I have to agree, neither of these guys will provide us anything other then 1 out of 12 decent starts and the rest of the time they will be getting beat all over the place and putting an already bad bullpen to work more.Originally Posted by M2
I have to agree, neither of these guys will provide us anything other then 1 out of 12 decent starts and the rest of the time they will be getting beat all over the place and putting an already bad bullpen to work more.Originally Posted by M2
Go Gators!
Harang 3.93
Claussen 4.17
Williams 4.74
Milton 4.92
4.63 runs per game is still 0.43 less than the team averaged per game. He didnt get the support that his fellow starters got(just a guess, didnt actually look for the numbers). I agree he will need to pitch better to get more wins, but he did seem to be the unlucky pitcher of the staff who got less from the team than most others did.Originally Posted by SteelSD
I'll believe the Reds will be without a starter with an ERA over 5.00 when it happens and not a momment before. Too many ducks in the pond to not get shot IMO.
School's out. What did you expect?
Ruhle's still the pitching coach right? It seems like (and my lack of intrest in finding stats is about to show) after he and Narron arrived the pitching got a little better for the most part last year.
gainesville, I brought that up in a different post and some on here claimed that the veterans(Milton and Ortiz) just decided to pitch better then and it was not really anything Ruhle had to do with. I disagree with that idea.
Most teams that start off horrible in pitching wind up throwing better in the second half, main reason being that many of the main offenders are either gone or have gotten their acts somewhat cleaned up in order to stick around. The Reds have pitched better in the second half than the first in each of the past four seasons. It also happened in 1999 and 2000. In 2001 and 2002 the team finished on a (relatively) high note in September. It's created a situation where many proclaim the pitching staff fixed or headed in the right direction prior to every season when nothing could be farther from the truth.Originally Posted by Gainesville Red
Last edited by M2; 02-15-2006 at 01:39 PM.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
What was his deal last year? I know he had some sorta injury where he missed the bulk of the 2nd half, but he had a ridculous soph. slump by any standards. He was once tabbed as the closer of the future and was impressive around his debut, but now he's not even mentioned in the same breath of the closer by committee argument.Originally Posted by RedsMan3203
Here's each pitcher and how they pitched under each pitching coach:Originally Posted by Gainesville Red
The only pitchers that pitched a significant amount of innings and improved were Harang (0.23 R/9), Milton (2.79 R/9), Ortiz (1.09 R/9), and Weathers (0.93 R/9) but then Ortiz and Milton were horrible in the first half and any improvement could just be them returning to a bit more of their norm. Everyone else declined under Ruhle from what they put up under Gullett. However, as a group, those that pitched under both coaches put up better R/9 results going 5.7 R/9 under Gullett while posting a 5.37 R/9 under Ruhle. I'm not certain, but I think both of those numbers still stink.Code:Under Gullett Under Ruhle ------------------- ------------------- Pitcher Runs IP R/9 Runs IP R/9 Change Matt Belisle 25 45.0 5.00 24 40.2 5.31 +0.31 Brandon Claussen 28 53.2 4.70 61 113.0 4.86 +0.16 Todd Coffey 10 19.2 4.58 23 38.1 5.40 +0.82 Aaron Harang 41 90.1 4.09 52 121.1 3.86 -0.23 Luke Hudson 10 16.0 5.63 52 68.2 6.82 +1.19 Randy Keisler 13 19.2 5.95 32 36.1 7.93 +1.98 Kent Mercker 12 30.0 3.60 15 31.2 4.26 +0.66 Eric Milton 76 81.2 8.38 65 104.2 5.59 -2.79 Ramon Ortiz 41 56.2 6.51 69 114.2 5.42 -1.09 Elizardo Ramirez 15 18.2 7.23 7 3.2 17.17 +9.94 Ricky Stone 13 22.0 5.32 11 8.2 11.42 +6.10 Joe Valentine 13 11.1 10.33 2 3.0 6.00 -4.33 Ryan Wagner 25 37.1 6.03 8 8.1 8.64 +2.61 David Weathers 19 36.2 4.66 17 41.0 3.73 -0.93 Danny Graves 18 18.1 8.84 Ben Weber 11 12.1 8.03 Paul Wilson 41 46.1 7.96 Chris Booker 8 2.0 36.00 Josh Hancock 4 14.0 2.57 Brian Shackelford 9 29.2 2.73 Allan Simpson 5 6.2 6.75 Standridge 14 31.0 4.06
The other thing you'll notice from the list is that the 3 pitchers who only pitched under Gullett were awful while Hancock, Shackelford, and Standridge all pitched pretty well under Ruhle, though both Booker and Simspon struggled. I don't know if this is because Ruhle had been working with these guys in the minors, so they were didn't have to unlearn Gullett or if it was just luck but all of the pitchers' peripherals hint at luck.
Either way, I don't think there is any defentitive evidence based on 93 games last season that Vern Ruhle is going to make magic with this pitching staff. Perhaps one or two pitchers will pitch over their head in 2006, but if the talent isn't there, it's pretty hard for a pitching coach to make much out of what he's given.
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |