Jump to content

Hardball Times: Tommy John


weams

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 253
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Interesting article by Tom Boswell today, indicating that the Nats believe that pitchers who have had TJ surgery have about an 8-year post-surgery shelf life, and shouldn't be signed for extensions that go beyond that. Thus, for example, the Nats have shown little interest in extending Jordan Zimmermann despite his post-surgery success the last several years, and Boswell speculates the same may be true for Stephen Strasburg. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/fear-of-second-elbow-surgery-may-lead-to-zimmerman-strasburg-departures/2015/03/29/80367f62-d646-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article by Tom Boswell today, indicating that the Nats believe that pitchers who have had TJ surgery have about an 8-year post-surgery shelf life, and shouldn't be signed for extensions that go beyond that. Thus, for example, the Nats have shown little interest in extending Jordan Zimmermann despite his post-surgery success the last several years, and Boswell speculates the same may be true for Stephen Strasburg. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/fear-of-second-elbow-surgery-may-lead-to-zimmerman-strasburg-departures/2015/03/29/80367f62-d646-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html

Saw that piece.

And yet they target high ceiling pitchers that have had/will need TJ. Bit of a paradox unless they are confident that they can get the players to the majors very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw that piece.

And yet they target high ceiling pitchers that have had/will need TJ. Bit of a paradox unless they are confident that they can get the players to the majors very quickly.

I also saw that article this morning. Looks like they try to get them to the majors within three or four years. Looks like they do it mostly with college pitchers. That way they have them under team control. When they are ready for free agency they let them go. Be interesting to see if this works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article by Tom Boswell today, indicating that the Nats believe that pitchers who have had TJ surgery have about an 8-year post-surgery shelf life, and shouldn't be signed for extensions that go beyond that. Thus, for example, the Nats have shown little interest in extending Jordan Zimmermann despite his post-surgery success the last several years, and Boswell speculates the same may be true for Stephen Strasburg. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/fear-of-second-elbow-surgery-may-lead-to-zimmerman-strasburg-departures/2015/03/29/80367f62-d646-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html

Boras is Strasburg's agent, so it is a moot point, since an extension isn't a likely option, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.fangraphs.com/community/tommy-john-surgery-and-throwing-95-mph/

While a lot has already been done on Tommy John surgeries, not a lot of studies have examined the percentage of hard-throwing pitchers who have had the surgery. Jeff Zimmerman did look at pitchers who hit 100 MPH or more and the percentage of them who have had Tommy John (25% had the surgery). What I will be doing, however, is somewhat different. I will look at the pitchers whose fastball averaged 95 or more and the percentage of them who have had Tommy John surgery, as requested by Jeff, - "Help Out: While I looked at pitchers who threw over 100 mph, 100 may not me the key number. Maybe it's 97 mph, or 95 mph. The increase in velocity and increase in TJS can't be ignored. It is time to perform a more thorough assessment."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone particularly surprised by this? The human body was not intentionally designed to hurl an object in the high 90s for years on end. Joint damage seems inevitable. I'm just surprised it has taken them this long to evaluate this.

A lot of truth there. It seems velocity only became important when radar guns started being used. It could be the people with high velocity are also more susceptible to needing TJ and those are the ones that get drafted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of truth there. It seems velocity only became important when radar guns started being used. It could be the people with high velocity are also more susceptible to needing TJ and those are the ones that get drafted.

I'm going to say that if we grab Mr Peabody and his Wayback machine and go back 100 years you will see that teams would still look at velocity when evaluating pitchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to say that if we grab Mr Peabody and his Wayback machine and go back 100 years you will see that teams would still look at velocity when evaluating pitchers.

True. But I think guys like Greg Maddux have shown that superior pitching mechanics and great control you can still dominate with a below average speed fastball. He is one noted for having a relatively injury free career because of not overthrowing but instead having impeccable command. I think coaches should be trying to teach young pitchers to emulate this model to be effective with less arm injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. But I think guys like Greg Maddux have shown that superior pitching mechanics and great control you can still dominate with a below average speed fastball. He is one noted for having a relatively injury free career because of not overthrowing but instead having impeccable command. I think coaches should be trying to teach young pitchers to emulate this model to be effective with less arm injuries.

It's been well documented that Maddux, Glavine and likely others benefited from an increased strike zone at the time which was off the plate. It especially benefited Braves pitchers because Mazzone preached low and away as a mantra and their pitchers expanded the zone when the umpires would allow. I doubt very much you'll ever see this kind of generosity in strike calling again with the decrease in runs being scored and MLB looking for every way it can to increase run production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been well documented that Maddux, Glavine and likely others benefited from an increased strike zone at the time which was off the plate. It especially benefited Braves pitchers because Mazzone preached low and away as a mantra and their pitchers expanded the zone when the umpires would allow. I doubt very much you'll ever see this kind of generosity in strike calling again with the decrease in runs being scored and MLB looking for every way it can to increase run production.

Well since pitch framing is crap it appears the Brewers pitchers are now getting the Maddux/Glavine treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to say that if we grab Mr Peabody and his Wayback machine and go back 100 years you will see that teams would still look at velocity when evaluating pitchers.

People were astounded and amazed by the velocity of Jim Creighton. It was one of the major factors in making him baseball's first big star in the early 1860s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. But I think guys like Greg Maddux have shown that superior pitching mechanics and great control you can still dominate with a below average speed fastball. He is one noted for having a relatively injury free career because of not overthrowing but instead having impeccable command. I think coaches should be trying to teach young pitchers to emulate this model to be effective with less arm injuries.
Few pitchers of any velocity have Greg Maddux' command and control. If you tell a guy who maxes out at 92 mph to drop back to 86 to get better command and stamina there's a good chance the lower velocity makes him a poor MLB pitcher despite the other gains. There is a positive correlation between velocity and effectiveness. No, it's not perfect. Yes there are poor pitchers who throw 97. But, in general, the harder you throw the better you are. Tommy Hunter was barely a major leaguer pacing himself and throwing in the low 90s. He's an average/above-average reliever throwing 98.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...