Rogers Praises Guillen, Faults Baker and Riggs

[goonys evil twin]

You may, it does not make you right, and trying to say overuse comes in an exact set of pitch counts has yet to be proven. I agree some monitering has to be done , especially realitive to how many innings guys have thrown on the way up to the bigs. Buy more has to be proven, or its just i hate Dusty and this fits my argument. Coach L

 

There should be more studies. In the meantime, it's asinine to completely ignore the idea there might be a correlation and go the extreme in the opposite direction, failing to practice even the slightest bit of moderation.

 

I do hate Dusty as Cubs manager, I did before he got the job, but I don't have to BS to make something fit my argument.

[treebird]

He isn't spare parts on their team, he is their closer. Jenks bailed them out last year but before Hermannson's latest injury popped up Guillen publically said, again, that Hermannson was his closer (even though Jenks got the important saves last year).

 

He's spare parts no matter how they label him. He was one of a few fallback options for the job going into 2005.

 

It's a huge difference than Wood and Prior.

 

That's not the point; he was a pitcher who was misused on the staff.

 

is there a reason you refuse to acknowledge that you might want to be a little more careful with guys like wood and prior than guys like hermanson, or do you just hate the white sox so much that you twist your arguments around the idea of finding something that makes them look bad?

[Blueheart05]

He isn't spare parts on their team, he is their closer. Jenks bailed them out last year but before Hermannson's latest injury popped up Guillen publically said, again, that Hermannson was his closer (even though Jenks got the important saves last year).

 

He's spare parts no matter how they label him. He was one of a few fallback options for the job going into 2005.

 

It's a huge difference than Wood and Prior.

 

That's not the point; he was a pitcher who was misused on the staff.

 

is there a reason you refuse to acknowledge that you might want to be a little more careful with guys like wood and prior than guys like hermanson, or do you just hate the white sox so much that you twist your arguments around the idea of finding something that makes them look bad?

 

I think you need to reread this thread. This is about how Phil Rogers praises Guillen and disses Baker. I'm not putting any extra value in starting pitchers versus relievers/closers. My point is that some people fail to remember that Hermanson was mishandled and as a result, he is reinjured. :roll: Why is this different than what the Cubs have done? I certainly didn't say I agreed with Baker's mishandlings.

[treebird]

He isn't spare parts on their team, he is their closer. Jenks bailed them out last year but before Hermannson's latest injury popped up Guillen publically said, again, that Hermannson was his closer (even though Jenks got the important saves last year).

 

He's spare parts no matter how they label him. He was one of a few fallback options for the job going into 2005.

 

It's a huge difference than Wood and Prior.

 

That's not the point; he was a pitcher who was misused on the staff.

 

is there a reason you refuse to acknowledge that you might want to be a little more careful with guys like wood and prior than guys like hermanson, or do you just hate the white sox so much that you twist your arguments around the idea of finding something that makes them look bad?

 

I think you need to reread this thread. This is about how Phil Rogers praises Guillen and disses Baker. I'm not putting any extra value in starting pitchers versus relievers/closers. My point is that some people fail to remember that Harmanson was mishandled and as a result, he is reinjured. :roll:

 

hermanson was mishandled + all the good pitchers were handled well = net positive

 

all the good pitchers are mishandled + somebody lame like novoa or something was handled well = enormous negative

 

ps-ROLLEYES IS LAME

[Blueheart05]

He isn't spare parts on their team, he is their closer. Jenks bailed them out last year but before Hermannson's latest injury popped up Guillen publically said, again, that Hermannson was his closer (even though Jenks got the important saves last year).

 

He's spare parts no matter how they label him. He was one of a few fallback options for the job going into 2005.

 

It's a huge difference than Wood and Prior.

 

That's not the point; he was a pitcher who was misused on the staff.

 

is there a reason you refuse to acknowledge that you might want to be a little more careful with guys like wood and prior than guys like hermanson, or do you just hate the white sox so much that you twist your arguments around the idea of finding something that makes them look bad?

