Garrett Crochet named Opening Day starter

[WestEddy]

12 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

And outside of off the top of your head, how do you come up with those numbers? And even with your numbers , he's half a season as the #1 guy. My problem  is even though he was spectacular,  they let him through more pitches on opening day than everyone but 3 or 4 guys  in the league. I MO, that's just asking for trouble with a guy that has been constantly  injured.

I have read the 90-100 innings. I don't remember where. 

I don't see the issue with him pitching half a season as a starter, then getting ramped down, or whatnot. I believe he's been injured every season he's pitched. So if he gets injured again, it's not going to be some great "AHA! I told you so!!" moment. Just letting Crochet pitch in any capacity is "just asking for trouble". Crochet has stated, and maybe the team agrees with him, that he'd do better with a regular 5-day program of throwing instead of the chaotic up and down as a bullpen reliever. So if they're going to do the unthinkable, and allow him to continue to pitch, why not do so in a more orderly fashion. He would throw just as hard in minor league games as he would in major league games. 

Nobody has been able to explain why, if you have a very good pitcher like Crochet, why you'd want to bury him in the minor leagues and not let him pitch because he might get injured. Every single pitcher might get injured while pitching. 

And Crochet threw as many pitches as he did in his final spring training game. 

Edited March 31 by WestEddy

[Tnetennba]

[Balta1701]

6 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

I have read the 90-100 innings. I don't remember where. 

I don't see the issue with him pitching half a season as a starter, then getting ramped down, or whatnot. I believe he's been injured every season he's pitched. So if he gets injured again, it's not going to be some great "AHA! I told you so!!" moment. Just letting Crochet pitch in any capacity is "just asking for trouble". Crochet has stated, and maybe the team agrees with him, that he'd do better with a regular 5-day program of throwing instead of the chaotic up and down as a bullpen reliever. So if they're going to do the unthinkable, and allow him to continue to pitch, why not do so in a more orderly fashion. He would throw just as hard in minor league games as he would in major league games. 

Nobody has been able to explain why, if you have a very good pitcher like Crochet, why you'd want to bury him in the minor leagues and not let him pitch because he might get injured. Every single pitcher might get injured while pitching. 

And Crochet threw as many pitches as he did in his final spring training game. 

Because MLB is now a maximum effort pitching league, and there’s no reason why AAA needs to be one.  He can build up his arm with repetition, improve muscle memory, and do so without having 50 or 60 max effort pitches every game right away.

Furthermore, they can use it to control his innings total more easily, they could have used him as a 40-50 pitch 3 inning opener at AAA without having it affect the big league bullpen. This would also have the benefit of limiting his total innings, making it more likely that he will be at a reasonable total of innings in August where he can pitch 5 months of the year rather than 3.

You could ramp his arm up much more slowly, with lower effort pitches and more controlled outings at least for the first month or two. With his injury history it sure seems smart.

But you also say the quiet part out loud - if he gets hurt, you will say “he was always going to get hurt”. It doesn’t matter how irresponsible Gets and Kats are, you will say that to defend them no matter what they do.

[WhiteSox2023]

2 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

WestEddy versus the world.  Everyone suffers.

[WestEddy]

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Didn’t you just justifiably complain about someone calling you a name two posts ago? I guess it’s ok as long as you are the one doing it. You’re important and correct.

What name did I call you? Perhaps you want to be called "Baghdad Balta", and you're sad because you don't warrant the attention? 

I am stating that you are ridiculous person. You can't concede any part of any argument, either. Because you need to win, you will not admit that Crochet threw any baseballs outside of game play between his TJS and spring training of this year. It would be easy enough to just toss off a "sure, he's probably been on a comprehensive, monitored throwing program..." but that is a bridge too far. He has thrown zero pitches, and for anybody to even suggest that he's thrown in games that aren't indicated on the back of his baseball card is now a conspiracy theory. 

If you don't find that notion ridiculous, you're just proving my point. 

And now that your silly argument is emitting smell of death, you switch to tedious claims of being called a name when you weren't. 

Crochet will either be injured this year, or he won't. If he is, you can crow about it and high five all the other nay-sayers and claim you were right. If he doesn't, you'll still claim to be right and call it lucky. The chances are that Crochet will get injured, because he's gotten injured every single season he's pitched. If he's so fragile as you're afraid he is, he should probably break down during his second start. If not, maybe the problem all along is that he wasn't being used enough. 

