PDA

View Full Version : Volquez and pitch efficiency



Pages : 1 [2]

RedEye
09-16-2008, 09:18 AM
It looks to me like Dusty's "limit" is 120 pitches, not 100 or 110. I think that's why we see him send pitchers back out for another inning when they are in that 110 range.

At least it isn't 140. Lincecum went 138 the other night after going over 120 two other times in the last month.

Tony Cloninger
09-16-2008, 08:12 PM
It would be nice if some of these pitchers....would cut down on their pitch count and Volquez and Cueto have the stuff to do that.

They should not be at or close to 100 pitches by 5 innings with their stuff....and I am thinking that will happen with another year or two of experience.

RedEye
09-16-2008, 10:21 PM
It would be nice if some of these pitchers....would cut down on their pitch count and Volquez and Cueto have the stuff to do that.

They should not be at or close to 100 pitches by 5 innings with their stuff....and I am thinking that will happen with another year or two of experience.

That's a good point. Young pitchers should be given time to develop their craft and should be handled with kid gloves in the process of doing so. That's why it is so frustrating when managers like Baker and Bochy continue to trot them out for an extra inning or two.

Kc61
09-16-2008, 10:48 PM
That's a good point. Young pitchers should be given time to develop their craft and should be handled with kid gloves in the process of doing so. That's why it is so frustrating when managers like Baker and Bochy continue to trot them out for an extra inning or two.

Train a guy to be a five inning pitcher, you get a five inning pitcher.

OnBaseMachine
09-16-2008, 10:55 PM
Train a guy to be a five inning pitcher, you get a five inning pitcher.

Push a guy too hard and you get a serious arm injury.

RedEye
09-16-2008, 11:14 PM
Train a guy to be a five inning pitcher, you get a five inning pitcher.

A five inning pitcher for 15 years is better than a seven inning pitcher for two years.

SteelSD
09-16-2008, 11:49 PM
Train a guy to be a five inning pitcher, you get a five inning pitcher.

At the NL median for SP's with 120 Innings or more, 100 pitches would translate into about 6.1 IP per Start, not five. That's enough considering the current offensive environment, especially for young hurlers; many of whom are are pitching more high-stress Innings than ever before. Now, how many NL Starting Pitchers this season average 7 or more Innings per start? Zero. In short, the median SP lasts longer than what you think and the SP's you think exist currently don't.

Volquez, Arroyo, and Cueto are numbers 5, 6, and 7 in Pitches per IP this season and Harang (#16) is trying to stay out of the top 10 with 16.8 P/IP.

What you're seeing isn't "training". It's abuse. While better defense may help suppress those numbers, we need to realize that the Reds have had poor defense for quite some time, yet neither Arroyo or Harang have topped 16.3 P/IP since they've been with the Reds full time. So what the begeebers is going on?

Well, first, you have a management team that's produced one of the worst Reds' offensive teams in recent memory and then traded away a major offensive component in Dunn. Then you also have a completely suspect bullpen. Then you add in a Manager who's more concerned about his own legacy than he is the future and you have really poor mix. What we end up with are close games where the manager (not capitalized on purpose) would rather push Starters rather than dip into a bullpen he can't possibly trust. The games mean nothing to the standings and frankly haven't meant much all season but Baker, always the egotist, needs to win as many games as possible to protect a legacy he lost during his butcher job in Chicago.

Pitcher Abuse. Dusty Baker. Synonymous.

VR
09-17-2008, 12:27 AM
A five inning pitcher for 15 years is better than a seven inning pitcher for two years.

Unfortunately, a 5 inning pitcher won't be kept around that long. Those abuse points apply to the bullpen as well. You've got to be able to get into the 8th and 9th innings consistently to last in this league....and that enable you to have some 4-5 innings stinkers.

To do that, you have to learn how to pitch deep into games, even if it's at the expense of your K or hit totals.

RedEye
09-17-2008, 08:08 AM
Unfortunately, a 5 inning pitcher won't be kept around that long. Those abuse points apply to the bullpen as well. You've got to be able to get into the 8th and 9th innings consistently to last in this league....and that enable you to have some 4-5 innings stinkers.

To do that, you have to learn how to pitch deep into games, even if it's at the expense of your K or hit totals.

I agree somewhat, although I'm not sure that abuse points work quite the same way for the bullpen pitchers. I was just responding to the poster that claimed "train a five inning pitcher, you get a five inning pitcher." IMO, the length of a start should NOT be measured by innings. It should be measured by number of pitches and the intensity of the situations a pitcher faces. Given two young pitchers who routinely hit 100 pitches by the end of the fifth, a manager should exercise caution as a rule. One may eventually turn into a 7-inning guy, the other may not. But better to be patient and wait for the development than to risk arm injuries just to force the issue based on some pre-conceived idea of innings.

VR
09-17-2008, 08:31 AM
I agree somewhat, although I'm not sure that abuse points work quite the same way for the bullpen pitchers. I was just responding to the poster that claimed "train a five inning pitcher, you get a five inning pitcher." IMO, the length of a start should NOT be measured by innings. It should be measured by number of pitches and the intensity of the situations a pitcher faces. Given two young pitchers who routinely hit 100 pitches by the end of the fifth, a manager should exercise caution as a rule. One may eventually turn into a 7-inning guy, the other may not. But better to be patient and wait for the development than to risk arm injuries just to force the issue based on some pre-conceived idea of innings.

