Quintana

[iamshack]

I still think the way to reduce that concern down the stretch is to pencil in some extra time off, either using a callup or Stewart or Mr. Offday in his place, once a month for the next 3 months.

I've been searching through our Minor League system and cannot find a "Mr. Offday" anywhere! Who is this mysterious man??

[LittleHurt05]

I've been searching through our Minor League system and cannot find a "Mr. Offday" anywhere! Who is this mysterious man??

 

If he's in our Minor League system, he must suck, or KW would have traded him already.

[southsider2k5]

If he's in our Minor League system, he must suck, or KW would have traded him already.

 

And Ozzie would have benched him.

[RockRaines]

Whats the benefit of sitting or limiting Sale? I dont understand this theory. Do you think somehow pushing back the possibility of him getting hurt is better for him or the Sox? If his mechanics are as bad as everyone thinks and an injury is inevitable i'd rather have him having surgery now rather than in a year or so.

[Balta1701]

Whats the benefit of sitting or limiting Sale? I dont understand this theory. Do you think somehow pushing back the possibility of him getting hurt is better for him or the Sox? If his mechanics are as bad as everyone thinks and an injury is inevitable i'd rather have him having surgery now rather than in a year or so.

I don't think an injury is inevitable, but I think jumping him from 80 innings in 2011 (counting ST) to 200+ innings if the Sox give him a playoff start would be a massive stress on his arm. His arm got used to working in short stints last year after having been stretched out the years before, now we're pushing it back to being stretched out, and we already saw him hit one "tired elbow" point. One plausible way to avoid that is to build in some extra rest so that his arm gets extra recovery time and doesn't get hit with the full 200+ innings load right away.

 

Plus, if I'm expecting that he'll hit another "Tired arm" period this season, which wouldn't be surprising, I'd rather be able to schedule that outing than have it happen when the Sox are facing a double-header or already have a tired bullpen, like happened last time.

[Greg Hibbard]

Yes, let's move him from the rotation to the bullpen to the rotation to shutting him down BACK to the rotation. THAT'S how you develop a young arm.

 

 

Good lord.

 

---

 

The biggest stigma of limiting young pitcher's innings on the Internet generally stems from the Verducci Effect. The Verducci Effect stems from Verducci's conversation's and trust within Rick Peterson's school of teaching. And, just so we are all aware, Rick Peterson has not been a pitching coach in the Major Leagues since 2010.

 

 

To clarify the rule here, it tracks the proceeding season of a pitcher 25 years or younger who increased their workload by 30 or more innings who pitched in the major leagues during that season. The 2 rules for the season after that...the season Verducci tracks...are that:

 

1) The pitcher can't get hurt

2) The pitcher can't put up a worse ERA

 

which means that, yes, in fact, John Danks is a case of the Year After Effect because he put up a 3.77 ERA in 2009. Nevermind the fact that he was a legitimate #2 starting pitcher, noooooo, he is a perfect example a pitcher who faced the ramifications of a super increased workload the following season.

 

If anything, he's looking like the perfect example of the reason why you don't resign pitchers to long-term contracts.

 

Oh, BTW, David Price, also a perfect example of the Year After Effect. I mean, come on, 2.72 ERA in 208 innings compared to 3.49 ERA in 224 innings? OBVIOUS REGRESSION AND HE IS TERRIBLE.

 

It's overly cited and generally overblown. There is some credence to it, naturally, but to inhibit a pitcher from continuing their development because they've reached the 30 inning threshold? It's stupid. If those 30 innings are going to seriously endanger their careers, then they weren't going to succeed anyways, and if those 30 innings are going to seriously endanger their health (as a pitcher), then they weren't going to remain healthy anyways.

 

As an example, Kyle Lohse was a pitcher who was developed "properly."

 

(psssst, don't mind the fact that in 2000, he put up an ERA of 6+ at AA...ERA DOESN'T MATTER IN THE MINORS HEHEHEHE)

 

98 - 170.2 IP

99 - 165 IP

00 - 167 IP

01 - 177.1 IP (between MiLB and MLB, so the year it would take effect). ERA was 2.79 MiLB, 5.68 MLB

02 - 180.2 IP, 4.23 ERA

03 - 201 IP, 4.61 ERA - 24 years old

 

So, uhhhhhhh...Year After Effect? Nope, because he was "properly developed."

