ptatc

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 11:40 PM) I have always wondered why they don't flip flop the order in which pitchers pitch. RP type guys starting a game and going a few innings and letting the SP type guys finish out ball games. It does seem like the bullpen's of today really get rocked at the time when they have the most pressure and most on the line in terms of having a shot to finish out and win a game. I suppose you can argue that a RP just isn't as good typically as a starter, but often times, I think the pressure is their largest detriment to them being successful. Perhaps SP would be able to handle the pressure better at the end of the game than most RP's. This is one I've never heard before. My first thoughts are that unless you have a pre-determined number if innings/pitches for the reliever, you essentially have the same scenario as Lillian stated that you always have a group of pitchers together on a given day. Unless you have the "reliever" pitch every third day and the "starter" go every 5. It's interesting, this way you have the "better" pitcher at the end of the game unless he fatigues. I guess that's the question, how long does the reliever go to ensure the starter is there at the end of the game? It's one to cogitate upon.

QUOTE (kev211 @ Dec 6, 2014 -> 12:24 AM) What? You don't know German?

Verstehts du.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 08:47 PM) I will say this...it's not like the current practices are keeping guys healthy either. nope. this is why it's a huge field of research and why different people are still coming up with new models of mechanics. we are keeping them healthier as a whole. I still thin Lillian idea of throwing more will be the one that wins out and we'll see it slowly increase over the next decade.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 06:13 PM) Yes he has. Let him keep doing what he's doing. We don't need to revert to the KW philosophy. KW philosphy is Hahns philosophy. Remember KWwanted to start the tear down 1 year earlier but JR wanted to try it for one more year with the veteran team. KW agreed with the change in the team direction. He always said there was a time when it was going to need to happen.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 04:44 PM) I just want to re-iterate how awesome you are. Its more a factor of being old and being in the field forever but i appreciate the comment.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 03:35 PM) For those of you who are really interested in this discussion, I encourage you to read this article, which I just found: http://jonahkeri.com/2010/09/13/pitching-i...es-and-rangers/ It's quite long, but very interesting, and addresses many of the points that can be made on both sides of this issue. I read that back when it first came out and you're right there are many things it addresses on both sides of the issue. I do have some positives and negatives in relation to it. negatives 1. Nolan Ryan. You really can't go by much of his training/pitching philosophies. This is like Micheal Jordan telling a 5'5" guy to dunk by just jumping because that's what I did. He is a gentic beast who did thing no one else could. His pitching came with Tom house and subsequently Larry Rothschild (homewood-flossmoor guys). This is the classic "towel drill" and throwing the football guys for pitching. Studies have shown how terrible these mechanics are for the shoulder and to a lesser extent the elbow. Just because aguy could throw 95 in his 40's doesn't mean everyone can. On the positive side his ideas of how to train the lower legs and trunk as opposed to the arm are excellent and I really push for pitchers. 2. Vazquez uses his theories of training revolving around pushing the lactate level as justification. We know through research that lactate levels have nothing to do with strength/power/soreness/recovery or anything related to muscle function. Muscle fatigue mostly comes from a combination of a disruption of the calcium channels to activate the muscle and a reflex action from the interneurons in the spinal cord which connect to the individual motor units in a given muscle. Again some of the power activities from the lower extremity are valid though. Positives. The key aspect to the whole article revolves around Glenn Fleisig's comments. He is one of the primary researchers in pitching today. He stated that pitchers should be pushed to the point of fatigue in training and pitching but not beyond it. Mechanics will breakdown and microtears will begin in the static support structures if this happens This is the key concept about your idea. I agree tht pitchers should throw more. However, it should not be when they are fatigued. If they throw in a game a day or even two after a previous outing, they will accumulate the fatigue and the wear and tear will be too much and everything will breakdown. I push for more throwing between starts but not at game intensity and definitely not with the large number of breaking pitches at that intensity that would be required to get MLB hitters out without proper rest

