherever.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Mar 11, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Outman needs to go back to his old mechanics.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Mar 11, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm don't know that Gio is necessarily better than Edgar, or Mazzaro
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Mar 11, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at their minor league numbers
He’s better.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Mar 11, 2009 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have looked....
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Mar 11, 2009 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You must not be looking in the right place
Career minors K/9:
Gio: 10.5
Edgar: 6.1
Jerome: 6.5
Which one of these things is not like the other?
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 11, 2009 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only the strongest Gio nonbelievers...
…think that Edgar or Jerome have a better future than GioG. But the question is who will outperform whom for the 2009 Oakland A’s. And that answer is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Mar 12, 2009 2:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
EDGAR'S ISN'T AN EXACT HALF!!!!!!
Did I get it right?
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Mar 12, 2009 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ooh, fun game
Edgar: 2.0
Jerome: 3.0
Gio: 4.0
Not that I think they have a better long term outlook than Gio, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Edgar outperform Gio this year.
by Danny on Mar 12, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Up to-- but not over-- 150 innings this season"
You know for a fact that’s what the A’s want??
I’ll bet you any amount of coin that not only do the A’s not have any such desire, but that, barring injury, all 3 of MAC will throw more than 150 innings this year, whatever the locale. In 1999, Tim Hudson threw 203 innings in his first full season; Mulder threw 162 in 2000— his first full season— cut short by a September injury; Zito threw 194 in his first full season in 2000.
by windyfelix on Mar 12, 2009 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to clarify
Mulder made 22 starts/128.2 innings in AAA in 1999— but took a leave to play for Team USA in the Pan Am games. Without that leave, he would certainly have exceeded 150 innings— probably reaching 170-175
by windyfelix on Mar 12, 2009 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and oh by the way
Except for Mulder each of those first full pro seasons included time in the bigs— Hudson getting called up in May of 1999 and Zito in July 2000. Mulder again had the Team USA thing. It was actually his 2nd pro season that he began in Oakland (2000)
by windyfelix on Mar 12, 2009 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First Season
I was looking more at their ages, Cahill, Mazzaro and Anderson are younger than those three when they put up those innings. My point being if these guys are our best pitchers and we want them in the rotation will throwing them out there every 5th start at 100+ pitches and over 200 innings be too much at their current age.
I threw Duke into the mix because whatever he is doing isn’t working so maybe limited his pitches while still getting the consistent work of a starter might help.
by Oaktown Oaks on Mar 12, 2009 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was wrong about Hudson
His first full season was actually 1998— he threw 172 innings in A and AA ball— he was 22 beginning that season— same age as Mazzaro.
Mulder was 21+— slightly older than Anderson and Cahill and younger than Mazzaro— in his first full season in 1999— AAA and team USA.
Zito turned 22 early in his first full season— again younger than Mazzaro is.
They were older than Anderson and cahill— but basically we are talking months, not years. I’m not dismissing the “overuse” issue entirely— but I think the A’s believe these guys are capable of a 6/7 inning every 5th day workload.
by windyfelix on Mar 12, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's are idiots if they pitch Anderson or Cahill more than 150 innings
There’s no excuse for it. Neither of them has ever gone more than about 120 in the past.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 12, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know about 150 innings specifically
but definitely shy of 200
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Mar 12, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's worse, innings or pitches?
It’s probably a lot easier to conceptualize innings, so that’s probably where it comes from.
I guess I just wonder where to draw the line. Are you suggesting anything more than strictly regulating pitch counts in their starts? Like extra days of rest with spot starts from long relievers throughout the season?
I don’t fully understand pitching fatigue, but I would think that the overall number of pitches thrown over the season is more important than the number of innings. Perhaps you agree.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Mar 12, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm suggesting you end their seasons at 150 innings
Did I not make that clear enough?
“Number of pitches” can’t make more than a minute impact either way, and probably isn’t worth the time to calculate. If the A’s already have the data anyway, then, sure, use it. But that’s as likely to lower the 150 line as increase it.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 13, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you made it clear enough.