 

---

 

The idea of shutting Chris Sale down is silly and absurd. If his arm can't handle 170 innings, then he's destined for a career in the bullpen or following the shadow of someone like, I dunno, KERRY WOOD. The main concept behind the Verducci Effect is to protect young arms when and where you can. Develop them slowly and build the innings up over time. It all makes sense. But if you are 4 games up in the division come mid-August and you decide to shut your best pitcher down because of some arbitrary number that some pitching coach came up with at some point along the way, then you are bound and determined to sabotage your own season. It sounds like something the f***ing Montreal Expos would do.

 

I'm having a hard time following some of this post, but I'm fascinated by the concepts discussed here. Is the concept that you should not increase ANY pitcher's workload under 25 by more than 30 IP from one year to the next?

 

What is the most innings you would have Chris Sale pitch this season?

[ptatc]

I don't think an injury is inevitable, but I think jumping him from 80 innings in 2011 (counting ST) to 200+ innings if the Sox give him a playoff start would be a massive stress on his arm. His arm got used to working in short stints last year after having been stretched out the years before, now we're pushing it back to being stretched out, and we already saw him hit one "tired elbow" point. One plausible way to avoid that is to build in some extra rest so that his arm gets extra recovery time and doesn't get hit with the full 200+ innings load right away.

 

Plus, if I'm expecting that he'll hit another "Tired arm" period this season, which wouldn't be surprising, I'd rather be able to schedule that outing than have it happen when the Sox are facing a double-header or already have a tired bullpen, like happened last time.

This is correct. The idea is to spread his workload out over the season instead of pitching him until he is too tired and have Sale early in the year and Quintana late in the year. If you spread his workload over the year he may be available at the end of the year if by some miracle the sox are still in playoff contention.

[elrockinMT]

How many lefties do you need in fhe pen? You send him down is my guess so he stays sharp as a starter. Hopefully he has options because we seem to lose a couple minor league pitching call ups every year when they get claimed

[southsider2k5]

This is correct. The idea is to spread his workload out over the season instead of pitching him until he is too tired and have Sale early in the year and Quintana late in the year. If you spread his workload over the year he may be available at the end of the year if by some miracle the sox are still in playoff contention.

 

It sounds like the team is already doing that. Cooper was talking about limiting, and in some spots eliminating, his bullpen and side sessions.

[cabiness42]

This is correct. The idea is to spread his workload out over the season instead of pitching him until he is too tired and have Sale early in the year and Quintana late in the year. If you spread his workload over the year he may be available at the end of the year if by some miracle the sox are still in playoff contention.

 

Why would it be a miracle that a team with a 1½ game division lead and the second best record in the league still be in playoff contention in September?

 

[Balta1701]

It sounds like the team is already doing that. Cooper was talking about limiting, and in some spots eliminating, his bullpen and side sessions.

Still, we all know that there's a huge difference between the work you get done in bullpen sessions and the work you get done in games. I can throw a towel drill reference in there if it helps.

[ptatc]

Why would it be a miracle that a team with a 1½ game division lead and the second best record in the league still be in playoff contention in September?

Because I'm superstitious and am not going to proclaim that they need to do this to save him for the playoffs and ruin their chance.

Edited May 31, 2012 by ptatc

[witesoxfan]

I'm having a hard time following some of this post, but I'm fascinated by the concepts discussed here. Is the concept that you should not increase ANY pitcher's workload under 25 by more than 30 IP from one year to the next?

 

What is the most innings you would have Chris Sale pitch this season?

 

That is the idea behind the "Year After Effect," which is the system Rick Peterson liked to use. You stretch out arms over the long haul as opposed to jumping that many innings in 1 season. It's been practiced for about 130,000 years. The problem herein lies in the fact that Rick Peterson laid out two numbers - 30 and 25. Because, naturally, any pitcher over the age of 25 who throws 30 more innings than the previous season will see no regression, and any pitcher under the age of 25 who throws fewer than 30 additional innings will not see regression.

 

That's taking it to the extreme, but those are arbitrary numbers. The Nationals made Stephen Strasburg into a modern day Bubble Boy in 2010 and he STILL tore his UCL. It's not like they were doing anything inherently wrong in the way they handled him, s*** just happened.

 

Another example of "the Year After Effect." Mark Buehrle threw 170 innings between the majors and minors in 2000. In 2001, he threw 221.1 innings, which is almost twice as much. In 2002, he threw 239 innings, but because his ERA increased, he actually failed Verducci's "Year After Effect" formula because his ERA increased. Mark Buehrle was a good pitcher in 2002. Yet, according to his theory, there is no correlation between the 260 innings Mark Buehrle threw in 2005 and his horrendous pitching in the second half of 2006. Why can't the Year After Effect work for pitchers who are over 25?