There's the rub. If you can't turn into a 7 inning guy....you turn into a middle/ long reliever. Something the Reds have had no shortage of for the last 5 years. :(

RedEye
09-17-2008, 08:34 AM
There's the rub. If you can't turn into a 7 inning guy....you turn into a middle/ long reliever. Something the Reds have had no shortage of for the last 5 years. :(

How long would you say it should take to know whether a guy is a starter or a reliever? I'd rather have a middle reliever than no pitcher at all!

OnBaseMachine
09-19-2008, 01:10 PM
From Will Carroll:

Edinson Volquez is suffering from fatigue and has lost much of his control. You fill in the blank.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8094

BRM
09-19-2008, 01:12 PM
He'll be better next year because of it though. :rolleyes:

BuckeyeRedleg
09-19-2008, 01:29 PM
L O L

RedsManRick
09-19-2008, 03:28 PM
From Will Carroll:

Edinson Volquez is suffering from fatigue and has lost much of his control. You fill in the blank.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8094

Does he mean one of these blanks? Dusty Baker is a ___________ ___________.

RedEye
09-19-2008, 03:51 PM
Does he mean one of these blanks? Dusty Baker is a ___________ ___________.

Maybe we should just say the entire Reds FO is a ______________ _____________. The people in charge should really be seeing that the field manager protects their most valuable assets. There is just no excuse for this.

RedsManRick
09-19-2008, 04:09 PM
Maybe we should just say the entire Reds FO is a ______________ _____________. The people in charge should really be seeing that the field manager protects their most valuable assets. There is just no excuse for this.

I sent them a nice, long, frustration filled letter the other idea. Probably will be ignored or fall on deaf ears, but it was certainly a healthy experience.

Ltlabner
09-19-2008, 06:36 PM
From Will Carroll:

Edinson Volquez is suffering from fatigue and has lost much of his control. You fill in the blank.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8094

But we're buliding him up to go 7 innings. Lets not lose sight of the goal here people.

Screwball
09-21-2008, 12:28 PM
I mean, old-school or not, this seems like pretty simple stuff. You have the most coveted asset in your sport (i.e., young, ace-potential SP), why not handle it like your life depended on it? Ultimately, your baseball life does depend on it.

We're just fans of a baseball team. There's no way we're the only ones who realize this. Can't somebody in the FO say or do something?

fearofpopvol1
09-21-2008, 06:41 PM
I just want to know what Baker's obsession is with having the SP always finish innings unless the game has gotten out of reach.

Is there any information that exists that shows how many times the SPs for the Reds have pitched through their entire last inning? And further, if they got rocked as well (forcing Dusty to bring someone else in)?

BRM
09-22-2008, 09:33 AM
But we're buliding him up to go 7 innings. Lets not lose sight of the goal here people.

Exactly. The idea is make him a better pitcher in '09. He needs to be able to go 7 next year, even if it takes 130+ pitches.

Highlifeman21
09-22-2008, 07:42 PM
At the NL median for SP's with 120 Innings or more, 100 pitches would translate into about 6.1 IP per Start, not five. That's enough considering the current offensive environment, especially for young hurlers; many of whom are are pitching more high-stress Innings than ever before. Now, how many NL Starting Pitchers this season average 7 or more Innings per start? Zero. In short, the median SP lasts longer than what you think and the SP's you think exist currently don't.

Volquez, Arroyo, and Cueto are numbers 5, 6, and 7 in Pitches per IP this season and Harang (#16) is trying to stay out of the top 10 with 16.8 P/IP.

What you're seeing isn't "training". It's abuse. While better defense may help suppress those numbers, we need to realize that the Reds have had poor defense for quite some time, yet neither Arroyo or Harang have topped 16.3 P/IP since they've been with the Reds full time. So what the begeebers is going on?

Well, first, you have a management team that's produced one of the worst Reds' offensive teams in recent memory and then traded away a major offensive component in Dunn. Then you also have a completely suspect bullpen. Then you add in a Manager who's more concerned about his own legacy than he is the future and you have really poor mix. What we end up with are close games where the manager (not capitalized on purpose) would rather push Starters rather than dip into a bullpen he can't possibly trust. The games mean nothing to the standings and frankly haven't meant much all season but Baker, always the egotist, needs to win as many games as possible to protect a legacy he lost during his butcher job in Chicago.

Pitcher Abuse. Dusty Baker. Synonymous.

Having Harang and Arroyo whipped like pack mules by Narron certainly didn't help matters either.

Ltlabner
09-22-2008, 08:34 PM
Exactly. The idea is make him a better pitcher in '09. He needs to be able to go 7 next year, even if it takes 130+ pitches.

I'm not sure if you are missing my sarcasim, or I am missing yours.

I see the percieved importance of "learning how to pitch 7 innings" as a completely empty and false goal. So you can pitch 7...who cares? Then why can't you pitch 8? or 9? or 15?

Obviously having a pitcher stay effective deaper into the ballgame is a good thing. But going deaper into games isn't necessarly the right goal.

The right goal is learning how to pitch effectivley, minimize the total number of pitches thrown and ultimatley win ball-games. If you can set your team up to win who cares what inning you leave in (within reason)?