We’ll never see a team cut the pitchers off after 150 innings. If they’re performing well, I see no reason why a team would just get rid of valuable parts so abruptly. And I don’t see why they should. If a young pitcher is healthy enough to pitch and is pitching well, there’s no way that a team is going to shut him down to preserve some hypothetical future. If, on the other hand, the heavy work load leads to fatigue or injuries, it’s a different story.
For the record, I was asking for clarification, not criticizing. I was actually hoping to engage in a productive discussion. No need to be snarky.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Mar 13, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who's being snarky?
We’ll never see a team cut the pitchers off after 150 innings.
The smart teams, like the Red Sox and Rays, already do this. Could David Price and Clay Buchholz (2007 version) have started usefully for their teams down the stretch? Yep. But they were moved to the bullpen so as not to exceed their inning counts. I’m sorry, you are just flat-out wrong on this issue.
The evidence that pitchers who dramatically increase workload suffer arm problems in future years is pretty strong at this point. (Just google “Verducci Effect” and you should come up with plenty.) It would be totally irresponsible for the A’s to ignore that evidence with pitchers as potentially valuable as Anderson and Cahill.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 14, 2009 1:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're being snarky.
I merely asked a question in an attempt to pick your brain, and you shot back with a comment stating that I somehow hadn’t properly analyzed what you said. You didn’t need to be rude in your reply. It’s stuff like that that makes people like me much less likely to attempt a stats-based discussion.
As for my quote that you debunked: I was wrong (thanks for the info), but I wasn’t snarky. But I still don’t see Beane giving someone the ball to start the season only to pull them once they hit 150 innings (unless the team is no longer in contention). It seems much more likely to me that they’d watch pitch counts and work more rest in during the year. But I could definitely be wrong.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Mar 14, 2009 4:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll side with the idiots, then
Plural
by windyfelix on Mar 12, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, technically speaking
Both Anderson and Cahill pitched roughly 130+ innings each last year between the minor leagues and the Olympics. You’re making it sound like crossing the 150 IP threshold would be dangerous. I think 150-160 IP should be the expectation next year, with the cap being 175 IP.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Mar 13, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine, whatever
“Number of innings last season plus 30.” Or “average number of pitches that would be thrown in ‘number of innings last season plus 30.’” Or whatever.
The point is, it’s not even close to a full season’s workload.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 14, 2009 1:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't understand why you keep citing two players with extensive injury histories as some kind of success story
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 12, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hello, world
Let’s see— they helped lead this team to a division title in 2000, back to back 100 win seasons in 2001-02, and another division title in 2003. and a near title in 2004.
I’ll trade a repeat of that in the next five years for whatever impact you believe will be caused on their arms.
And to be serious for a second, one of yor example, Tim Hudson, went through nearly a decade of mainly healthy performance— far better than most pitchers, whatever the problems were with his oblique and now his shutdown. I can’t see that his 1999 use contributed to a 2008 injury. Mulder had a variety of injuries that lacked any common thread over the 5 years he was here. And he actually threw fewer pitches than either Hudson or Zito per season.
Let’s be honest— A’s young stars are here for 6 years—max— I don’t think 175 innings for any of MAC this year— whether here or at AAA— is going to seriously threaten their contribution over the next 5-6 years.
by windyfelix on Mar 12, 2009 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I'm on the side of roll the dice with the kids if they are getting results.
Obviously, you would not want to blow out their respective arms this early in their careers. But, I think if the A’s are smart and saavy, they will figure out a good balance for the two.
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Mar 12, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, whatever
You clearly refuse to even contemplate the possibility that overpitching young pitchers will burn their arms out. I don’t have the time or energy to waste on you in that case.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 13, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
au contraire
I’ve acknowledged the risks. But I am not dogmatic about it, nor are the A’s. And while the HS/college thing is a matter of record, the fact is their track record under Beane has been superb in terms of performance for young pitchers. And the most aberrant injury problems have been among position players. I’m not willing to call someone an “idiot” who thinks that one or more of these kids can throw more than 150 innings.
by windyfelix on Mar 13, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
50 Pitches, once the other team KNOWS this
would only be 2 innings.