 

...

 

I'm ranting. The general thought process behind the Year After Effect is good, it's just extremely flawed, and anybody who takes it for more than the paper it's printed on (I read it only, so the paper is non-existent) is going up creek without a paddle.

 

Oh, and for my guess as to how many innings Sale should throw...I'm going to hope for 160-108. Sounds good to me. That most I'd HAVE him throw is

 

[ptatc]

That is the idea behind the "Year After Effect," which is the system Rick Peterson liked to use. You stretch out arms over the long haul as opposed to jumping that many innings in 1 season. It's been practiced for about 130,000 years. The problem herein lies in the fact that Rick Peterson laid out two numbers - 30 and 25. Because, naturally, any pitcher over the age of 25 who throws 30 more innings than the previous season will see no regression, and any pitcher under the age of 25 who throws fewer than 30 additional innings will not see regression.

 

That's taking it to the extreme, but those are arbitrary numbers. The Nationals made Stephen Strasburg into a modern day Bubble Boy in 2010 and he STILL tore his UCL. It's not like they were doing anything inherently wrong in the way they handled him, s*** just happened.

 

Another example of "the Year After Effect." Mark Buehrle threw 170 innings between the majors and minors in 2000. In 2001, he threw 221.1 innings, which is almost twice as much. In 2002, he threw 239 innings, but because his ERA increased, he actually failed Verducci's "Year After Effect" formula because his ERA increased. Mark Buehrle was a good pitcher in 2002. Yet, according to his theory, there is no correlation between the 260 innings Mark Buehrle threw in 2005 and his horrendous pitching in the second half of 2006. Why can't the Year After Effect work for pitchers who are over 25?

 

...

 

I'm ranting. The general thought process behind the Year After Effect is good, it's just extremely flawed, and anybody who takes it for more than the paper it's printed on (I read it only, so the paper is non-existent) is going up creek without a paddle.

 

Oh, and for my guess as to how many innings Sale should throw...I'm going to hope for 160-108. Sounds good to me. That most I'd HAVE him throw is

 

I've had this discussion over the years with many people. Not necessarily the exact years but why to older pitchers seems to handle it better than younger ones. You would think younger ones would be able to handle it physically. We've come up with two possible 1. The older pitcher already has more innings under their belt, whether it be in the minors or majors. Even with the sudden increase the older pitcher usually has a more conditioned arm. 2. the mental aspect. The older pitcher is more mature and probably has learned more about pacing themselves and not throwing "stressful" pitches when they aren't needed. For example there is no reason to throw your hardest and really bear down when you have a 4 run lead in the 6th inning. Older pitchers learn the pacing of a game.

 

These are by no means the only reasons this could happen. But with discussions over the year these are the best 2 that I've heard.

[Balta1701]

Another example of "the Year After Effect." Mark Buehrle threw 170 innings between the majors and minors in 2000. In 2001, he threw 221.1 innings, which is almost twice as much. In 2002, he threw 239 innings, but because his ERA increased, he actually failed Verducci's "Year After Effect" formula because his ERA increased. Mark Buehrle was a good pitcher in 2002. Yet, according to his theory, there is no correlation between the 260 innings Mark Buehrle threw in 2005 and his horrendous pitching in the second half of 2006. Why can't the Year After Effect work for pitchers who are over 25?

That's not "Nearly twice as much", that's an increase of 52.1 innings on top of 170. That's 33% more.

[southsider2k5]

That's not "Nearly twice as much", that's an increase of 52.1 innings on top of 170. That's 33% more.

 

Forget it, he's rolling...

[bigruss]

That's not "Nearly twice as much", that's an increase of 52.1 innings on top of 170. That's 33% more.

25 inning increase is what he was comparing it too. So yes, twice as much.

[Balta1701]

25 inning increase is what he was comparing it too. So yes, twice as much.

Really, that's how that was meant? Man, that's nearly incomprehensible. Props.

[elrockinMT]

Hasnt there been talk of Sale being on an innings limit this season? If so, it would make sense to have Quintana down in AA/AAA until the time comes when they need someone to step in for him

 

 

Yes, I think there was talk of limiting his innings, but I think you do that over the course of the whole season meaning from satrt to satrt and not suddenly shut him down in September saying he reached his limit. We have a pretty good bullpen and taking Sale out in the 6th inning or so (depending on pitch count) you can make that work well

[witesoxfan]

That's not "Nearly twice as much", that's an increase of 52.1 innings on top of 170. That's 33% more.