I think somefolks think pitchers should go 7 innings otherwise they are wimps. They are completley missing the point, IMO.

dougdirt
09-22-2008, 08:37 PM
I'm not sure if you are missing my sarcasim, or I am missing yours.

I see the percieved importance of "learning how to pitch 7 innings" as a completely empty and false goal. So you can pitch 7...who cares? Then why can't you pitch 8? or 9? or 15?

Obviously having a pitcher stay effective deaper into the ballgame is a good thing. But going deaper into games isn't necessarly the right goal.

The right goal is learning how to pitch effectivley, minimize the total number of pitches thrown and ultimatley win ball-games. If you can set your team up to win who cares what inning you leave in (within reason)?

I think somefolks think pitchers should go 7 innings otherwise they are wimps. They are completley missing the point, IMO.

I think you are missing his.

Ltlabner
09-22-2008, 08:41 PM
I think you are missing his.

Probably, my sarcometer's been on the fritz all day.

edabbs44
09-22-2008, 10:06 PM
Volquez, Arroyo, and Cueto are numbers 5, 6, and 7 in Pitches per IP this season and Harang (#16) is trying to stay out of the top 10 with 16.8 P/IP.

What you're seeing isn't "training". It's abuse. While better defense may help suppress those numbers, we need to realize that the Reds have had poor defense for quite some time, yet neither Arroyo or Harang have topped 16.3 P/IP since they've been with the Reds full time. So what the begeebers is going on?

Well, first, you have a management team that's produced one of the worst Reds' offensive teams in recent memory and then traded away a major offensive component in Dunn. Then you also have a completely suspect bullpen. Then you add in a Manager who's more concerned about his own legacy than he is the future and you have really poor mix. What we end up with are close games where the manager (not capitalized on purpose) would rather push Starters rather than dip into a bullpen he can't possibly trust. The games mean nothing to the standings and frankly haven't meant much all season but Baker, always the egotist, needs to win as many games as possible to protect a legacy he lost during his butcher job in Chicago.

I can't see the blame for the P/IP rankings for EV, Arroyo and Cueto falling on Baker, no matter how much some want to push on him. Those would fall, for the most part, on those pitchers.

Baker isn't a great manager and I really think he is wrong for this team (and most other teams as well). But I also think the piling on is a bit ridiculous.

Volquez has walked 92 batters this year. He needs to better his control. If he does that, I bet his P/IP will go down.

Sea Ray
09-22-2008, 11:38 PM
Dusty needs to be more cognizant of these high pitch counts. If guys like Volquez walk 6 batters then they can't be left in for 6 or 7 innings. Volquez does need better command and control but in the meantime Dusty needs to limit their innings. I thought Dusty did OK with these pitchcounts early in the year but now that we're out of it and he has a ton of pitchers sitting on his bench, there's no excuse for these high pitch counts. None.

dougdirt
09-22-2008, 11:53 PM
Dusty needs to be more cognizant of these high pitch counts. If guys like Volquez walk 6 batters then they can't be left in for 6 or 7 innings. Volquez does need better command and control but in the meantime Dusty needs to limit their innings. I thought Dusty did OK with these pitchcounts early in the year but now that we're out of it and he has a ton of pitchers sitting on his bench, there's no excuse for these high pitch counts. None.

Come on, Harang only threw 122 today.

WVRedsFan
09-23-2008, 12:31 AM
The secret, and not a well-kept one--is to cut down on walks. I noticed tonight that Valquez has walked 92 in 188+ innings. That's got to add to pitch count.

mth123
09-23-2008, 05:22 AM
The secret, and not a well-kept one--is to cut down on walks. I noticed tonight that Valquez has walked 92 in 188+ innings. That's got to add to pitch count.

Of course, but the defense converting some of these slow rollers and routine fly balls into outs instead of singles would help get these guys another inning or so with the same number of pitches. Griffey wasn't helping anything for the bulk of the year and to a lesser extent Dunn was adding to the problem (though I think he should have been kept here). If Bruce gets it together, the OF defense is probably fixed with he and Dickerson in RF and CF. Now we gotta get a real SS. EdE's throws are the most visible defensive problem in the IF, but Keppinger's complete lack of range is the bigger problem and fixing that is the key to cutting down on baserunners and getting that extra out or two in the IF. Its especially true for a ground ball guy like Volquez.

Dickerson in CF with Bruce in RF and an actual major league caliber SS make this team at least average defensively even with offense first guys at 1B, 3B and LF. Having Bako and Javy follow Ross out the door so that we have a catcher that can, well, actually catch would help as well. If said catcher can throw out a baserunner here and there (like Hanigan seems to be able to) this team may not look like the early season "Bad News Bears" out there. I think that should get these pitchers deeper into games and make this issue go away for the most part.

edabbs44
09-23-2008, 07:33 AM
NL P/IP leaders and their rankings in BBs, minimum of 140 innings pitched.

1: Ian Snell (18.4 pitches per inning), 5th in walks
2: John Maine (18.2), 18th in walks
3: Zito (18.0), 1st in walks
4: Jonathan Sanchez (17.9), 12th in walks
5: Volquez (17.4), 4th in walks
6: Cueto (17.3), 22nd in walks
7: Arroyo (17.3), 20th in walks

Outliers? Funny you should ask, since BB totals are pretty dependent upon total IP.

Maine only has 140 IP and, given just another 45 innings at his current rate would move him to 5th in the list.