 

I think you need to reread this thread. This is about how Phil Rogers praises Guillen and disses Baker. I'm not putting any extra value in starting pitchers versus relievers/closers. My point is that some people fail to remember that Harmanson was mishandled and as a result, he is reinjured. :roll:

 

hermanson was mishandled + all the good pitchers were handled well = net positive

 

all the good pitchers are mishandled + somebody lame like novoa or something was handled well = enormous negative

 

ps-ROLLEYES IS LAME

 

No, what's lame is assuming you know my motivation for a post. I don't "hate" the White Sox. If the article wasn't comparing the two teams I wouldn't have mentioned them.-

 

P.S. Novoa is a random member of the staff. Hermanson was their closer.

[treebird]

No, what's lame is assuming you know my motivation for a post. I don't "hate" the White Sox. If the article wasn't comparing the two teams I wouldn't have mentioned them.-

 

Novoa is a random member of the staff. Hermanson was their closer.

 

hermanson was a random member of the staff who happened to pitch in the ninth inning. he had a nice shiny era, but he's nothing special. wood and prior are -- or at least they would be, in my opinion, if we hadn't already run them into the ground.

[fromthestretch]

They got lucky with Jenks who allowed Hermanson the opportunity to sit for a while.

 

They got lucky with Hermanson in the first place. I don't see how they could have gone into last season thinking he was going to be anything more than a league-average pitcher. I think the earlier comparison with Rusch is very accurate.

[Blueheart05]

No, what's lame is assuming you know my motivation for a post. I don't "hate" the White Sox. If the article wasn't comparing the two teams I wouldn't have mentioned them.-

 

Novoa is a random member of the staff. Hermanson was their closer.

 

hermanson was a random member of the staff who happened to pitch in the ninth inning. he had a nice shiny era, but he's nothing special. wood and prior are -- or at least they would be, in my opinion, if we hadn't already run them into the ground.

 

Hermanson was acquired to be that team's closer, he wasn't someone who pitched in the 7th or 8th inning only to later work into the closer role.

 

I think you just want to argue because my point was never to compare or add value to any individual pitcher's worth on the team. I merely made a point about a pitcher who was mishandled on the Sox staff. IMO, Phil Rogers only mentions points that support his argument.

 

Obviously, Prior and Wood mean a lot more to the Cubs than Hermanson does to the White Sox (especially since they have Jenks as plan B). Next!

[Blueheart05]

They got lucky with Jenks who allowed Hermanson the opportunity to sit for a while.

 

They got lucky with Hermanson in the first place. I don't see how they could have gone into last season thinking he was going to be anything more than a league-average pitcher. I think the earlier comparison with Rusch is very accurate.

 

 

 

For that matter, the Cubs got lucky with Dempster. At least Hermanson had a track record of late inning success coming into the season. Not much but some...

Edited March 15, 2006 by Blueheart05

[ltb]

No, what's lame is assuming you know my motivation for a post. I don't "hate" the White Sox. If the article wasn't comparing the two teams I wouldn't have mentioned them.-

 

Novoa is a random member of the staff. Hermanson was their closer.

 

hermanson was a random member of the staff who happened to pitch in the ninth inning. he had a nice shiny era, but he's nothing special. wood and prior are -- or at least they would be, in my opinion, if we hadn't already run them into the ground.

 

Hermanson was acquired to be that team's closer, he wasn't someone who pitched in the 7th or 8th inning only to later work into the closer role.

 

I think you just want to argue because my point was never to compare or add value to any individual pitcher's worth on the team. I merely made a point about a pitcher who was mishandled on the Sox staff. IMO, Phil Rogers only mentions points that support his argument.

 

Obviously, Prior and Wood mean a lot more to the Cubs than Hermanson does to the White Sox (especially since they have Jenks as plan B). Next!

 

wuertz was mishandled last year, which led to some problems later in the season (notice how ineffective he was for a while?) - so was chad fox.

 

the fact of the matter is that these guys are not that important to a bullpen, so they weren't mentioned. the same goes for hermanson.

[RynoRules]

Without getting into name calling or refering to certain emoticons as "lame", I think comparing Hermanson to Wood and Prior is like comparing a 2000 Accord to a 2006 BMW. In other words, they are not comparable. A better comparison would Hardin to Wood/Prior, or Felix Hernandez to Wood/Prior. Edited March 15, 2006 by RynoRules

[ltb]

They got lucky with Jenks who allowed Hermanson the opportunity to sit for a while.

 

They got lucky with Hermanson in the first place. I don't see how they could have gone into last season thinking he was going to be anything more than a league-average pitcher. I think the earlier comparison with Rusch is very accurate.

