Rogers Praises Guillen, Faults Baker and Riggs

[dalgreen]

I believe pitch counts can be a factor in determining the likelihood of a pitcher having arm problems. However, I hate it when some imply that that is the only strict indicator. There have been lots of pitchers in baseball who never had recurring arm problems even though they threw lots of pitches. On the flip side, there have been pitchers who pretty much threw with low pitch counts who got hurt (Jon Lieber). It seems some people should at least bring up issues such as the violent arm motion, some physiological differences in pitchers, years of bad mechanics or even possible steroid use in the past/present when trying to figure out why some guys get hurt.

[badger1679666666]

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.

 

 

Didn't he pitch something like two complete game shutouts in the SAME DAY in high school. Whose his highschool coach? I want to take a bat to his knees, so he won't do that to another stud pitcher.

[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.

 

 

Didn't he pitch something like two complete game shutouts in the SAME DAY in high school. Whose his highschool coach? I want to take a bat to his knees, so he won't do that to another stud pitcher.

 

I believe he started both ends of a double-header either the same day he was drafted or within a day or two of the draft. I'm sure someone on here knows more details about the story.

[CubDad4Ever]

Goony, i appreciate the honesty in your answer. I too have my doubts about Dustys and other peoples utilization. Im just a recovering emotiholic who is trying to find quantifiable info to inhance my enjoyment of the games , and help me not to break my wifes antique table with a soccer ball. (see game 6, nlcs 2003) Its an interesting topic. Thanks Coach L

[fromthestretch]

I believe pitch counts can be a factor in determining the likelihood of a pitcher having arm problems. However, I hate it when some imply that that is the only strict indicator. There have been lots of pitchers in baseball who never had recurring arm problems even though they threw lots of pitches. On the flip side, there have been pitchers who pretty much threw with low pitch counts who got hurt (Jon Lieber). It seems some people should at least bring up issues such as the violent arm motion, some physiological differences in pitchers, years of bad mechanics or even possible steroid use in the past/present when trying to figure out why some guys get hurt.

 

I think everyone is aware that there are several factors that can cause injury to a pitcher. However, if it's within your power as a manager to control one of those factors (pitch counts), don't you think it makes sense to do so?

[dalgreen]

I believe pitch counts can be a factor in determining the likelihood of a pitcher having arm problems. However, I hate it when some imply that that is the only strict indicator. There have been lots of pitchers in baseball who never had recurring arm problems even though they threw lots of pitches. On the flip side, there have been pitchers who pretty much threw with low pitch counts who got hurt (Jon Lieber). It seems some people should at least bring up issues such as the violent arm motion, some physiological differences in pitchers, years of bad mechanics or even possible steroid use in the past/present when trying to figure out why some guys get hurt.

 

I think everyone is aware that there are several factors that can cause injury to a pitcher. However, if it's within your power as a manager to control one of those factors (pitch counts), don't you think it makes sense to do so?

 

Of course, I do. But explain what the magic pitch count number is and is it the same for everyone? If not, how do you set one number on pitcher A and another on pitcher B? As I said above I believe pitch counts is a good indicator but not the only one. Can anyone say that Wood and Prior would be okay if they only threw 102 pitches each start? I personally think they both came back too quick and that was a bigger factor.

[Blueheart05]

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.

 

There's no doubt about it but there's plenty of blame to go around. The biggest difference between Guillen's staff and Baker's (outside of health) is in-game longevity. Guys like Burhele can pitch an entire game while using only 100 pitches where Cubs pitchers reach that plateau in the 5th or 6th inning. (which is common with power pitchers). I blame the pitching coach, and the pitchers themselves, for not being more economical. I think the team's pitching philosophy is also different because the starters don't typically pitch for contact which is another reason why they run up their pitch counts early.

 

As far as Baker leaving the starters in the game too long is concerned, there's no arguing this point because it is true. It's also true that the pitchers have to do a better job of getting into the late innings consistently.

[badger1679666666]

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.

 

There's no doubt about it but there's plenty of blame to go around. The biggest difference between Guillen's staff and Baker's (outside of health) is in-game longevity. Guys like Burhele can pitch an entire game while using only 100 pitches where Cubs pitchers reach that plateau in the 5th or 6th inning. (which is common with power pitchers). I blame the pitching coach, and the pitchers themselves, for not being more economical. I think the team's pitching philosophy is also different because the starters don't typically pitch for contact which is another reason why they run up their pitch counts early.

 

As far as Baker leaving the starters in the game too long is concerned, there's no arguing this point because it is true. It's also true that the pitchers have to do a better job of getting into the late innings consistently.

 

You blame the power pitchers for not changing the style that made them 1st round draft picks with major skills? Interesting.

[Blueheart05]

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.

 

There's no doubt about it but there's plenty of blame to go around. The biggest difference between Guillen's staff and Baker's (outside of health) is in-game longevity. Guys like Burhele can pitch an entire game while using only 100 pitches where Cubs pitchers reach that plateau in the 5th or 6th inning. (which is common with power pitchers). I blame the pitching coach, and the pitchers themselves, for not being more economical. I think the team's pitching philosophy is also different because the starters don't typically pitch for contact which is another reason why they run up their pitch counts early.

 

As far as Baker leaving the starters in the game too long is concerned, there's no arguing this point because it is true. It's also true that the pitchers have to do a better job of getting into the late innings consistently.

 

You blame the power pitchers for not changing the style that made them 1st round draft picks with major skills? Interesting.

 

Yes, they are partially to blame but this also goes back to the pitching coach and team phlosophy. Maddux said that when he was younger he relished striking out and embarrasing hitters until his coach told him that it wouldn't get him far...

 

Is it more important that they strikeout as many batters as possible or that they get into the 7th inning with the lead? Learning to be efficient with pitches is a part of the maturation process. A power pitcher is dangerous because he always has the option of striking out a batter but it shouldn't be the number one goal.

 

When you hear a guy like Kerry Wood finally say that he doesn't care how many strikeouts he gets you know he finally gets it. Unfortunately, he's been abused/and abused his own arm for years.

[dalgreen]

I think an investment in a good bullpen would help end high pitch counts.

[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.

 

There's no doubt about it but there's plenty of blame to go around. The biggest difference between Guillen's staff and Baker's (outside of health) is in-game longevity. Guys like Burhele can pitch an entire game while using only 100 pitches where Cubs pitchers reach that plateau in the 5th or 6th inning. (which is common with power pitchers). I blame the pitching coach, and the pitchers themselves, for not being more economical. I think the team's pitching philosophy is also different because the starters don't typically pitch for contact which is another reason why they run up their pitch counts early.

 

As far as Baker leaving the starters in the game too long is concerned, there's no arguing this point because it is true. It's also true that the pitchers have to do a better job of getting into the late innings consistently.

 

I agree that there are pitchers who need to work on lowering their pitch counts. But I think that also goes back to coaching, not necessarily the manager, but certainly the pitching coach on his coaching staff. If you have a young pitcher that is consistently hitting the 95-100 pitch mark by the fifth inning, then certainly work with him on how to be more efficient with his pitches. If he can't fix the issue, then decisions need to be made. Do you build your bullpen with the understanding that you need a couple guys who are capable of going 2-3 innings to compensate? Do you convert the starter to a reliever? Do you carry 12 pitchers instead of 11? Do you trade the pitcher? Do you get a new pitching coach?

[JC]

Years are starting to run together for me. However, didn't we have a pretty good bullpen in 2003, when Wood and Prior were ridden hard? Certainly not the best, but as I recall, several guys in the pen had good years, and Dusty had his righty/lefty tools he values so much.

[Blueheart05]

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.

 

There's no doubt about it but there's plenty of blame to go around. The biggest difference between Guillen's staff and Baker's (outside of health) is in-game longevity. Guys like Burhele can pitch an entire game while using only 100 pitches where Cubs pitchers reach that plateau in the 5th or 6th inning. (which is common with power pitchers). I blame the pitching coach, and the pitchers themselves, for not being more economical. I think the team's pitching philosophy is also different because the starters don't typically pitch for contact which is another reason why they run up their pitch counts early.

 

As far as Baker leaving the starters in the game too long is concerned, there's no arguing this point because it is true. It's also true that the pitchers have to do a better job of getting into the late innings consistently.

 

I agree that there are pitchers who need to work on lowering their pitch counts. But I think that also goes back to coaching, not necessarily the manager, but certainly the pitching coach on his coaching staff. If you have a young pitcher that is consistently hitting the 95-100 pitch mark by the fifth inning, then certainly work with him on how to be more efficient with his pitches. If he can't fix the issue, then decisions need to be made. Do you build your bullpen with the understanding that you need a couple guys who are capable of going 2-3 innings to compensate? Do you convert the starter to a reliever? Do you carry 12 pitchers instead of 11? Do you trade the pitcher? Do you get a new pitching coach?

 

I agree completely.

 

On a controversial note, if Baker had not overpitched the starters in 2003 they may not have made the playoffs because the bullpen was unreliable. As it was, they barely made it to the postseason... Partial blame goes to the GM for bringing on a Manager, who at the time was very highly sought after, to "get them to the promise land" without equipping the team with all the necessary parts to start the season.

 

2006 will be the first season under Baker's administration that, on paper, the bullpen looks dominant. None of this is meant to excuse Baker for his part in misusing the starters.

[Blueheart05]

Years are starting to run together for me. However, didn't we have a pretty good bullpen in 2003, when Wood and Prior were ridden hard? Certainly not the best, but as I recall, several guys in the pen had good years, and Dusty had his righty/lefty tools he values so much.

 

Unless my memory is wrong, I think we had a poor bullpen in 2003. I recall always fearing that the 'pen would blow the game. I think they were the reason why Wood didn't win more than 14 games that year.

[TrueBlueCubFan]

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.

Your point is purely speculative b/c it's possible it could be the make-up of the personal over how the manager used that certain pitcher. The fact remains we don't know how pitch counts effect a pitcher based on their physical make-up. Your hate for the Cubs FO is well documented, or I could specualte & say you just sound like a White Sox fan & an appololgist.

[JC]

Years are starting to run together for me. However, didn't we have a pretty good bullpen in 2003, when Wood and Prior were ridden hard? Certainly not the best, but as I recall, several guys in the pen had good years, and Dusty had his righty/lefty tools he values so much.

 

Unless my memory is wrong, I think we had a poor bullpen in 2003. I recall always fearing that the 'pen would blow the game. I think they were the reason why Wood didn't win more than 14 games that year.

 

The main bullpen guys were had the following numbers:

 

Joe Borowski 68 0 2 2 33 0 1 68.1 53 20 5 19 66 8.69 0.0 1.05 2.63

Mark Guthrie 65 0 2 3 0 0 10 42.2 40 13 6 22 24 5.06 0.0 1.45 2.74

K. Farnsworth 77 0 3 2 0 0 19 76.1 53 28 6 36 92 10.85 0.0 1.17 3.30

M. Remlinger 73 0 6 5 0 0 17 69.0 54 28 11 39 83 10.83 0.0 1.35 3.65

 

Of course, guys like Alfonseca and Cruz struggled out of the pen. However, these four certainly held their own.

[TrueBlueCubFan]

Rogers is speculating here. He's writting what he feels, not what he knows. Journalists don't always have all the facts, but write things anyways. He's playing the results here.

 

For example, I was listening to Will Carroll today on XM 175 talk about D.Lee's sore shoulder & not once did he mention the dive he took in foul territory. He wasn't sure how D.Lee possibly irritated his shoulder. If he had done his research & asked anyone who watched the game, like most credible journalists do, he would have found out when D.Lee possibly injured that shoulder.

[JC]

Rogers is speculating here. He's writting what he feels, not what he knows. Journalists don't always have all the facts, but write things anyways. He's playing the results here.

 

For example, I was listening to Will Carroll today on XM 175 talk about D.Lee's sore shoulder & not once did he mention the dive he took in foul territory. He wasn't sure how D.Lee possibly irritated his shoulder. If he had done his research & asked anyone who watched the game, like most credible journalists do, he would have found out when D.Lee possibly injured that shoulder.

 

I guess I don't understand your point here. Was the cause of Lee's injury germane to Carroll's point? Was the discussion merely about Cub injuries or effects of shoulder injuries to first basemen?

 

Based on what was provided above, I don't know that that is adequate to impugn journalists.

[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.