Sanchez has only 154 innings and, given just 31 more innings at his current rate would move him to 7th on the list.

Cueto has 171 innings and given 14 more innings at his current rate would move him to 13th.

Arroyo seems to be somewhat of an outlier but still in the top 20.

So it is quite obvious that, in the cases above, P/IP are related to total BBs. Not sure about historic correlations but I'd be willing to wager that there is a correlation. Obviously the above is just a quick and dirty comparison.

Now to play devil's advocate...how does one help these pitchers with their control in order to cut down on P/IP? Obviously breaking down mechanics is involved, but you would have to assume that practice would be heavily involved as well. Practice for pitchers would entail throwing more pitches. Is there much of a difference in throwing on the side versus game situation? Maybe less stress and a more controlled environment, but a pitch is a pitch.

Basically this franchise (and others) needs to figure out how to harness the control of their pitchers in order to cut down on their "abuse". The way they pitch it is either abuse the starters or abuse the pen. Pick your poison.

SteelSD
09-23-2008, 11:52 AM
I can't see the blame for the P/IP rankings for EV, Arroyo and Cueto falling on Baker, no matter how much some want to push on him. Those would fall, for the most part, on those pitchers.

Baker isn't a great manager and I really think he is wrong for this team (and most other teams as well). But I also think the piling on is a bit ridiculous.

Volquez has walked 92 batters this year. He needs to better his control. If he does that, I bet his P/IP will go down.

Sure, Walks can be a part of cutting down on the number of pitches, just as good defense can help do the same. Yet, Manager decision-making factors in as well and here's what I found with Volquez:

Excluding the relief appearance versus SD, I examined the final Inning in which Volquez pitched in each start this season. In these Innings (both whole and partial), Volquez has thrown an astounding 20.34 Pitches per IP. If we remove these Innings and their Pitches from Volquez' 2008 sample, we get the following:

Prior to Last IP: 16.99 P/IP
Last IP: 20.34 P/IP

Now, 16.99 is still high and Volquez would rank 11th in the NL in P/IP rather than 5th. Yet that 20.34 rate is, at least to me, an indication that he's being pushed very hard and is often being left out there when he's lost at least a good deal of his effectiveness to the tune of what would amount to an extra 5 IP at his normal P/IP rate. And remember, that's just based on the P/IP overage from the final Inning from each game that Volquez started this season. The guy is obviously laboring more in each final Inning and he needs more pitches for each batter in order to get through each Inning (or partial).

I don't see how this is an effective way for a Manager to be handling a pitcher; much less a young pitcher who'd never tossed more than 34 MLB Innings coming into this season.

edabbs44
09-23-2008, 01:52 PM
Sure, Walks can be a part of cutting down on the number of pitches, just as good defense can help do the same. Yet, Manager decision-making factors in as well and here's what I found with Volquez:

Excluding the relief appearance versus SD, I examined the final Inning in which Volquez pitched in each start this season. In these Innings (both whole and partial), Volquez has thrown an astounding 20.34 Pitches per IP. If we remove these Innings and their Pitches from Volquez' 2008 sample, we get the following:

Prior to Last IP: 16.99 P/IP
Last IP: 20.34 P/IP

Now, 16.99 is still high and Volquez would rank 11th in the NL in P/IP rather than 5th. Yet that 20.34 rate is, at least to me, an indication that he's being pushed very hard and is often being left out there when he's lost at least a good deal of his effectiveness to the tune of what would amount to an extra 5 IP at his normal P/IP rate. And remember, that's just based on the P/IP overage from the final Inning from each game that Volquez started this season. The guy is obviously laboring more in each final Inning and he needs more pitches for each batter in order to get through each Inning (or partial).

I don't see how this is an effective way for a Manager to be handling a pitcher; much less a young pitcher who'd never tossed more than 34 MLB Innings coming into this season.

Disclaimer: I am in no way advocating Baker's methodologies.

Baker's usage of these guys in their last inning takes a huge back seat to their control in order to get them to cut down on their total pitches.

RedsManRick
09-23-2008, 01:58 PM
Disclaimer: I am in no way advocating Baker's methodologies.

Baker's usage of these guys in their last inning takes a huge back seat to their control in order to get them to cut down on their total pitches.

Perhaps not being fatigued due to throwing an extra 20 pitches the start prior would be a good first step in improving control.

BRM
09-23-2008, 02:10 PM
I'm not sure if you are missing my sarcasim, or I am missing yours.


You missed mine. ;)

RedEye
09-23-2008, 02:41 PM
The secret, and not a well-kept one--is to cut down on walks. I noticed tonight that Valquez has walked 92 in 188+ innings. That's got to add to pitch count.

Walks are one symptom of a greater problem. Whether that 7th pitch is ball four, a strike, a foul off, or a hit, the worry is the same: you used 7 pitches for that batter's outcome. Do that with a lot of batters in a row, and you've got a potential problem, whatever your success has been to that point.

OnBaseMachine
09-23-2008, 11:44 PM
Volquez bounced back tonight with a dominant outing:

7.1 IP, 6 H, 1 R, 1 BB, 9 K for his 17th win. The lone run came on a lead off homer by Matsui on a 0-2 count. The nine strikeouts gives Volquez 206 on the season.

His overall line: 17-6, 196 IP, 167 H, 14 HR, 93 BB/206 K, 3.21 ERA

He's got one scheduled start left next Sunday, the last game of the season. I know a lot of folks will disagree, but I don't think I would let him pitch that last game. I would shut him down after tonight and call it a season.