Who knows? I'm pretty sure you don't. 

[Tnetennba]

4 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

WestEddy versus the world.  Everyone suffers.

Watching someone twist themselves into a pretzel repeatedly trying to prove they aren’t wrong can be entertaining from afar at times. But this is not one of them. 

[southsider2k5]

38 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Didn’t you just justifiably complain about someone calling you a name two posts ago? I guess it’s ok as long as you are the one doing it. You’re important and correct.

And just for the record, this is me, agreeing with Balta. 

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, WestEddy said:

Okay, here we go with the name-calling. And the BS lies. I never said some secret location. I said that he logged innings in complex games that don't show up in the stats. You countered that other pitchers throw on the side, so that means that  Crochet didn't actually throw any extra innings than what you can read on the back of his baseball card. That's you, digging in on nonsense, just to not to concede any part of any point. 

You're shadow boxing, here. I seriously hope you find this "Baghdad Bob" guy and prove him wrong. As far as our discussion, I'm not sure what you're even doing, at this point. Nobody on this board has argued that Crochet should throw 180 innings (a full starter's load) this year. I've repeatedly said I thought they'd shut/ramp him down at 90-100 IP. So it seems that I'm agreeing with "White Sox professionals". 

I hope you enjoy your trip to Baghdad. 

 

 

So 12 2/3 IP is enough to make up the difference?  Because that is what he pitched in the fall league.

[WestEddy]

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Because MLB is now a maximum effort pitching league, and there’s no reason why AAA needs to be one.  He can build up his arm with repetition, improve muscle memory, and do so without having 50 or 60 max effort pitches every game right away.

Furthermore, they can use it to control his innings total more easily, they could have used him as a 40-50 pitch 3 inning opener at AAA without having it affect the big league bullpen. This would also have the benefit of limiting his total innings, making it more likely that he will be at a reasonable total of innings in August where he can pitch 5 months of the year rather than 3.

You could ramp his arm up much more slowly, with lower effort pitches and more controlled outings at least for the first month or two. With his injury history it sure seems smart.

But you also say the quiet part out loud - if he gets hurt, you will say “he was always going to get hurt”. It doesn’t matter how irresponsible Gets and Kats are, you will say that to defend them no matter what they do.

Defend? I guess I defend because I don't see the point of the senseless attacks. I asked before, and CWS dude tried to derail it, do you feel they're bringing Noah Schultz along responsibly? Sounds like that's the exact program they're doing with him. So I don't see how you would have no confidence in the Sox pitching department when they're doing the very thing you describe on a young, inexperienced prospect, hitting the pros right out of high school. 

So the guys who you must feel are bringing Schultz along responsibly, have made a different decision in regards to Crochet, and you have no confidence in them to make that decision? I don't get it. 

The clock's ticking on Crochet. They have 3 years to develop him as a starter. Dropping him back down to AAA for a season might not sit well with the union or agent, regardless of what Crochet said he'd do. 

[WestEddy]

24 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Watching someone twist themselves into a pretzel repeatedly trying to prove they aren’t wrong can be entertaining from afar at times. But this is not one of them. 

You're right. You're not watching me twist myself into a pretzel. 

[Balta1701]

7 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Defend? I guess I defend because I don't see the point of the senseless attacks. I asked before, and CWS dude tried to derail it, do you feel they're bringing Noah Schultz along responsibly? Sounds like that's the exact program they're doing with him. So I don't see how you would have no confidence in the Sox pitching department when they're doing the very thing you describe on a young, inexperienced prospect, hitting the pros right out of high school. 

So the guys who you must feel are bringing Schultz along responsibly, have made a different decision in regards to Crochet, and you have no confidence in them to make that decision? I don't get it. 

The clock's ticking on Crochet. They have 3 years to develop him as a starter. Dropping him back down to AAA for a season might not sit well with the union or agent, regardless of what Crochet said he'd do. 

So far I have no complaints about how they have worked with Schultz. This makes the fact that they are treating Crochet much more aggressively stand out as weird even more as that’s the type of program you put a guy on to build up his arm. 

