Tired of Trembley's Quick Hook

[J.D.]

I think that Trembley is just a little more extreme version of today's manager.

They manage a bullpen by formula -everybody must know his "role".We even have 6th and 7th inning guys now (Albers). And when the starter shows the least little sign of fatigue, we look at the inning and pick out the appropriate specialist to come in. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous. Were too hung up on pitch counts and inning specialists. There's no reason why starters can't go 115-120 pitches and no reason why relievers can't go 3, or at least 2 unless we're talking about your closer.

Sure there is. When your starters' effectiveness goes down significantly at 100 pitches or so, there's every reason in the world taht he shouldn't be stretched to 120 pitches. Because odds are, he's going to get lit up.

The "role" thing might not make a lot of sense, but the bullpen seems to enjoy it. I don't remember what season it was recently, or even what manager, but I remember there being a lot of griping from one of the recent bullpens about the lack of "defined roles" and how that was messing with them. There's a reason why the roles are there. I don't necessarily agree with them, or the idea of a "closer" in general... but there's a reason why they exist.

Relievers, for the most part, just don't go 3 innings anymore. That's just how it is. I think Trembley's done a decent job of pitching to match ups most of the time, but he's certainly not perfect at it. I think Trembley does a better job of managing the bullpen than a lot of the managers we've had in recent memory.

[Mad Mark]

Whether they are naturally like this or whether we have made them this way, I constantly hear that pitchers are "creatures of habit". Mentally, they appear to thrive on being given a "role" and sticking to it. Could they be broken of this habit? I don't know about future generations of pitchers, but this one likely won't be.

[Trace21230]

Trembley mysteriously yanks Guthrie again tonight after 7 strong innings and only 101 pitches.

Of course there's no pattern...

[Frobby]

Trembley mysteriously yanks Guthrie again tonight after 7 strong innings and only 101 pitches.

Of course there's no pattern...

That was a debatable decision. Guthrie looked awfully strong in the 7th.

[Trace21230]

That was a debatable decision. Guthrie looked awfully strong in the 7th.

Well, why risk stretching Guthrie out when you've got a massive one run lead *and* Rocky Cherry and Jamie Walker ready to go?

[Sports Guy]

I didn't see any of the game until the very end, so I can't comment on Guthrie looked(box score looks solid though).

However, he was over 100 pitches, had a 1 run lead and was, I believe, getting ready to see the lineup for the 4th time.

With his poor stats after 100 pitches and facing a guy like Sizemore, DT made the right call...Had it been a 2+ run lead, I would agree.

[Trace21230]

I didn't see any of the game until the very end, so I can't comment on Guthrie looked(box score looks solid though).

However, he was over 100 pitches, had a 1 run lead and was, I believe, getting ready to see the lineup for the 4th time.

With his poor stats after 100 pitches and facing a guy like Sizemore, DT made the right call...Had it been a 2+ run lead, I would agree.

So you'd rather have Guthrie facing Sizemore over Jamie Walker in that situation. Interesting.

Are we still talking about his "poor stats after 100 pitches" from May and June? Has DT allowed him to have anything over 100 pitches lately? Probably in the CG.

I'd rather leave Guthrie in at 70% than bring in Cherry or Walker at 100%. Trust your ace.

[Sports Guy]

So you'd rather have Guthrie facing Sizemore over Jamie Walker in that situation. Interesting.

Are we still talking about his "poor stats after 100 pitches" from May and June? Has DT allowed him to have anything over 100 pitches lately? Probably in the CG.

I'd rather leave Guthrie in at 70% than bring in Cherry or Walker at 100%. Trust your ace.

Well, I wouldn't have pitched either of them against Sizemore but I wouldn't have let Guthrie face him either...I may have let Guthrie face the 9th hitter and then bring Sherrill in after that(this assumes JJ wasn't available tonight).

[birdystolle]

Really? Has Trembley ever allowed Guthrie to pitch over 100 pitches? How are we supposed to build his endurance to over 100 pitches if he's never left in?

Remember a manager back in the 1970s with the Oakland A's named Billy Martin who essentially destroyed a very good young starting rotation by insisting on their pitching into the 8th and 9th in almost every game. That's not the only reason of course that the complete game has become all but extinct--In 1966 the Orioles had 16 (i think) complete games that was considered at the time abnormally low for a pennant winning team-- now you could probably add the complete games of several of the division winning teams and not have it add up to 16.

If you want to go back to having starting pitchers go 9 innings you start finding out in the minors-- find out their stamina then not wait to the majors. I happen to think there is too much emphasis on pitch counts and the like but I don't think it's Trembley as much as an industry wide practice which if Trembley decided to defy as you would have him do and Guthrie developed career threatening arm miseries (perhaps as a result) would you be willing to defend him against what would no doubt be the avalanche of criticism.

To be honest the rate of injury to starting pitchers currently is higher than it was back in the days of the complete game and the four man rotation and before the pitch count obsession.

While I think you are generally correct it would be a matter of defying industry standards to keep Guthrie or most any other pitcher in after a set number of pitches have been thrown. And except where they have absolute authority and a truly secure job most managers won't take that risk

[ccbird]

Well, Trace, you're all over it again. Nice call...

From Schmuck:

August 14, 2008Mystery solvedGot a call from Sun beat reporter Jeff Zrebiec in Cleveland a few minutes ago with an update on Jeremy Guthrie. Turns out, his back began to stiffen up in the sixth inning and he told manager Dave Trembley that it had worsened during the seventh.Trembley had no choice but to remove him from the game. 

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/schmuck/

I think it's safe to assume at thi point Guthrie has a lot of leeway with Trembley in deciding if he goes back out on the mound. I believe it was the New York game a few starts back where Trembley said postgame he was going to pull Guthrie after 6 but Guts told him he had some unfinished buisness and wanted to go back out and Dave let him. Since then he went back out for the 9th in a 3-1 game against Seattle and started the 7th against Texas when he was over 100 pitches. Like I said, Guts has earned Trembley's trust and is the staff ace. I think he is more often than not deciding himself if he is going back out to start an inning.

[jiminnj]

Well, Trace, you're all over it again. Nice call...

From Schmuck:

August 14, 2008Mystery solvedGot a call from Sun beat reporter Jeff Zrebiec in Cleveland a few minutes ago with an update on Jeremy Guthrie. Turns out, his back began to stiffen up in the sixth inning and he told manager Dave Trembley that it had worsened during the seventh.Trembley had no choice but to remove him from the game. 

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/schmuck/

Schmuck also had this to say:

"Guthrie, who routinely sports a hot pack on his lower back, will probably make his next start on schedule."

If his back is routinely needing a hot pack, perhaps this is not the only time DT has had to remove him a little earlier than he (or the rest of us) had wanted to.

[Mark Carver]

Remember a manager back in the 1970s with the Oakland A's named Billy Martin who essentially destroyed a very good young starting rotation by insisting on their pitching into the 8th and 9th in almost every game. That's not the only reason of course that the complete game has become all but extinct--In 1966 the Orioles had 16 (i think) complete games that was considered at the time abnormally low for a pennant winning team-- now you could probably add the complete games of several of the division winning teams and not have it add up to 16.

That would be 1981, in which the A's had 60 complete games, which may be a modern baseball record. And of course, Langford, Norris, McCatty and Keough had very short pro careers.

[beardbr]

According the Peter Schmucks' blog, Guthrie's back was tightening, so it wasn't some managing by the book or something.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/schmuck/2008/08/mystery_solved.html