Bryan Price named Pitching coach

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by TRF

Health alone doesn't account for almost 2 full runs lower ERA and a WHIP that went from 1.5 to 1.0.

nope, not buying it.

Duncan fixed him good. Health was a big part of it, but he posted two seasons of 27 and 34 starts and stunk both years in TOR.

Or we could look at Kyle Lohse, who had his best year as a Cardinal last year, 200 IP 3.78 ERA. Hurt a lot this year he still posted a respectable 4.74 ERA.

Duncan definitely has a positive effect on certain pitchers.

Duncan has one way to "fix" a pitcher and it only works on certain types of pitchers. He teaches them a sinking fastball and orders them to pound the strike zone with it. They get less K's, but more GO and much less FO and HR's.

This can transform a guy with a good arm who never was able to put it together, like Carpenter, Looper, Weaver, Suppan, Lohse Wellemeyer, or Pineiro into a solid starter. But it doesn't seem to work as well with young pitchers. Matt Morris was the last homegrown Cardinal to make it in the starting rotation. Maybe Duncan needs a gut to be desperate in order make him change.

Not saying it's a bad thing, just explaining how it seems to work, in my opinion.

[HokieRed]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

Duncan definitely has a positive effect on certain pitchers.

Duncan has one way to "fix" a pitcher and it only works on certain types of pitchers. He teaches them a sinking fastball and orders them to pound the strike zone with it. They get less K's, but more GO and much less FO and HR's.

This can transform a guy with a good arm who never was able to put it together, like Carpenter, Looper, Weaver, Suppan, Lohse Wellemeyer, or Pineiro into a solid starter. But it doesn't seem to work as well with young pitchers. Matt Morris was the last homegrown Cardinal to make it in the starting rotation. Maybe Duncan needs a gut to be desperate in order make him change.

Not saying it's a bad thing, just explaining how it seems to work, in my opinion.

Agree. I've said this here several times. There's no rocket science about how the Cardinals pitchers approach their task. It's throw hard stuff down, sink, sink, sink. Throw strikes, don't get beat with the home run. It's has to have more to do with identifying guys who are able to work this way than it does with some magic RZ fans seem to think Duncan works with the pitchers themselves. I like Duncan, I'd love to have him, but it's really not wizardry. Somebody else should be able to duplicate it.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by HokieRed

Agree. I've said this here several times. There's no rocket science about how the Cardinals pitchers approach their task. It's throw hard stuff down, sink, sink, sink. Throw strikes, don't get beat with the home run. It's has to have more to do with identifying guys who are able to work this way than it does with some magic RZ fans seem to think Duncan works with the pitchers themselves. I like Duncan, I'd love to have him, but it's really not wizardry. Somebody else should be able to duplicate it.

Replace down with outside and Duncan becomes Mazzone. Really, I'm pretty sure most pitching coaches preach throwing strikes down and away. The open question is why some coaches seem to have more success getting their guys to do it than do others.

[nate]

I know ERA+ for Price's staffs was posted earlier, how about K/9, BB/9 and HR/9?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by nate

I know ERA+ for Price's staffs was posted earlier, how about K/9, BB/9 and HR/9?

	Staffs under Price (ranked by FIP relative to league)							
Year	League	Rank	FIP	ERA	K/9	BB/9	K/BB	HR/9
2000	AL	6th	4.11	4.07	6.62	2.75	2.41	1.11
2001	AL	5th	4.12	3.54	6.46	2.86	2.26	0.98
2002	AL	4th	4.11	4.07	6.62	2.75	2.41	1.11
2003	AL	6th	4.29	3.76	6.25	2.91	2.15	1.08
2004	AL	11th	4.85	4.76	6.39	3.55	1.8	1.31
2005	Al	11th	4.56	4.49	5.62	3.13	1.8	1.13
2006	NL	4th	4.34	4.49	6.87	3.3	2.08	1.04
2007	NL	8th	4.52	4.13	6.8	3.41	1.99	1.06
2008	NL	2nd	3.84	3.99	7.71	2.83	2.73	0.92

[D-Man]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Replace down with outside and Duncan becomes Mazzone. Really, I'm pretty sure most pitching coaches preach throwing strikes down and away. The open question is why some coaches seem to have more success getting their guys to do it than do others.

I don't think it is that simple to replicate.

(1) The context for the Dave Duncans and Leo Mazzones of the world is different--they coach for highly competitive teams. Those coaches aren't saddled with the burden of teaching a young Bobby Jenks, Zach Greinke, or Homer Bailey how to pitch at the big league level (unlike Cincinnati or KC where the future rides on these guys). Instead, these coaches are charged with cobbling together a pitching staff for a contender. Look at Mazzone's lack of success in Baltimore: he had great young pitching talent that yielded only modest results. On the other hand, Mazzone looked like Rodin with what he did with Greg McMichael, John Burkett, and Paul Byrd for competitive Atlanta teams.

(2) The competitive context also minimizes the complexity of the instruction and commoditizes their coaching to some degree. . . In Isaiah Berlin's parlance, the context allows Mazzone and Duncan to find success as hedgehogs rather than foxes.

I can only imagine that it is much simpler to find a hundred different ways to help someone throw the ball down and away, rather than instructing a variety of pitchers how to do a variety of different things. Too many permutations.

(3) They know their target market well and that helps them sift through likely candidates. That is a true competitive advantage. They almost always go after struggling mid- to late-20s pitchers. . . These sorts of pitchers are generally the most coachable, as they are invariably going through some measure of career desperation.