Your point is purely speculative b/c it's possible it could be the make-up of the personal over how the manager used that certain pitcher. The fact remains we don't know how pitch counts effect a pitcher based on their physical make-up. Your hate for the Cubs FO is well documented, or I could specualte & say you just sound like a White Sox fan & an appololgist.

 

What does the make up of the personel have to do with whether or not the manager routinely sends his pitchers out there longer than anybody else. I had some faith in the front office a few years ago. I never had any faith in Baker, and his hiring caused me to rethink my faith in management.

 

It doesn't matter that we don't know exactly how the effects work. What matters is Dusty abuses his guys more than anybody else. That's a lack of moderation, and has nothing to do with speculation.

[Blueheart05]

Years are starting to run together for me. However, didn't we have a pretty good bullpen in 2003, when Wood and Prior were ridden hard? Certainly not the best, but as I recall, several guys in the pen had good years, and Dusty had his righty/lefty tools he values so much.

 

Unless my memory is wrong, I think we had a poor bullpen in 2003. I recall always fearing that the 'pen would blow the game. I think they were the reason why Wood didn't win more than 14 games that year.

 

The main bullpen guys were had the following numbers:

 

Joe Borowski 68 0 2 2 33 0 1 68.1 53 20 5 19 66 8.69 0.0 1.05 2.63

Mark Guthrie 65 0 2 3 0 0 10 42.2 40 13 6 22 24 5.06 0.0 1.45 2.74

K. Farnsworth 77 0 3 2 0 0 19 76.1 53 28 6 36 92 10.85 0.0 1.17 3.30

M. Remlinger 73 0 6 5 0 0 17 69.0 54 28 11 39 83 10.83 0.0 1.35 3.65

 

Of course, guys like Alfonseca and Cruz struggled out of the pen. However, these four certainly held their own.

 

Those numbers are telling. The ERA's are respectable yet the W/L records tell me that they had a lot to do with late inning scoring.

 

Also, Alf used to give me nightmares. LOL

[Soul]

I'm not saying it's a bad article. But the pitch-count argument against Dusty Baker is extremely old news. It was insightful in early 2004 when we were experiencing the results of Dusty's handling of pitchers for the first time. But in 2006 its old hat, we all know about it and its a strike against Dusty.

 

The only real question regarding Dusty Baker is why has he been allowed to continue as manager of this ballclub in the face of such failure combined with causing harm to the heart of our franchise?

 

In short, the horse Rogers is speaking of left the barn long ago.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Yes, they are partially to blame but this also goes back to the pitching coach and team phlosophy. Maddux said that when he was younger he relished striking out and embarrasing hitters until his coach told him that it wouldn't get him far...

 

Is it more important that they strikeout as many batters as possible or that they get into the 7th inning with the lead? Learning to be efficient with pitches is a part of the maturation process. A power pitcher is dangerous because he always has the option of striking out a batter but it shouldn't be the number one goal.

 

When you hear a guy like Kerry Wood finally say that he doesn't care how many strikeouts he gets you know he finally gets it. Unfortunately, he's been abused/and abused his own arm for years.

 

There's something to be said about being efficient, but let's not pretend that strikeouts are a bonus. A pitcher can only control so much, and striking people out is the best he can do in that regard. When you start pitching to contact, you open up a lot of variables outside the pitcher's control. I'm not saying that you try to strike out every hitter, but when you have the stuff conducive for it(and possibly stuff/control NOT conducive to hitting spots and getting poorly batted balls), K's and power pitching should be the route taken.

 

 

As far as pitch counts go in general, there is no magic number of pitches a pitcher should go over, that's been said. There's exceptions on both ends of the spectrum(Livan, the aforementioned Lieber), but generally you're opening yourself up to injury the more pitches you throw, because the more pitches you throw the more likely your mechanics will break down. That's the thing. One day Zambrano may be focused and still be going strong with good mechanics at 110 pitches, another day he may have had a rough night of chatting online and starts losing his arm angle at 90 pitches.