BRM
09-24-2008, 09:21 AM
Volquez bounced back tonight with a dominant outing:

7.1 IP, 6 H, 1 R, 1 BB, 9 K for his 17th win. The lone run came on a lead off homer by Matsui on a 0-2 count. The nine strikeouts gives Volquez 206 on the season.

His overall line: 17-6, 196 IP, 167 H, 14 HR, 93 BB/206 K, 3.21 ERA

He's got one scheduled start left next Sunday, the last game of the season. I know a lot of folks will disagree, but I don't think I would let him pitch that last game. I would shut him down after tonight and call it a season.

Gotta try to get him his 18th win.

Tony Cloninger
09-24-2008, 09:31 AM
You have been beating the shut down this guy and that guy thing practically every start for over a month now......what is the point of doing it now on the last game of the year?

Kc61
09-24-2008, 09:46 AM
You have been beating the shut down this guy and that guy thing practically every start for over a month now......what is the point of doing it now on the last game of the year?

If the Reds had shut Harang down, and Volquez down, and Cueto down (I don't remember reading that Arroyo should get shut down), they wouldn't have had this late season run. That run is founded on excellent pitching. The four starters have clicked, all at the same time, finally and it is paying off in wins. Cordero has helped as well and Weathers has done pretty well setting up lately. Ramirez has done well as an occasional fifth starter.

It's really a tough call whether to rest these starters or try to have a late season winning streak. I understand both sides of the argument and it's really just a judgment call. Volquez last night just shows how a pitcher can be "on" even after all the innings of a full season.

My main conclusion watching the team this September is that the Reds cannot afford any more high ERA "fifth starters" who are simply a roll of the dice every outing. The entire team is transformed when they get reasonably good pitching on a daily basis. The Reds need to add another good starter to the "big four;" it's probably the most important thing they can do for next year. No more 25 starts by 6 plus ERA pitchers.

bucksfan2
09-24-2008, 10:15 AM
My main conclusion watching the team this September is that the Reds cannot afford any more high ERA "fifth starters" who are simply a roll of the dice every outing. The entire team is transformed when they get reasonably good pitching on a daily basis. The Reds need to add another good starter to the "big four;" it's probably the most important thing they can do for next year. No more 25 starts by 6 plus ERA pitchers.

Out of curiosity, what is the league average for the 5th starter? How many teams have the ability to run out a good 5th starter? What is the market price for a 4.0 ERA pitcher in todays game?

IMO the Reds strength has become pitching whereas the offense has shown signs of lagging. Lets play fantasy in which you can add either CC or Holiday to the Reds next season and both will cost the same over a 5 year span. CC would bolster the Reds pitching staff greatly but at the same time you can't win a game by scoring 0 runs. Holiday could form a potentially great lineup of Votto, Holiday, and Bruce but you would have to trot out Ramirez, Thompson, or Bailey as your 5th starter all year long. Who do you choose and why?

Kc61
09-24-2008, 10:21 AM
Out of curiosity, what is the league average for the 5th starter? How many teams have the ability to run out a good 5th starter? What is the market price for a 4.0 ERA pitcher in todays game?

IMO the Reds strength has become pitching whereas the offense has shown signs of lagging. Lets play fantasy in which you can add either CC or Holiday to the Reds next season and both will cost the same over a 5 year span. CC would bolster the Reds pitching staff greatly but at the same time you can't win a game by scoring 0 runs. Holiday could form a potentially great lineup of Votto, Holiday, and Bruce but you would have to trot out Ramirez, Thompson, or Bailey as your 5th starter all year long. Who do you choose and why?

Not to belabor this in a Volquez thread, but I couldn't care less what other teams are doing for a fifth starter. It is completely irrelevant to me.

This is because the Reds may be the most pitching starved franchise of the last several years. The Rockies may have been worse until last year, but making the World Series knocks them out of contention.

Especially considering the Reds' home run ballpark; the ups and downs of Arroyo; Harang's subpar season; and Cueto's youth and learning curve (not really worried about Volquez too much) the Reds cannot just bank on some "fifth starter" type.

I think the Reds should be able to add both a pitcher and a hitter. They lost both Griffey and Dunn, both big contracts, and I don't care about raises to the existing guys. The Reds owe the fans two players -- that's how I see it.

There is no room for high risk pitchers in this rotation. Let the more risky guys be in waiting in long relief or at AAA.

And, to answer your direct question, I would always take a CC Sabathia over a Matt Holliday, if it came to that decision. A starting pitcher throwing over 200 innings with Sabathia type numbers adds more to a team than virtually any other player can.

*BaseClogger*
09-24-2008, 10:24 AM
Out of curiosity, what is the league average for the 5th starter? How many teams have the ability to run out a good 5th starter? What is the market price for a 4.0 ERA pitcher in todays game?

IMO the Reds strength has become pitching whereas the offense has shown signs of lagging. Lets play fantasy in which you can add either CC or Holiday to the Reds next season and both will cost the same over a 5 year span. CC would bolster the Reds pitching staff greatly but at the same time you can't win a game by scoring 0 runs. Holiday could form a potentially great lineup of Votto, Holiday, and Bruce but you would have to trot out Ramirez, Thompson, or Bailey as your 5th starter all year long. Who do you choose and why?