[nate]

Originally Posted by jojo

    Staffs under Price (ranked by FIP relative to league)                            
Year    League    Rank    FIP    ERA    K/9    BB/9    K/BB    HR/9
2000    AL    6th    4.11    4.07    6.62    2.75    2.41    1.11
2001    AL    5th    4.12    3.54    6.46    2.86    2.26    0.98
2002    AL    4th    4.11    4.07    6.62    2.75    2.41    1.11
2003    AL    6th    4.29    3.76    6.25    2.91    2.15    1.08
2004    AL    11th    4.85    4.76    6.39    3.55    1.8    1.31
2005    Al    11th    4.56    4.49    5.62    3.13    1.8    1.13
2006    NL    4th    4.34    4.49    6.87    3.3    2.08    1.04
2007    NL    8th    4.52    4.13    6.8    3.41    1.99    1.06
2008    NL    2nd    3.84    3.99    7.71    2.83    2.73    0.92

Thanks.

Hopefully he can turn Homer Bailey and Matt Maloney into 2008 Dan Haren and Brandon Webb.

Then we'll be set!

[cincrazy]

How in the world can we say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Carpenter owns his success to Duncan?

And for the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with me bringing up the possible usage of PED's. These million dollar jackass athletes ASKED for this kind of speculation by dragging their feet as a union and raking in millions while hundreds of players cheated. Why is it such blasphemy to suggest that the guy used? The testing system in baseball is a joke. HGH is not detectable, so I don't put much stock into the "tests."

I don't believe that Carpenter used. I would LIKE to not believe that he used. But I'm also realistic enough to know that it's possible he did.

The point is, there are so many factors that come into play here (steroids?, health, increased knowledge gained from sources outside of Duncan) that it's impossible to state, for sure, that Carpenter can attribute his success to Duncan. A part of that success? Of course. A majority of that success? I don't think anyone can state that as a fact.

[blumj]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Replace down with outside and Duncan becomes Mazzone. Really, I'm pretty sure most pitching coaches preach throwing strikes down and away. The open question is why some coaches seem to have more success getting their guys to do it than do others.

Well, coaching is teaching, and some teachers are better than others at motivating their students to learn.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by cincrazy

How in the world can we say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Carpenter owns his success to Duncan?

And for the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with me bringing up the possible usage of PED's. These million dollar jackass athletes ASKED for this kind of speculation by dragging their feet as a union and raking in millions while hundreds of players cheated. Why is it such blasphemy to suggest that the guy used? The testing system in baseball is a joke. HGH is not detectable, so I don't put much stock into the "tests."

I don't believe that Carpenter used. I would LIKE to not believe that he used. But I'm also realistic enough to know that it's possible he did.

The point is, there are so many factors that come into play here (steroids?, health, increased knowledge gained from sources outside of Duncan) that it's impossible to state, for sure, that Carpenter can attribute his success to Duncan. A part of that success? Of course. A majority of that success? I don't think anyone can state that as a fact.

If he used, then how do you explain this year?

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by Jpup

I'm guessing Bill Bavasi is the reason for the hire. Was he not the GM in Seattle when Price was the pitching coach? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing he was, at least, in the organization then.

If this is the case, then I'm surprised Bavasi could contribute positively to the Reds.

[Unassisted]

Originally Posted by TRF

Mazzone walked into a perfect storm of pitching, and had the good fortune to coach 3 future HOF starters, one of whom may go down as one of the greatest pitchers of all time. I'm not sure that makes him a great coach or just serendipitous. The same could be said for Rick Peterson. He coached Oakland's big three right? Is that good coaching or just a happy accident. All three since leaving Oakland have had a mixed bag of results/success.

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Great hire. Short of getting Duncan, he and Rick Peterson were both guys I was crossing my fingers for. I think his ability to relate to his players will make him a popular, effective choice.

You'll both get a chance to see how Rick Peterson will do in the NL Central. The Brewers just hired him as their pitching coach.

http://brewersbeat.mlblogs.com/archi...phies_are.html

[NJReds]

Originally Posted by Unassisted

You'll both get a chance to see how Rick Peterson will do in the NL Central. The Brewers just hired him as their pitching coach.

http://brewersbeat.mlblogs.com/archi...phies_are.html

And Peterson gets reunited with Willie Randolph, who is the Brewers bench coach and was the Mets manager when Peterson was the pitching coach.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by cincrazy

How in the world can we say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Carpenter owns his success to Duncan?

And for the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with me bringing up the possible usage of PED's. These million dollar jackass athletes ASKED for this kind of speculation by dragging their feet as a union and raking in millions while hundreds of players cheated. Why is it such blasphemy to suggest that the guy used? The testing system in baseball is a joke. HGH is not detectable, so I don't put much stock into the "tests."

I don't believe that Carpenter used. I would LIKE to not believe that he used. But I'm also realistic enough to know that it's possible he did.

The point is, there are so many factors that come into play here (steroids?, health, increased knowledge gained from sources outside of Duncan) that it's impossible to state, for sure, that Carpenter can attribute his success to Duncan. A part of that success? Of course. A majority of that success? I don't think anyone can state that as a fact.

It is a baseless accusation, plain and simple. Further, your logic applies to evaluating any coach, thus making doing so trivial when you operate from "some ballplayers did PEDs, therefore all ballplayers are suspects" mindset.

[cincrazy]

Originally Posted by traderumor

It is a baseless accusation, plain and simple. Further, your logic applies to evaluating any coach, thus making doing so trivial when you operate from "some ballplayers did PEDs, therefore all ballplayers are suspects" mindset.

Some ballplayers used PEDs? I'd prefer the word "most."

Further, I understand you disagree, and that's fine. If you'd like to continue the convo. feel free to PM me, and we can discuss it without any anger. I don't want to get this thread off topic, which I suppose I've already done to some degree, my aoplogies.