 

Now, as this applies to Baker, he pretty much ignores common sense in this matter. People who are much better at identifying mechanics than me(UK for example), have pointed out when one of our guys is losing his mechanics at a lower pitch count, and when he still looks pretty good at a high pitch count. However, Baker has continually pushed the envelope. There's no sense in sending Zambrano out there to rack up 120+ pitches when we're winning in a blowout. There's something to be said for making sure he gets his work in, but we could find multiple examples of unnecessarily sending starters out for an extra inning when it's not needed. Add in the fact that we carry a 12 man pen where it appears that someone always gets lost in the shuffle for extended periods, it's even more inexcusable to risk the health of one of our prized arms.

 

Ack, sorry about the length, just wanted to address the various topics brought up.

[Blueheart05]

Yes, they are partially to blame but this also goes back to the pitching coach and team phlosophy. Maddux said that when he was younger he relished striking out and embarrasing hitters until his coach told him that it wouldn't get him far...

 

Is it more important that they strikeout as many batters as possible or that they get into the 7th inning with the lead? Learning to be efficient with pitches is a part of the maturation process. A power pitcher is dangerous because he always has the option of striking out a batter but it shouldn't be the number one goal.

 

When you hear a guy like Kerry Wood finally say that he doesn't care how many strikeouts he gets you know he finally gets it. Unfortunately, he's been abused/and abused his own arm for years.

 

There's something to be said about being efficient, but let's not pretend that strikeouts are a bonus. A pitcher can only control so much, and striking people out is the best he can do in that regard. When you start pitching to contact, you open up a lot of variables outside the pitcher's control. I'm not saying that you try to strike out every hitter, but when you have the stuff conducive for it(and possibly stuff/control NOT conducive to hitting spots and getting poorly batted balls), K's and power pitching should be the route taken.

 

Striking batters out is a bonus because it gives certain pitchers another way to get an out (and as you say, an extra bit of control over the outcome of an at bat). While it's true that the pitcher can't control anything outside of the strikeout I think that a pitcher will do best to trust his defense. One could argue that good pitching and good defense are synonymous. In the case of the Cubs, I don't think many of their pitchers trust the defense behind them.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Blueheart05

[Wilson A2000]

The only reason Hermanson lost the closing job is because he wasn't healthy. He had a 0.00 ERA for nearly half the season! He was unhittable. So don't throw those pen stats out for Hermanson because last year he was great. Guillen went with the hot hand out of the pen and handed the closer spot to Jenks as a result. Let's also remember that Wood has been abused, but it's not all Dusty's fault. Wood knows he has had bad mechanics when his arm blew out the first time. But he never changed. Yes Dusty overextends his pitchers, and although I can't blame him for it in 2003, Dusty doesn't deserve all the flak. Wood would throw 100 pitches in five innings so he couldn't blow his pen everytime Wood would have to leave before they stop serving beer.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Yes, they are partially to blame but this also goes back to the pitching coach and team phlosophy. Maddux said that when he was younger he relished striking out and embarrasing hitters until his coach told him that it wouldn't get him far...

 

Is it more important that they strikeout as many batters as possible or that they get into the 7th inning with the lead? Learning to be efficient with pitches is a part of the maturation process. A power pitcher is dangerous because he always has the option of striking out a batter but it shouldn't be the number one goal.

 

When you hear a guy like Kerry Wood finally say that he doesn't care how many strikeouts he gets you know he finally gets it. Unfortunately, he's been abused/and abused his own arm for years.

 

There's something to be said about being efficient, but let's not pretend that strikeouts are a bonus. A pitcher can only control so much, and striking people out is the best he can do in that regard. When you start pitching to contact, you open up a lot of variables outside the pitcher's control. I'm not saying that you try to strike out every hitter, but when you have the stuff conducive for it(and possibly stuff/control NOT conducive to hitting spots and getting poorly batted balls), K's and power pitching should be the route taken.

 

Striking batters out is a bonus because it gives certain pitchers another way to get an out (and as you say, an extra bit of control over the outcome of an at bat). While it's true that the pitcher can't control anything outside of the strikeout I think that a pitcher will do best to trust his defense. One could argue that good pitching and good defense are synonymous. In the case of the Cubs, I don't think many of their pitchers trust the defense behind them.

 

It goes beyond defensive ability, into a lot of chance/luck oriented things with placement of the ball, type of hit, and positioning of defenders. The pitcher and defense have some control over these factors, but compared to a Three True Outcome(BB, K, HR), it's a big difference.