Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DrungoHazewood

Ride 'em Hard

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, murph said:

Just a clarification, it was lowered and it was 5 inches. 

https://tht.fangraphs.com/the-height-of-the-hill/

I knew it was lowered (and Rick you probably did too and just typed backwards), but couldn't remember by how much. 

Your right, I googled it and skimmed it and saw the 10 inches in bold, and UGH.

Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, half hop said:

In 1965, Jim Maloney of the Reds threw a no-hitter while allowing 11 batters to reach base. His pitch count: 176!

Upon further investigation, the pitch count for his 10-inning no hitter was 187! He walked 10 and hit a batter.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's just a continuation of a 150-year-old trend.

In 1871 Asa Brainard threw 30 complete games in a 32-game schedule.
In 1884 Old Hoss Radbourne threw 73 complete games out of 114.  678 innings.
The last 600 inning season was in 1892 by Bill Hutchison, which was also the last 500 inning season.
The last 400 inning season was Ed Walsh in 1908.
The last 350 inning season was knuckleballer Wilbur Wood in 1973.
The last 300 inning season was Steve Carlton in 1980.
The last 275 inning season was Dave Stewart in 1988.
The last 250 inning season was Justin Verlander in 2011.
Johnny Cueto and David Price were the last to go 240, in 2014.

The pitches database isn't as long or nearly as complete, but for games we have records:
By Tom Tango's pitch count estimator Joe Oeschger threw about 330 pitches in his 26-inning complete game in 1920.
Stan Williams had a 207 pitch game in 1961. 
The last 175-pitch game on record was by Joey Jay in '62.
The last 150-pitch game was by Livan Hernandez in 2005, one of only two this century.
There was one 130-pitch game in '19, in Mike Fiers no-hitter.  In 1988 there were 236 130+ pitch games.
In '88 there were 598 120+ pitch games.  In 2019 there were 14.

It's been clear for a long, long time that pitchers are much more effective throwing fewer innings and pitches.  It's kind of amazing that it's taken this long to get down to five or six innings a start. Clearly most pitchers and teams would get better results with less work than that.  The only thing stopping them has been roster size.
 

That was a really neat read, thanks.   Even though it was still 15 years ago, I am still surprised Hernandez was allowed to go 150 pitches.  Wonder how he did on his next start.  Amazing how times have changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, half hop said:

Upon further investigation, the pitch count for his 10-inning no hitter was 187! He walked 10 and hit a batter.

MLB doesnt even include him, when you look at no-no's and 131+ pitches.

 

Quote

Here are the pitchers who threw a no-hitter with more than 130 pitches:

  1. Edwin Jackson, 149 pitches; June 25, 2010
  2. Tim Lineceum, 148; July 13, 2013
  3. Randy Johnson, 138; June 2, 1990
  4. Sandy Koufax, 138; June 30, 1962
  5. Mike Fiers, 134; Aug. 21, 2015
  6. Johan Santana, 134; June 1, 2012
  7. Bud Smith, 134; Sept. 3, 2001
  8. Dwight Gooden, 134; May 14, 1996
  9. Mike Fiers, 131; May 7, 2019
  10. Kent Mercker, 131; April 8, 1994
  11. Andy Hawkins, 131; July 1, 1990

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, murph said:

That was a really neat read, thanks.   Even though it was still 15 years ago, I am still surprised Hernandez was allowed to go 150 pitches.  Wonder how he did on his next start.  Amazing how times have changed. 

I think when multiple pitchers hit the 20+ million a year range, teams started getting a little protective of their investment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MongoBoy said:

I do believe that one season back in the early 70's, Eddie Watt was the save leader on the O's with a whopping 6.  I don't know, did Earl use situational pitching?

It was a different mindset, a little bit of a throwback to the 20s and 30s.  Your best pitchers were your top 2-3 starters.  Relievers were guys who weren't good enough to start.  You left the starter in if he was ahead and he wasn't totally gassed.  It can work when everyone else does it, and the quality of play is a little different with more guys in the lineup with no power.  Earl was one of the last holdouts.  Casey did that, too, and more.  Look at the top starters of the 1930s, they'd sometimes start 35 times and relieve another 15 and have 6 or 8 saves.  Because that was thought of as being better than having your 6th starter pitch relief.

I have a feeling that modern lineups would tear that strategy to shreds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, murph said:

That was a really neat read, thanks.   Even though it was still 15 years ago, I am still surprised Hernandez was allowed to go 150 pitches.  Wonder how he did on his next start.  Amazing how times have changed. 

Eight innings, two runs, got the win. Every generation has a couple guys with rubber arms who defy all logic.  Livan was his.  If he'd played in the 1960s and 70s he would have thrown 340 innings a year.  But that's not really so much of a thing any more because everyone throws hard and gets pulled with one out in the sixth.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird thought experiment.  Back in history pitchers got injured, so teams started limiting how much they throw both in innings and pitches.  Most pitchers just took that and ran with it, and started throwing as hard as they could for the lesser amount they were given.  That highlighted the fact that everyone pitches better in shorter outings.  Which kickstarted the arms race (pun intended) to everyone throwing short outings at 97 mph.