I'll go ahead and bite. If both cost the same, I would choose Holliday because hitters in their prime are much less risky investments than pitchers who have thrown as many innings as C.C. has. I like the potential guys like Ramirez, Thompson, Bailey, and Maloney have for filling in the 5th spot. The average 5th starter provides something around a 5.50 ERA, and I am confident one of the young guns could come up with an ERA no higher of 5.00. The current team plus Matt Holiday would be a team which could win 85 games in 2009 IMO...

*BaseClogger*
09-24-2008, 10:30 AM
This is because the Reds may be the most pitching starved franchise of the last several years.

The Rangers have traded away a lot of solid pitchers this millennium.


And, to answer your direct question, I would always take a CC Sabathia over a Matt Holliday, if it came to that decision. A starting pitcher throwing over 200 innings with Sabathia type numbers adds more to a team than virtually any other player can.

But where is there a bigger marginal difference between the FA and the replacement? Between Sabathia and one of Ramirez/Thompson/Bailey/Maloney or between Holliday and Freel/Patterson/Keppinger/Rosales/AAA LF?

Kc61
09-24-2008, 10:55 AM
The Rangers have traded away a lot of solid pitchers this millennium.



But where is there a bigger marginal difference between the FA and the replacement? Between Sabathia and one of Ramirez/Thompson/Bailey/Maloney or between Holliday and Freel/Patterson/Keppinger/Rosales/AAA LF?

If I understand you, the answer is yes, there is.

A starting pitcher throws, say, at least 180 innings a year. (With Dusty, more.) That's about 30 games, six innings per. Or more.

The impact on a team when those 180 innings are at a 6 ERA, or a 7 ERA, or more (like this year) is enormous.

If one position player doesn't hit, it's one of nine spots in the lineup. It can be a lot of at bats -- Patterson's year, for example -- but there are seven other offensive players to pick up the slack. And the non-offensive guy can be more easily replaced than a good starting pitcher.

Pitching wins. There are only five starters. Every rotation spot is critical. If you gamble on somebody for a rotation spot, it had better be a very good bet.

bucksfan2
09-24-2008, 11:01 AM
If I understand you, the answer is yes, there is.

A starting pitcher throws, say, at least 180 innings a year. (With Dusty, more.) That's about 30 games, six innings per. Or more.

The impact on a team when those 180 innings are at a 6 ERA, or a 7 ERA, or more (like this year) is enormous.

If one position player doesn't hit, it's one of nine spots in the lineup. It can a lot of at bats -- Patterson's year, for example -- but there are seven other offensive players to pick up the slack. And the non-offensive guy can be more easily replaced than a good starting pitcher.

Pitching wins. There are only five starters. Every rotation spot is critical.

Pitching wins? Look at the playoff race, CC and Santana have been very, very good yet the Brewers and Mets have been sliding back. On the other hand Manny has been great with the Dodgers and put them into first place in their division. I am not doubting the importance of pitching but a 5th starter takes the mound every 5 days or maybe every 8-10 days depending on off days. Sure if a hitter has a bad day there are 7 other guys in the lineup that can back him up, if a pitcher has a bad day, the game is likely over.

Will M
09-24-2008, 11:05 AM
lets say the Reds add one of the free agent starters who project to be at least a #3. it gives us a GREAT rotation 1-5. Owings and Ramirez can pitch in the pen and be available if someone goes down. Maloney, Bailey & Thompson - pick one to keep in AAA and trade two to fix other issues ( SS, C, etc )

if the Reds decide to go with youth at the #5 slot I can imagine an ugly scenario. one of the top 4 gets hurt in spring training. then the guy who you though was going to be the #5 struggles. then the guy who is called to replace the injured pitcher starts putting up a 7+ ERA. the Reds sink quick and 2010 is another lost year.

if Bobby C wants to fill GABP next year a good way to do it is to get off to a strong start in April.

OnBaseMachine
09-24-2008, 11:31 AM
You have been beating the shut down this guy and that guy thing practically every start for over a month now......what is the point of doing it now on the last game of the year?

I said the Reds should shutdown Cueto after his injury because it was too risky, and I still stand by that. His stuff hasn't been as sharp since his injury, plus he's thrown a lot of innings. All I've said about Volquez up until now is they need to watch his pitch count and stop working him so hard. Volquez's next start is on the last game of the season. If it were me I'm not sure I would pitch him at all, but if I did it I would probably pull him after five innings. I'd hate to see him get injured on the last game of the season.

BRM
09-24-2008, 05:50 PM
You got your wish OBM. Volquez will not start Sunday. Fay's blog is full of good info today.



VOLQUEZ OUT: Edinson Volquez will not make Sunday's start. He has a sore knee. Left-hander Adam Pettyjohn will start instead.

"If (Volquez) could pitch, he would," Baker said. "But he's had a very good very."

OnBaseMachine
09-24-2008, 05:58 PM
That's a good move. There's really no point in sending him out there to pitch the final game of the season and risk an injury. Great season for Volquez. He should finish in the top five in Cy Young voting IMO.

Matt700wlw
09-24-2008, 06:05 PM
Not a bad debut season there, Volquez....how'd the Reds get him again?? ;)


"But he's had a very good very."

That too...