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 02:55 PM) I've been weight training for 55 years, long before it was ever popular. I started when I was 15, and have never stopped, and still do virtually the same routine, now at age 70. Of course, I don't train with the same intensity that I once did, but my sessions still involve going to failure on almost every set. I competed back in the 80's, and had some notable success. It has never been necessary for me, or for any of the people, with whom I have trained, to rest a body part for an entire week. In fact, my experience has been that an entire week in between sessions tends to make it difficult to maintain maximum hypertrophy. I have always tended to have soreness, unless I train the body part more frequently, approximately once every 4 days, although I have been able to do it once every 3 days, when I was younger. I haven't really tried that in a few years, primarily due to a lack of sufficient motivation. After all, "What the hell am I trying to prove?" I'm an old lady, it just seems inappropriate at my age. But we're talking about young, testosterone producing, men. And let's not discount the nutritional supplements that are available today, and I'm not talking about PEDS. Look, I'm not a doctor or physiologist, but this notion doesn't compute with my own experience. Your body needs a certain amount of time to recover fully, but any stress that requires an entire week to recover sounds more like healing from an injury, than normal recovery from a safe stimulus load. More importantly, this whole notion contradicts the standard practice of utilizing a closer, several times per week. The issue is more about the number of pitches, than the frequency. You also cannot ignore that pitchers in the past through much more frequently, and many more pitches, per outing. I don't recall that there were significantly more injuries back then, than we see today. This obviously requires some caution, but I just can't accept that 100 pitches one day, and 45 two days later, followed by another 100, 3 days later represents some terrible risk to a pitcher. Isn't it possible that he would actually be better conditioned than pitchers who work so infrequently? Maximum hypertrophy and strength/endurance are very different things. Hypertrophy is not a direct correlation to functional strength and much less so with endurance. This is due to the proprioception/motor control variables. Pitching has absolutely nothing to do with strength. It's almost all lower extremity endurance. It's mostly maintaining mechanics by maintaining endurance. This is why relief pitchers used the PEDS more than anyone because it allowed them to maintain the endurance over days while recovering faster. Pitchers in the past did throw more which I do think should happen. However, there are 4 caveats to this 1. They threw with much less intensity as they paced themselves because the y knew they were going to throw more pitches/innings. 2. They threw from a higher mounds so the pitches were more effective with less intensity. 3. They threw very easily on off days. And most importantly 4. They were a select few whose body could tolerate this stress. Back then pitchers threw a lot and if that load injured them they were washed out in the minors never to be heard from again. The pitchers that made it to the MLB were fewer because there were fewer teams. In today's league they need more pitchers so they need to be protected so they have enough pitchers. 2/3 of all pitchers today would have been injured and washed out in the minors 40 years ago because their bodies couldn't physically handle it. The issue isn't the number of pitches, it's the quality and intensity. Every time you throw a ball you put enough torque on the elbow to tear the UCL. The only thing holding it together are proper mechanics and flexor muscle forces. If you truly max out for pure strength gain you will not lift a body part more than once a week. The days of 3 sets of 10 2-3x/week. Went out with the rampant PEDS in the Olympics.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 11:11 AM) Thanks for the responses, and hope there are many more to come. Do you guys honestly think that asking nothing more than that starters throw their current "side sessions" in the game, would jeopardize their health? I reject that notion. This system does not require pitchers to throw more pitches, or more often. It simply utilizes the pitches thrown in the bullpen side session, in the game. Again, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the issue of limiting a pitcher's work load. Too little work equals inadequate conditioning. Even high intensity weight training does not require 5, or even 4 days of rest, in between sessions. If today's relievers can throw as frequently as they do, and often with considerable intensity, then the frequency which this demands, is not unreasonable. The question becomes; how many pitches? That is debatable, but I don't see the problem with 2 appearances, within a 5 day span. 100 pitches in one appearance, and 45 in the other, does not seen like a terribly burdensome work load, providing that a pitcher is conditioned for it. I would be interested to know how much intensity is actually applied, during side session days. Does anyone know much about how they are conducted? 1. Throwing the side sessions in the games would create much more stress on the arm. Having been in there with rehabbing pitchers, there is a total different intensity. Also, physically there isn't enough of a break. The pitchers will get fatigued and drop the mechanics and injuries will occur. Remember most of pitching comes from the lower extremities and trunk. When these fatigue the arm will suffer. 2. it does require the pitcher to work harder more often. This will be the physical breakdown. Over a 6 month season. it's too much stress. 3. There isn't too little work, it's the intensity of it. I think a 4 man rotation would work better, if you could work to re-train the pitchers. 4. In high intensity weight training, there is considerable rest. Olympic weight lifters work one group of muscles once per week. If you are truly maxing out that is the limit. Pitchers work until total fatigue of the larger muscle groups. You just can't fatigue the muscles that way and expect perfect form, which would need in pitching.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 10:09 AM) A few years ago, I wrote a paper, in which I advocated a different use of Professional baseball, pitching staffs. This year’s final game of the World Series reminded me of the hypothesis, which I put forth then. The Giants used their Ace starter, Madison Bumgarner, in long relief, on his normal bullpen, side session day. We all know the results, and they were quite impressive. The impetus for my hypothesis is that today’s starting pitchers are used so little, and yet make so much, that there should be a better way to utilize them. When a pitcher is only asked to pitch in one out of every 5 games, and then only expected to go 6 innings, or around 110 pitches, which ever comes first, it should be obvious that teams are not getting much for their money. This present day modus operendi requires 5 very expense starters, which is problematic, in itself. However, when you then consider all of the vitally important relievers, which are required to provide effective late inning pitching, the whole system is just about as cost inefficient as one could possibly imagine. Explaining that to an analyst, not steeped in baseball, would surely elicit a response of “head scratching” incredulity. It all begs the question; isn’t there a better way? Well, that takes us back to the 7TH game of this year’s World Series. The Giants had a plan to use Bumgarner, in relief to close out the final game. They executed that plan to perfection. He threw 68 pitches just two days after throwing 117, pitches in his previous start. This is precisely the way I assert that teams should manage their pitching staffs. Pitchers routinely throw around 45 or 50 pitches, during their side session day, which comes a couple of days after their regular starts. My contention is that instead of throwing those pitches in the bullpen, let them throw them in the game. Now, I know that someone is going to object on the basis that those pitches, thrown in a game situation, might put to much stress on the pitcher’s arm. To that, I can only reply, “oh poor pitcher”. Tell that to the old timer hurlers, who routinely threw close to double the amount of pitches, thrown by today's pitchers, every start, and did it every 3 days. Over protecting a pitcher’s arm, can be just as detrimental as over taxing it. There is a point where too little work results in insufficient conditioning. It’s the very reason that a reliever, has to work up to being able to start. He must develop the stamina, necessary to enable him to throw the additional pitches required. If a starter were only asked to throw 50 pitches in a game, that would probably be about all you could extract from him, without risking injury. This principle is best expressed by the strength and fitness creed; “Use it, or lose it”. So, how would this system of employing the current bullpen, “side session” pitches in game situations work? Teams would use two pitchers per game. That day’s “starter” would be expected to throw around his usual 100 - 110 pitches. He would exit the game, and another pitcher would take his place, and throw what would be the equivilent of a “side session” 45, or 50 pitches. The following day, you would repeat the same process, with two more starters. At that point, you would have used all 4 of the starters, required for this system, and you may or may not have needed to use any bullpen pitchers. The third game begins to utilize the pen. They would divide the workload, and pitch the entire game. The 4TH game, returns to the first two pitchers, who shared the first game’s work load, only this time the roles are reversed. Pitcher A, who threw 100 pitches the first game will now be asked to “relieve” pitcher B, who will start this game, and be expected to throw 100 pitches. Pitcher B is able to throw 100 pitches, as his previous appearance was the equivilant of a “side session,” of merely 45 pitches. The 5Th game repeats the same system, this time with pitchers C and D, who worked in tandem, in game 2. They would reverse their respective roles, just as pitchers A and B did. This system enables a team to use 4 starters, instead of 5, and requires fewer relievers. Moreover, the relievers do not have to be of the same quality, as they are not asked to pitch in virtually every close game, unlike today’s method of depending upon the bullpen to pitch the final 3 innings. Therefore, they would not be key to every game’s outcome. How many great starts from Sale and Quintana, did the Sox waste, because the bullpen couldn't preserve the lead? The amount of money that could be saved by this method of managing a pitching staff, is tremendous, and could afford teams the payroll flexibility to upgrade other roster spots. Applying this principle to the current situation, the front office could forget about looking for another starter, and more bullpen help. They could then use the money to acquire another outfielder, and be ready to compete in 2015. Although, ideally the Sox would have 4 top starters, and it appears that they only have 3, at best. A staff of Sale, Quintana, Rodon and one solid RH starter, might work. Of course, agents and the Players Union might object and attempt to thwart any such revolutionary idea, which might threaten the existing system, but that does not diminish the validity of the idea. What do you gentlemen think of the concept and its feasibility? Your idea is not without merit but has a few issues with it. Teams have tried rotations with using 3 pitchers for 3 innings each every 3 days. However the issues are: 1. The pitchers would need to learn to dial down the intensity. Current pitchers are being conditioned to only 6 innings or so because that is a "quality start." Because of this the intensity is ramped up and they throw harder than the pitchers wanting to go 9 innings. If the pitcher needs come back earlier than 4 days, they would need to dial that back. 2. side sessions are not for throwing easily. It's like training to run a marathon. Some days are hard some are easy. You could do the pitching on the side session a couple of times but then you would wear them out. Pitchers will typically work on certain pitches especially "feel" pitches in side sessions and you cannot do that throwing too lightly. 3. The mental aspect may be the most important. OPitchers just don't feel comfortable with it so you would need to sart it in the minors to mentally get thme used to it. You can't have young pitchers stressing to make the MLB and toally changing the way they pitch.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 09:10 AM) I think part of it is linked to Jay's reputation in the City and his mental state. It seems like whenever Jay falls under some criticism, they dial the offense back to the short passes to protect his psyche. Otherwise, he tends to start just winging the ball all over the place, interceptions ensue, and it just sort of snowballs. That is really my only explanation, other than Trestman just not having a clue how to make adjustments. They don't dial it bacl from criticism. They dial it back when he throw stupid interception, which coincides with the criticism.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:48 PM) Not even close. Terry Shea by a landslide I don't know, John shoop is in the team picture.