 

 

 

For that matter, the Cubs got lucky with Dempster. At least Hermanson had a track record of late inning success coming into the season.

 

a track record? he relieved for like half of 2004. that was the only experience he had in the "closer role." that's not a track record.

[Blueheart05]

They got lucky with Jenks who allowed Hermanson the opportunity to sit for a while.

 

They got lucky with Hermanson in the first place. I don't see how they could have gone into last season thinking he was going to be anything more than a league-average pitcher. I think the earlier comparison with Rusch is very accurate.

 

 

 

For that matter, the Cubs got lucky with Dempster. At least Hermanson had a track record of late inning success coming into the season.

 

a track record? he relieved for like half of 2004. that was the only experience he had in the "closer role." that's not a track record.

 

He was a reliever where Dempster had not been coming into the season. Obviously it was enough for them to bring him on as a closer.

[Blueheart05]

Without getting into name calling or refering to certain emoticons as "lame", I think comparing Hermanson to Wood and Prior is like comparing a 2000 Accord to a 2006 BMW. In other words, they are not comparable. A better comparison would Hardin to Wood/Prior, or Felix Hernandez to Wood/Prior.

 

LOL, in general I agree with you but if we're going to talk about value it has to include the importance the pitcher has to his team. It's hard to argue that Hermanson wasn't an important part of the 2005 White Sox. He was injured late but he helped that team get out to it's big lead by saving many close games.

[TheDude]

You may, it does not make you right, and trying to say overuse comes in an exact set of pitch counts has yet to be proven. I agree some monitering has to be done , especially realitive to how many innings guys have thrown on the way up to the bigs. Buy more has to be proven, or its just i hate Dusty and this fits my argument. Coach L

 

There should be more studies. In the meantime, it's asinine to completely ignore the idea there might be a correlation and go the extreme in the opposite direction, failing to practice even the slightest bit of moderation.

 

I do hate Dusty as Cubs manager, I did before he got the job, but I don't have to BS to make something fit my argument.

 

But it isn't asinine to completely create an opposing argument that isn't even there? You're arguing a classic strawman. Nobody said "ignore" the possibility of a correlation. Nobody went to the "extreme" opposite direction.

 

All I did was ask if there are published studies on a pitch count correlation, or if the correlation is pure speculation based upon preconceived bias. It's a legitimate question (which went unaswered).

[goonys evil twin]

Without getting into name calling or refering to certain emoticons as "lame", I think comparing Hermanson to Wood and Prior is like comparing a 2000 Accord to a 2006 BMW. In other words, they are not comparable. A better comparison would Hardin to Wood/Prior, or Felix Hernandez to Wood/Prior.

 

LOL, in general I agree with you but if we're going to talk about value it has to include the importance the pitcher has to his team. It's hard to argue that Hermanson wasn't an important part of the 2005 White Sox. He was injured late but he helped that team get out to it's big lead by saving many close games.

 

Hermanson is an older mediocre talent with little future. Wood and Prior were elite younger talents with almost unlimited upside. Would you please stop pretending the stories are at all similar?

[goonys evil twin]

But it isn't asinine to completely create an opposing argument that isn't even there? You're arguing a classic strawman. Nobody said "ignore" the possibility of a correlation. Nobody went to the "extreme" opposite direction.

 

 

Dusty sure as hell did.

[goonys evil twin]

All I did was ask if there are published studies on a pitch count correlation, or if the correlation is pure speculation based upon preconceived bias. It's a legitimate question (which went unaswered).

 

Your question was obviously phrased in a way to discredit the idea that there might be a correlation. It's clearly not based on pure speculation.

[Wilson A2000]

You and I both know that Schneider is regarded as one of the best trainers in baseball. No pitcher is 100% healthy after about the first two months of the season anyway. Hermanson had a bad back before last year. If you are telling me that a guy had a back condition for years before the WS, pitched one inning in the WS and now his back is still hurting and the reason it is is because he was used in the WS when he was hurt #1) I don't think Hermanson would care because it was the WS and no one cared that the Sox pitchers pitched four complete games in a row because it is the WS #2) are you crazy?

[fromthestretch]

They got lucky with Jenks who allowed Hermanson the opportunity to sit for a while.

 

They got lucky with Hermanson in the first place. I don't see how they could have gone into last season thinking he was going to be anything more than a league-average pitcher. I think the earlier comparison with Rusch is very accurate.