 

You love to nitpick, and you are always wrong when you nitpick me.

 

52.1 IP is NEARLY twice as many as the 30 IP, as described by the Verducci Effect.

 

Would you like me to clarify this with a percentage next time?

 

 

 

 

(sorry, angry, don't pick on drunk wite)

[witesoxfan]

Just so we see it wasn't edited

 

"Nearly" has two words related to it within the thesaurus - "almost" and "close."

 

I would say that 174.3% more of the 30 innings is nearly almost close to twice as many innings as those same exact precise 30 innings indicated by the Verducci Effect.

[witesoxfan]

sorry, did clarify it with a percentage.

 

If you would like, I will break everything down into percentages and preface everything scholarly so as to not misconstrue any further points you may have, rather than assuming that, on a CHICAGO WHITE SOX message board where I am talking about the CHICAGO WHITE SOX in a SOCIAL manner, you understand the basis with which I am working. From here on out, my exact thoughts will be fourteen times as long as I show the math, formulas, expert opinions (with quotes, cited in a bibliography to be posted as the last post, with the thread closed shortly thereafter for further proof), and then my own conclusion, which will have nothing to do with Mark Buehrle in 2002 at all but instead will relate to a college football player breaking a finger, having said broken finger be amputated, and then relaying the sad story of how he was turned down for an office job when they found out he only had nine fingers.

 

Or is it seven fingers and two thumbs? GODDAMMIT TIME TO RESEARCH

[caulfield12]

sorry, did clarify it with a percentage.

 

If you would like, I will break everything down into percentages and preface everything scholarly so as to not misconstrue any further points you may have, rather than assuming that, on a CHICAGO WHITE SOX message board where I am talking about the CHICAGO WHITE SOX in a SOCIAL manner, you understand the basis with which I am working. From here on out, my exact thoughts will be fourteen times as long as I show the math, formulas, expert opinions (with quotes, cited in a bibliography to be posted as the last post, with the thread closed shortly thereafter for further proof), and then my own conclusion, which will have nothing to do with Mark Buehrle in 2002 at all but instead will relate to a college football player breaking a finger, having said broken finger be amputated, and then relaying the sad story of how he was turned down for an office job when they found out he only had nine fingers.

 

Or is it seven fingers and two thumbs? GODDAMMIT TIME TO RESEARCH

 

Alfonseca?

 

 

In all honesty, I also thought it was comparing the IP jump to the previous season...at any rate, does it really matter?

 

Can't we all just be happy with 13/14?

 

And be careful with Chris Sale's future.

 

As Cooper always says, with Herm Schneider and Allen Thomas around, they have one of the best, if not THE best records around in terms of taking care of the health of their players since the rash of pitching injuries in the 2000-2002 timeframe.

 

 

[caulfield12]

sorry, did clarify it with a percentage.

 

If you would like, I will break everything down into percentages and preface everything scholarly so as to not misconstrue any further points you may have, rather than assuming that, on a CHICAGO WHITE SOX message board where I am talking about the CHICAGO WHITE SOX in a SOCIAL manner, you understand the basis with which I am working. From here on out, my exact thoughts will be fourteen times as long as I show the math, formulas, expert opinions (with quotes, cited in a bibliography to be posted as the last post, with the thread closed shortly thereafter for further proof), and then my own conclusion, which will have nothing to do with Mark Buehrle in 2002 at all but instead will relate to a college football player breaking a finger, having said broken finger be amputated, and then relaying the sad story of how he was turned down for an office job when they found out he only had nine fingers.

 

Or is it seven fingers and two thumbs? GODDAMMIT TIME TO RESEARCH

 

Alfonseca?

 

 

In all honesty, I also thought it was comparing the IP jump to the previous season (cumulatively)...at any rate, does it really matter?

 

Can't we all just be happy with 13/14?

 

And be careful with Chris Sale's future.

 

As Cooper always says, with Herm Schneider and Allen Thomas around, they have one of the best, if not THE best records around in terms of taking care of the health of their players since the rash of pitching injuries in the 2000-2002 timeframe.

Edited June 2, 2012 by caulfield12

[Jake]

Yes, I think there was talk of limiting his innings, but I think you do that over the course of the whole season meaning from satrt to satrt and not suddenly shut him down in September saying he reached his limit. We have a pretty good bullpen and taking Sale out in the 6th inning or so (depending on pitch count) you can make that work well

 

I would much rather have him periodically miss a start or two than systematically tax the bullpen every 5 days on top of whatever other short outings they have to deal with just by chance