Doing interviews with applicants for grad school, making them sweat and sometimes cry.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:35 PM) Putting injustice in scare quotes when we're talking about police getting away with murder doesn't exactly help your point. The good ones defend the bad ones damn near every time. I'm not sure what scare quotes are. I meant them as some are questionable. I also diagree that the poluce are getting away with murder. Of these two prominent casss, one was self defense the other was accidental. Murder implies intent. I don't think the one in new york was intentional. I think the officers unvolved should be punished for excessive force but I don't think the intention was to kill the man.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:07 PM) The officers who shot the twelve year old rushed up to him like a couple of cowboys and killed him within two seconds. He was presenting a threat to absolutely nobody when they arrived. The Cleveland police department as a whole was castigated in a doj report today over just this sort of excessive force and needlessly putting themselves in situations where deadly force is the only choice they have. The cop who killed this child immediately after exiting his car was found to be incompetent by his previous department. It's not hard to see why some people have such distrust of the police. What does a cop have to do for another cop to think they did something wrong? We have someone killed for "resisting arrest" by pulling his hand away and a twelve year old boy shot dead in two seconds by a couple of incompetent clowns and they're still getting excuses. These are just the highly publisized "injustices" that show why people have ditrust the police. How many thousands of times everyday do the police do the correct thing that shows why people should trust the police.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 01:00 PM) So you agree he should've been indicted, which only means there is probable cause to charge him with SOMETHING From what I've read, the grand jury was asked to give an indictment on criminal intent. I would agree with the grand jury that there was no criminal intent. I do disagree with the rule/policy that this is what needs to be proven. I really don't think the officers were thretened in this case. There should be a civil on something like involuntary manslaughter or some type of causing accidental death.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 01:46 PM) Dave Martinez, new Cubs bench coach. "I'm Shocked, Shocked that there is gambling at Rick's" "here are your winnings, sir"