 

For that matter, the Cubs got lucky with Dempster. At least Hermanson had a track record of late inning success coming into the season. Not much but some...

 

All Hermanson had was a track record of late-inning mediocrity.

 

4.33 relief ERA with the Giants in 2004.

5.10 relief ERA with Cardinals/Giants in 2003.

 

I think there's a big difference between mis-using a 20-something year-old starter with a very high ceiling and a 30-something journeyman reliever who happened to pull a good season out of his rear-end.

 

During the course of a season, a manager is probably going to encounter at a few situations - due to injury, extra inning games, double-headers or whatnot - where he's going to have to use a reliever he shouldn't be using or extend a starter a little longer than anyone would want. In those situations, you have to make a decision which pitcher is going to take one for the team. If that choice is between a young fireballer who the team is expecting to be a front-line starter for the next 5+ years or a mediocre journeyman reliever (ie Hermanson, Rusch, Mulholland, etc.), I'll give the ball to the latter everytime.

[Blueheart05]

Without getting into name calling or refering to certain emoticons as "lame", I think comparing Hermanson to Wood and Prior is like comparing a 2000 Accord to a 2006 BMW. In other words, they are not comparable. A better comparison would Hardin to Wood/Prior, or Felix Hernandez to Wood/Prior.

 

LOL, in general I agree with you but if we're going to talk about value it has to include the importance the pitcher has to his team. It's hard to argue that Hermanson wasn't an important part of the 2005 White Sox. He was injured late but he helped that team get out to it's big lead by saving many close games.

 

Hermanson is an older mediocre talent with little future. Wood and Prior were elite younger talents with almost unlimited upside. Would you please stop pretending the stories are at all similar?

 

Roger's contention that Guillen handled his staff perfectly is pretend. Also, I don't even think we can compare Wood and Prior's histories. I think Wood is much more a case of abuse throughout the system (much of which predates Baker) whereas, Baker's influence on Prior's career, and propensity for injury, has been greater.

 

Some of this is also individual to the pitchers. Some guys can handle large workloads without adverse affects. Zambrano doesn't appear to be breaking down under Baker's watch.

[Backtobanks]

Lord knows that I don't want to defend Baker, but I do question the whole idea of pitch counts. I've been a fan for quite a few years and I have watched Fergie Jenkins, Bob Gibson, Warren Spahn, Nolen Ryan, etc. pitch in 4 man rotations and consistently pitch into the 8th or 9th inning. These pitchers understood that there was no such thing as middle relief and you pitched a complete game or enough of it to turn it over to a relief pitcher in the 9th inning to finish the game. Nowadays, pitchers pitch every fifth game and try to get to the 6th or 7th inning to turn it over to 3 or 4 relievers to finish. With modern science, you would think that we should be able to see pitchers who can actually go more than 2 months without breaking down.

[goonys evil twin]

Roger's contention that Guillen handled his staff perfectly is pretend.

 

It's a summation. Guillen did a better job. He wasn't spotless. Nobody is asking for spotless. Dusty lacked any semblence of reasonable moderation.

[fromthestretch]

LOL, in general I agree with you but if we're going to talk about value it has to include the importance the pitcher has to his team. It's hard to argue that Hermanson wasn't an important part of the 2005 White Sox. He was injured late but he helped that team get out to it's big lead by saving many close games.

 

He may have been an important part, but he was also a hell of a lot easier to replace than a young frontline starter, especially on a team like the Sox that had a decent selection of relievers plug into that closer role.

[fromthestretch]

Roger's contention that Guillen handled his staff perfectly is pretend. Also, I don't even think we can compare Wood and Prior's histories. I think Wood is much more a case of abuse throughout the system (much of which predates Baker) whereas, Baker's influence on Prior's career, and propensity for injury, has been greater.

 

Some of this is also individual to the pitchers. Some guys can handle large workloads without adverse affects. Zambrano doesn't appear to be breaking down under Baker's watch.

 

I think Wood's history of misuse began well before the Cubs even drafted him, but that's no excuse to keep doing it.

 

There's no question that one usage pattern can affect Pitcher A one way and Pitcher B another. But I think the safest thing to do is err on the side of caution. Protect the pitchers you are counting on to be a key part of the team for many years.