So what if there was a flavor of baseball that made any pitch over 90 mph a ball?  Deaden the ball so scoring doesn't get out of control, but make most pitchers throw at 80% effort.  Much more contact, and pitchers can go back to throwing seven, eight, nine or more innings a game.  Would that be a better brand of baseball?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Weird thought experiment.  Back in history pitchers got injured, so teams started limiting how much they throw both in innings and pitches.  Most pitchers just took that and ran with it, and started throwing as hard as they could for the lesser amount they were given.  That highlighted the fact that everyone pitches better in shorter outings.  Which kickstarted the arms race (pun intended) to everyone throwing short outings at 97 mph.

So what if there was a flavor of baseball that made any pitch over 90 mph a ball?  Deaden the ball so scoring doesn't get out of control, but make most pitchers throw at 80% effort.  Much more contact, and pitchers can go back to throwing seven, eight, nine or more innings a game.  Would that be a better brand of baseball?

Why deaden the ball?  Just make it an automatic out if the batter's exit velocity is too high.

The can swing at 80%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why deaden the ball?  Just make it an automatic out if the batter's exit velocity is too high.

The can swing at 80%.

Because I wanted a particular outcome.  And my way is dramatically easier to implement.  There's no good way to measure an 80% swing, but I'm guessing you knew that and your response was just a round-about way of saying my suggestion is dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Because I wanted a particular outcome.  And my way is dramatically easier to implement.  There's no good way to measure an 80% swing, but I'm guessing you knew that and your response was just a round-about way of saying my suggestion is dumb.

Or Corn was just being Cord. :) :) :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

Gibson and the other pitchers of 1968 didn't have to throw max effort and wipeout sliders all the time when the other team's shortstop was Ed Brinkman.

Yeah, but...I mean, c'mon.  I don't believe that Bob Gibson wasn't a max effort guy all the time.  I will buy that other pitchers weren't max effort guys but I believe Bob Gibson wanted to shove every fastball and slider down everyone's throat from the first batter to the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Because I wanted a particular outcome.  And my way is dramatically easier to implement.  There's no good way to measure an 80% swing, but I'm guessing you knew that and your response was just a round-about way of saying my suggestion is dumb.

I'd never just flat out say one of your ideas was dumb Drungo.

Where is the fun in that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moose Milligan said:

Yeah, but...I mean, c'mon.  I don't believe that Bob Gibson wasn't a max effort guy all the time.  I will buy that other pitchers weren't max effort guys but I believe Bob Gibson wanted to shove every fastball and slider down everyone's throat from the first batter to the last.

I believe that Bob Gibson wanted you to believe that.  I'm naturally skeptical of legendary stuff.  People talk about Gibson hitting a batter every other inning out of spite and meanness and intimidation.  But he hit fewer batters per inning than Chris Tillman or Miguel Gonzalez.

I don't know, maybe he did throw hard every pitch.  Maybe he was like Nolan Ryan and Livan Hernandez and had some kind of freakish physical build that let him throw more and harder than normal human pitchers.  But as I said, I'm naturally skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd never just flat out say one of your ideas was dumb Drungo.

Where is the fun in that?

 

Dunno, why don't you lay out some suggestions and I'll see if there's fun in calling it dumb. 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Is the NL keeping the DH long term?  Will there be expanded rosters next year and beyond?  Nunez offers no versatility.    The NL DH would help Nunez, but expanded rosters hurt him. Teams can piece together his offensive production with platoons. 
    • Here the guys that will play DH for the O's this year: (6) Mancini, Mountcastle,  Hays, Santander, Diaz and maybe Iglesias. All need at bats.  All are more valuable than Nunez.   Plus the O's have Stewart who is cheaper and if the other 6 are healthy may be in AAA.    There is no place for Nunez to get enough at bats to be productive with those players on the roster.
    • I don’t see Shaw staying on the 40 man all offseason. Once FA really kicks in, teams will face roster crunches and he will be more likely to clear waivers. Heck, he just cleared the whole NL.    He is AAA depth. A dart throw. I don’t think this relates to Nunez at all. 
    • This is going to be a much more regulated process.    And it’s going to get a lot of scrutiny.   We’ll see what happens.
    • If no one is going to pay him 2+ million than he isn't worth 2+ million.  
    • Of course no one is going to pay him 2+ million.  I would argue the Os didn’t need to either. I would also argue that Nunez was worth more to the Os than other teams.     The flaw in the arguments being made here are that you are looking at his worth around the league.  That’s completely irrelevant.  I’m not arguing that he’s a real valuable player.  I’m not arguing that teams are clamoring for him.  I never once said teams wanted him or he will be an easy trade candidate or anything remotely like that.  Everyone is completely misrepresenting that. All I said was that his offensive production is worth that money for this team.  We have a boatload of question marks and very few answers to those questions and for that tiny amount of money, it was worth keeping him around. The Os are, unquestionably, being cheap.  This is definitely a money thing and it shouldn’t be.  This is a team that less than 5 years ago spent 160M on payroll and now they may not spend 60M.  
    • Were they a priority when it came to testing earlier this year?   
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...