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:30 AM) Good lord. Fill the holes first. The rotation is the biggest hole. Pitching wins.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 07:44 PM) All the last eight years has done is reinforce what we saw in the first 26 years of this ownership group: making it to the playoffs just once every eight years or so and coming away from those rare appearances with practically nothing to show for it is going to result in dwindling attendance. It's that simple, and should be expected. It's not because Sox fans are "miserable people" (not a nice thing to say, btw). There should be no expectation of unconditional love here, that the 2.9 million plus who walked through the turnstiles in '06 should have done so in 2011 and 2013, or else be dismissed as "bandwagon". They are consumers, and unfortunately when Sox product isn't up to snuff, they choose not to consume as much of it. Only one year in the 34 this ownership group has been running things worthy of mention. Just one! Only four playoff appearances in the other 33 years, with just four wins across all four of those appearances. THAT record is what is MISERABLE, not the fans. How does compare to otger teams in the league? How many games have other teams won? How many teams have a world series win or as many playoff victories? This ownership group has outperformed many and definitely out performed any other in Chicago.

Quite the opposite of last year, I won't be the first one to mess it up

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 03:34 PM) The coroner ruled the death a homicide, and the officer used a choke hold, which is strictly against department policy. Still, no charges. Was there any fighting between the officers and the the person. There isn't much info in the article or video. In the Brown case the officer was threatened. In this case, I haven't seen anything to make me think that. According to the anchor, the grand jury was asked to indict if there was malicious intent to kill. I highly doubt the officer intended to kill him so I'm not surprised there was no indictment.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 01:22 PM) I agree, and was posting the article in support of your statements. There are times when a GM knows something and takes what he can get. Sometimes GMs identify prospects they really like and they leave you scratching your head. I can think of two examples of that with the White Sox and one of them worked out (Garcia to Philly for Gio/Floyd) and one of them did not (Santos to Toronto for Molina). Sorry, I see what you mean now. I was looking at the article a little differently. Similar to what Dick Allen posted.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 12:25 PM) That's fine. Doesn't mean that they will be good. He'll be 31 at the start of next season. Sorry, I meant that as it immediately makes them a team to watch as a team on the rise because he improves their team immensely.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 12:06 PM) Related: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-percept...er-trade-value/ As I said it's from Beane's own evaluation of the proposed deal. Just because other so-called experts don't agree, doesn't mean that Beane didn't think it was the best at the time. Just because people not involved with the deal think he should have gotten more doesn't mean someone offered more.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 12:03 PM) Lola - The Kinks I'm not sure it qualifies because I don't think there is a female involved.