Chicago. Where the Dead can Vote. Where the Voters of Tomorrow are found in the Obituaries of Today.
by Zonis on Mar 11, 2009 8:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not if they throw strikes
Especially Cahill and Mazzaro, who don’t have to “fool you” to get you out.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Mar 11, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think people are too quick to put Gio in the pen.
He will get every chance to start.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
by Syphon on Mar 12, 2009 12:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have to say that if these kids keep putting up great numbers
then all of them will be in the rotation sooner than later. And I haven’t given up on Gio Gonzales yet, either. He just needs to get his head straight because the talent is there. Some guys just grow, mentally, in different phases.
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Mar 12, 2009 5:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Waste a Roster Spot
It is not a waste if you want the young pitchers to be maxed out at some number of pitches whether it is in the minors or majors, say 150. It would not work out to a whole roster spot anyway. Your 5th starter goes 200 innings max, the A’s had no pitchers do that last year. My 4A and 4B starters pitch 300 innings for the year. So you get 100 more innings at a higher quality.
Instead of a five man rotation it is a six man, except the it progresses as such
Game 1 Cahill 60, Mazzaro 60
Game 2 Eveland 80
Game 3 Duke 60, Anderson 60
Game 4 Braden 80
Game 6 Cahill 60, Mazzaro 60
etc.
by Oaktown Oaks on Mar 12, 2009 6:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
new math
Bad spellers of the world untie.
by A'sfaninNC on Mar 12, 2009 6:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may be "saving" innings, but you're not saving their arms
They’ll still throw the same amount before & between games which is where the greatest amount of their workload comes from. At which point, those 40 fewer pitches mean less. You’re better off advocating a 10-man rotation with the “pair” the first to relieve, but even that doesn’t work.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Mar 12, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really understand why all the manuevering is needed
If your real goal is to use six starting pitchers, and save workload on the youngsters, why don’t you just advocate going to a six man rotation with the starters getting 5 days rest? Why 3 days rest with 1/2 games pitched? Seems much easier to just keep it simple and have everyone take their turn — which would limit thier innings.
(I don’t really advocate this, but it seems vastly preferable to the plan above).
by AsFanInLA on Mar 12, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll just be happy with all the pitchers being healthy...
It already looks as if Duke and Devine are going to be taking time off through the year.
The young folks are going to be going up and down this year depending on who’s hot.
sanity is insanities underpants...
by brian.only on Mar 12, 2009 11:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
I don’t think any of MAC will be up and down unless it’s clear they’re overmatched. I suspect that once they hit the bigs, they’ll stay there…which is why the clock matters so much in April.
The situation is different for Gio, Outman, and Gonzalez. Williams I think, if he winds up having anything in the tank, would probably be released if he couldn’t cut it.
by richwol1 on Mar 12, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not entirely sure of Mazzaro's Abilities
Sure the guy had a stellar AA year in ’08, but he got hit up pretty well at AAA (though his FIP was 4.00). He did nothing but disappoint in A and A+ in ’06 and ’07 (though again, the FIPs were 3.94 and 4.44, respectively).
So my question is, is it really all that likely he will be a decent pitcher in MLB this year. Unlike Cahill and Anderson, I’m not sure that he’s a hands down stud, and that Simmons wouldn’t be just as effective. For all the hype the MAC name has gotten, it could just as well be SAM (of course, better still would be MACS). If I’m Beane, I’m either bringing up Anderson/Cahill to fill a spot or letting all of MAC sit in AAA until proven otherwise.
"If Bowden was a general contractor, he'd build houses with nine bedrooms, six garages, no bathrooms, and half a roof."
by DyeLongJustice on Mar 12, 2009 9:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
May the best ma(e)n win!
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Mar 13, 2009 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