OnBaseMachine
09-24-2008, 08:17 PM
Volquez scratched from final start
Pettyjohn gets the call for Reds in Sunday's season finale
By Mark Sheldon / MLB.com

HOUSTON -- Edinson Volquez has thrown his last pitch for the Reds in 2008.

Volquez was scheduled to start on Sunday against the Cardinals in the season finale. The decision was made on Wednesday to scratch him because of left knee tendinitis, which he has been pitching through the last few weeks.

"He's having a little problem in the front of his knee," Reds manager Dusty Baker said. "He is sore the days after he pitches."

Left-hander Adam Pettyjohn, a September callup, will make the start in Volquez's place.

The change is more for precaution. Had he not earned his 17th win on the fifth try with a career-high 7 1/3 innings during Tuesday's 2-1 victory over the Astros, Volquez probably could have made the final start. With neither the Reds nor Cardinals in contention for the postseason, there was nothing to gain by sending him to the mound and risking a more serious injury.

"If he could pitch, I'd have rather him go for 18 [wins]," Baker said. "That's OK. He had a very good year."

Volquez, who was a National League All-Star this season, is 17-6 with a 3.21 ERA and finished just shy of 200 innings with 196. His win total is the most by a Reds pitcher since Pete Schourek won 18 games in 1995.

With nine strikeouts on Tuesday, Volquez has 206 for the season and is tied with Gary Nolan (1967) for most strikeouts by a Reds pitcher in his first season with the team.

The 31-year-old Pettyjohn, who led the International League in wins, went 15-6 with a 4.59 ERA in 28 starts for Triple-A Louisville. In two relief outings with the Reds, he has allowed one run in two innings.

Pettyjohn's relief outing on Sept. 14 at Arizona was his first Major League appearance since Oct. 4, 2001, for the Tigers.

"I appreciated the Reds giving me a reward by calling me up. To top it off, they're giving me a start, too," Pettyjohn said. "It'll be a nice way to end the season. I'll be more comfortable since that's the routine I'm used to. Most of my career I've started."

The Reds have yet to use a left-handed starter this season.

"It will be 161 games without a lefty," Pettyjohn said. "I guess it's happening the last day of the year."

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080924&content_id=3541661&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

RedsManRick
09-24-2008, 08:21 PM
Arrgh. More of this discussion about pushing through injury for the sake of arbitrary statistical accumulation. Clearly they are playing it safe and I'm glad for that, but the whole "getting win #X" stuff should just never be part of the equation save perhaps for something of historical significance. Why can't it be "If he could pitch, I'd love to have him out there because it gives us the best chance to win"?

I can't help but wonder if Dusty's constant talk about personal milestones doesn't detract from a team first concept.

dougdirt
09-24-2008, 08:26 PM
Arrgh. More of this discussion about pushing through injury for the sake of arbitrary statistical accumulation. Clearly they are playing it safe and I'm glad for that, but the whole "getting win #X" stuff should just never be part of the equation save perhaps for something of historical significance. Why can't it be "If he could pitch, I'd love to have him out there because it gives us the best chance to win"?

I can't help but wonder if Dusty's constant talk about personal milestones doesn't detract from a team first concept.

Lets be honest, the players aren't dumb. They have to know everytime Patterson started there was no 'gives us the best chance to win' stuff going on. I mean really, they have to know that.

Highlifeman21
09-24-2008, 10:43 PM
Lets be honest, the players aren't dumb. They have to know everytime Patterson started there was no 'gives us the best chance to win' stuff going on. I mean really, they have to know that.

But does The Dusty know that?

I'm convinced he thinks that running Patterson out there for significant playing time did give them the best chance to win.

Tony Cloninger
09-25-2008, 12:41 PM
RedsMan Rick....the 70's BRM was big on personal goals after the division was clinched early in 75 and 76...... Joe Morgan was quoted as much after Reds clinched early in 1975. He said he would rest a little more late in the game and have Doug Flynn come in earlier but that he wanted to achieve some personal goals as well. Pete Rose.....I mean you think he did not want those?

Last night during the Yankees game....Girardi told the announcers that he would play any veteran that wanted to make a goal like 100 RBI's like Bobby is close to and Alex is close to winning the HR title. Sure....bigger goals than anyone on the Reds has but EV winning 20 would have been great and so would winning 18 but now that he is not healthy....he is not going to be pushed and still that makes you upset that it would even be considered.

The Jays were going to pitch AJ on 3 days rest to try to get him 20 wins IF he would have won last night. In fact they stretched him out to almost 120 pitches in 8 innings beacuse of it.

It happens with several teams and for many years....why is this a new concept to some people? If the person is not injured....he is going to continue to play to rack up numbers.

RedsManRick
09-25-2008, 01:33 PM
RedsMan Rick....the 70's BRM was big on personal goals after the division was clinched early in 75 and 76...... Joe Morgan was quoted as much after Reds clinched early in 1975. He said he would rest a little more late in the game and have Doug Flynn come in earlier but that he wanted to achieve some personal goals as well. Pete Rose.....I mean you think he did not want those?

Key words here are "after the division was clinched". When the team has accomplished it's goals, then you can look towards your own.


Last night during the Yankees game....Girardi told the announcers that he would play any veteran that wanted to make a goal like 100 RBI's like Bobby is close to and Alex is close to winning the HR title. Sure....bigger goals than anyone on the Reds has but EV winning 20 would have been great and so would winning 18 but now that he is not healthy....he is not going to be pushed and still that makes you upset that it would even be considered.