[WhiteSox2023]

10 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Defend? I guess I defend because I don't see the point of the senseless attacks. I asked before, and CWS dude tried to derail it, do you feel they're bringing Noah Schultz along responsibly? Sounds like that's the exact program they're doing with him. So I don't see how you would have no confidence in the Sox pitching department when they're doing the very thing you describe on a young, inexperienced prospect, hitting the pros right out of high school. 

So the guys who you must feel are bringing Schultz along responsibly, have made a different decision in regards to Crochet, and you have no confidence in them to make that decision? I don't get it. 

The clock's ticking on Crochet. They have 3 years to develop him as a starter. Dropping him back down to AAA for a season might not sit well with the union or agent, regardless of what Crochet said he'd do. 

Not trusting the Sox to do anything right is usually the correct side of the argument.  ?

[WestEddy]

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

So 12 2/3 IP is enough to make up the difference?  Because that is what he pitched in the fall league.

The difference in what? 

At this point, I'm really not interested in going around with a person who is merely arguing just to argue. Seems like you're now admitting that Crochet actually threw baseball to live hitters in game play more than the 25 innings he threw between the majors and minors last season. 

You could have done that 4 pages ago. 

[WestEddy]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So far I have no complaints about how they have worked with Schultz. This makes the fact that they are treating Crochet much more aggressively stand out as weird even more as that’s the type of program you put a guy on to build up his arm. 

Different pitchers are different situations. I would be more concerned if they had a cookie cutter response to every pitcher in the organization. You would too. 

Crochet just went through a full year of rehab. Schultz had been "pitching" at high school for about 3 years. 

[WestEddy]

3 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Not trusting the Sox to do anything right is usually the correct side of the argument.  ?

I keep coming back to wondering why you even root for this team. If they're such colossal failures, why are you named after them? Are you one, too?

[WhiteSox2023]

Just now, WestEddy said:

I keep coming back to wondering why you even root for this team. If they're such colossal failures, why are you named after them? Are you one, too?

Why are there Royals fans, Pirates fans, etc.?

And the Sox haven’t been colossal failures?  You can’t argue with history.

[WestEddy]

41 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Watching someone twist themselves into a pretzel repeatedly trying to prove they aren’t wrong can be entertaining from afar at times. But this is not one of them. 

And I'm pretty much saying the same thing over and over, to correct the BS strawmen that keep coming up. 

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

The difference in what? 

At this point, I'm really not interested in going around with a person who is merely arguing just to argue. Seems like you're now admitting that Crochet actually threw baseball to live hitters in game play more than the 25 innings he threw between the majors and minors last season. 

You could have done that 4 pages ago. 

This has literally been your shtick all spring. 

1. Make outrageous and unprovable statements 

2. Mock anyone who brings facts into an argument. 

3. Cry when someone calls you on 1 and 2.

If you want to have an intelligent and fact based discussion let me know.  Until then, run along. 

[WestEddy]

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This has literally been your shtick all spring. 

1. Make outrageous and unprovable statements 

2. Mock anyone who brings facts into an argument. 

3. Cry when someone calls you on 1 and 2.

If you want to have an intelligent and fact based discussion let me know.  Until then, run along. 

If I want to have an intelligent and fact based discussion, you're probably not on the list. 

[southsider2k5]

10 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

If I want to have an intelligent and fact based discussion, you're probably not on the list. 

Hence #2

[WestEddy]

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Hence #2

Okay, Baghdad Southsider. LOL. 

All your rehab inning are belong to us!

Edited March 31 by WestEddy

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Okay, Baghdad Southsider. LOL. 

All your rehab inning are belong to us!

#3

[Chicago White Sox]

46 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Defend? I guess I defend because I don't see the point of the senseless attacks. I asked before, and CWS dude tried to derail it, do you feel they're bringing Noah Schultz along responsibly? Sounds like that's the exact program they're doing with him. So I don't see how you would have no confidence in the Sox pitching department when they're doing the very thing you describe on a young, inexperienced prospect, hitting the pros right out of high school. 

So the guys who you must feel are bringing Schultz along responsibly, have made a different decision in regards to Crochet, and you have no confidence in them to make that decision? I don't get it. 

The clock's ticking on Crochet. They have 3 years to develop him as a starter. Dropping him back down to AAA for a season might not sit well with the union or agent, regardless of what Crochet said he'd do. 