The Jays were going to pitch AJ on 3 days rest to try to get him 20 wins IF he would have won last night. In fact they stretched him out to almost 120 pitches in 8 innings beacuse of it.

It happens with several teams and for many years....why is this a new concept to some people? If the person is not injured....he is going to continue to play to rack up numbers.

It may be a common practice, and it may not be new, but that doesn't make it right in my book. In the case of Burnett, it's important to remember that he's going to opt out of his contract and go in to FA. What do the Jays care about long term in jury risk?

Also, let's not exaggerate my complaint here. I'm saying that you shouldn't push guys harder, be it through injuries or fatigue, when you otherwise wouldn't and you shouldn't play veteran scrubs ahead of young guys who could contribute the next season and need playing time. Girardi should be playing ARod and Abreu on their merits -- their playing time is not being altered to get them to those goals. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about another 120 pitches for Volquez, possibly bringing EE back too quickly, Jolbert Cabrera over Wilkin Castillo, and Andy Phillips over Adam Rosales. Very different than paying your healthy all-stars the way you would normally.

Tony Cloninger
09-25-2008, 04:41 PM
What's the difference between a division that is clinched and playing out the string?

The Yankees are playing out the string.....many more teams are playing out the string and do a lot of the the same thing.

In 1978 the Reds were playing out the string the last 10 games of the year and there was a big deal made out of Pete missing out 200 hits by 2. He was replaced after the 8th inning with the Reds ahead by about 5 runs....with Ray Knight. The Braves tied it in the ninth off Pedro Borbon....too many fans...Pete should have never been taken out, beacuse Sparky should have known Pedro would allow 5 runs in the ninth and the game would go another 4-5 innings and Pete would have collected those 2 hits.


I am with you on the pitches EV was throwing the prior starts.....EV said he cut out his bullpen session and it made him stronger and he actually pitched his best game to me....beacuse he minimized his pitch count and pitched deeper in the game.

I do not think Cabrera should be starting either....at all. Waste of time.

How do we know EE is coming back to early? If he feels ready to play....then he should play. Dusty is not making him play....he wants to play.

remdog
09-25-2008, 07:51 PM
Rick:

The reds were effectively out of this race weeks ago. To take the opposite oppinion (to the absurd, I admit, but that's the way these points are made) why not shut down Volquez after he got taken to the woodshed during the All-Star game? It was evident that the Reds were not going to contend for a playoff spot and Volquez could have been 'saved for next year'.

Yes, it's sarcasum but it's still the point. Everyone can have their opinion on when to 'shut down' a player but the only one who's opinion matters is the managers'.

Rem

RedEye
09-25-2008, 07:54 PM
I think we can all agree that the season officially becomes "lost" after the Reds are mathematically eliminated. Right? I mean, that's where we stop drawing lines in the sand and start drawing them in the dirt.

remdog
09-25-2008, 08:04 PM
I think we can all agree that the season officially becomes "lost" after the Reds are mathematically eliminated. Right? I mean, that's where we stop drawing lines in the sand and start drawing them in the dirt.


Sure. If you like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. I mean, you officially stop whacking yourself when you pass out but, really, you know this isn't working a lot earlier than that. ;)

Rem

RedsManRick
09-25-2008, 08:25 PM
Rick:

The reds were effectively out of this race weeks ago. To take the opposite oppinion (to the absurd, I admit, but that's the way these points are made) why not shut down Volquez after he got taken to the woodshed during the All-Star game? It was evident that the Reds were not going to contend for a playoff spot and Volquez could have been 'saved for next year'.

Yes, it's sarcasum but it's still the point. Everyone can have their opinion on when to 'shut down' a player but the only one who's opinion matters is the managers'.

Rem

To the extreme, indeed. The question I have regarding Volquez is what purpose is being served by running him out there 115-120 pitches per start? Clearly he needs to be pitching so that he can continue to develop and because there's little harm in him doing what he does - pitch. The goal for me is to maximize value and minimize risk. It's a balancing act. But in a lost season, the outcome of any specific game isn't terribly important. I find it hard to believe there's significant developmental value in pushing him to the absolute edge of fatigue every time out. And I see very little value of getting to 20 wins other than the warm fuzzy feeling the comes from round numbers. In the case of Volquez, it seemed they were way past the point of diminishing positive returns and entering risk territory for no good reason -- the risk/reward calculation was simply askew.

I don't think any of this is a black and white discussion. It's about properly balancing risks and rewards while maximizing your ability to prepare for future success. I really don't see how this is such a controversial idea.

dougdirt
09-25-2008, 08:28 PM
I don't think any of this is a black and white discussion. It's about properly balancing risks and rewards while maximizing your ability to prepare for future success. I really don't see how this is such a controversial idea.

A lot of people don't think 110+ pitches on any kind of consistent basis is a problem because back in the day....

remdog
09-25-2008, 08:36 PM
A lot of people don't think 110+ pitches on any kind of consistent basis is a problem because back in the day....

wussie ;) :lol:

Leo Mazzone says howdy.

Rem

OnBaseMachine
09-27-2008, 07:34 PM
VOLQUEZ: TENDINITIS

As expected, an MRI Saturday on pitcher Edinson Volquez’s left knee revealed nothing more than tendinitis. He’ll continue treatment and rest.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/