I tried to derail it?  I guess I don’t see how the plan for Schultz is consistent with the approach for Crochet so far.  They specifically started small with Noah with only two innings in his first couple of starts and gradually ramping up to three and then four prior to his injury.  My guess is he would have topped out around  five innings max per start and pushed for 80 or 90 total on the season if he had remained healthy.  IMO, that would’ve been a very reasonable plan.

Meanwhile, Crochet came out and pitched six innings right out of the gate.  There doesn’t appear to be any sort of ramp-up plan at the moment, unless going from 87 pitches in a start to roughly 100 somehow constitutes that.  You have mentioned him pitching 90 to 100 innings total this year which feels like a reasonable target to me.  But how will they achieve that?  If he goes five or six every start we’re talking 20 starts max.  Do they just shut him down 3/5 through the season?  Do they shift back to the bullpen at some point when he caps out?

I think the vast majority of this board is supportive of him starting and working towards 100 innings or so.  I think the concern we have is do the Sox have a similar limit in mind and do they have a good roadmap in mind to get him there?  They are already deviating from the approach used with Noah, which seems to reflect a very common practice in the industry for building up innings in minor league pitchers.  As such, it’s only natural for us to be a bit nervous on whether the Sox are going about this the right way.

And that raises the second concern which is doing this transition in a major league setting where wins do theoretically matter.  This conversion is far more likely to be successful if careful discretion is used throughout to process and that becomes much harder when you have a clown manager who is on the hot seat and could be tempted to push Crochet beyond reasonable limits.  Garrett should be handled with kids gloves at all times until proven otherwise and I just don’t see Grifol managing with any sort of tact.  There is a very real chance he fucks this up and I’d feel much with a different manager or him at least starting more slowly down in Charlotte.

[Quin]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

And just for the record, this is me, agreeing with Balta. 

France and England unite!

[WestEddy]

6 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I tried to derail it?  I guess I don’t see how the plan for Schultz is consistent with the approach for Crochet so far.  They specifically started small with Noah with only two innings in his first couple of starts and gradually ramping up to three and then four prior to his injury.  My guess is he would have topped out around  five innings max per start and pushed for 80 or 90 total on the season if he had remained healthy.  IMO, that would’ve been a very reasonable plan.

Meanwhile, Crochet came out and pitched six innings right out of the gate.  There doesn’t appear to be any sort of ramp-up plan at the moment, unless going from 87 pitches in a start to roughly 100 somehow constitutes that.  You have mentioned him pitching 90 to 100 innings total this year which feels like a reasonable target to me.  But how will they achieve that?  If he goes five or six every start we’re talking 20 starts max.  Do they just shut him down 3/5 through the season?  Do they shift back to the bullpen at some point when he caps out?

I think the vast majority of this board is supportive of him starting and working towards 100 innings or so.  I think the concern we have is do the Sox have a similar limit in mind and do they have a good roadmap in mind to get him there?  They are already deviating from the approach used with Noah, which seems to reflect a very common practice in the industry for building up innings in minor league pitchers.  As such, it’s only natural for us to be a bit nervous on whether the Sox are going about this the right way.

And that raises the second concern which is doing this transition in a major league setting where wins do theoretically matter.  This conversion is far more likely to be successful if careful discretion is used throughout to process and that becomes much harder when you have a clown manager who is on the hot seat and could be tempted to push Crochet beyond reasonable limits.  Garrett should be handled with kids gloves at all times until proven otherwise and I just don’t see Grifol managing with any sort of tact.  There is a very real chance he fucks this up and I’d feel much with a different manager or him at least starting more slowly down in Charlotte.

I brought up Schultz as an example of a different way of ramping up a pitcher. It wasn't hard to understand. 

Schultz's and Crochet's programs are different. They're different pitchers with different issues. Crochet pitched 54+ innings 3 of 4 years, then was drafted. I would imagine if he hit 100 innings in June/July, they'd ramp him down to 3 inning opener on a 5 day program, or something less. Or pull him once through the lineup with tougher lineups. I don't know. 

I would think Getz would be calling Grifol into his office as soon as he lets Crochet throw a 120 pitch complete game. Grifol is a horrible communicator, let the clubhouse get completely out of hand, but I think it presses the edge of credibility to think that he's going to kill a pitcher trying to go 21-50 instead of 20-51. 

That's great that most of the board is concerned about Crochet. I don't think that concern is reflected in making up insane counter-arguments to just dig in and argue a faulty point.