Old anti-Dusty rant from 2003

[TXCubsFan]

At the end of the day, any fault about the how the pitching staff was used in 2003 should be put at the feet of Hendry. I can't fault Dusty for leaning on his starters because the bullpen (except for Borowski) was awful, and not worthy of a team in the hunt for a playoff spot.

[rocket]

At the end of the day, any fault about the how the pitching staff was used in 2003 should be put at the feet of Hendry. I can't fault Dusty for leaning on his starters because the bullpen (except for Borowski) was awful, and not worthy of a team in the hunt for a playoff spot.

 

Remlinger and Farnsworth were both good in 2003.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

At the end of the day, any fault about the how the pitching staff was used in 2003 should be put at the feet of Hendry. I can't fault Dusty for leaning on his starters because the bullpen (except for Borowski) was awful, and not worthy of a team in the hunt for a playoff spot.

 

Remlinger and Farnsworth were both good in 2003.

 

Veres too.

[BigbadB]

Guthrie's ERA was 2.74.

 

If I recall correctly, the bullpen was actually quite decent at everything except preventing inherited runners from scoring. Which is arguably the the most important role.

[CubsBullsBears]

That series was lost in Game 6 and only Game 6. Not the Lowell Game 1 home run because you don't walk the leadoff hitter in an extra inning tie game unless he's an MVP player (re: Bonds circa 2001ish or David Ortiz now), which Lowell isn't. By doing so you are just asking to lose the game. Look at the way that inning went:

 

M Lowell homered to center.

J Pierre grounded out to second.

A Alfonseca relieved M Guthrie.

L Castillo reached on infield single to shortstop.

L Castillo stole second.

I Rodriguez intentionally walked.

D Lee walked, L Castillo to third, I Rodriguez to second.

M Cabrera lined into double play, shortstop to second, I Rodriguez doubled off second.

 

Ok. So say they walk Lowell. Pierre likely bunts him over to second. Castillo would still reach on a single to the shortstop which puts 1st and 2nd with 1 out. Then you have to pitch to Pudge. How do you know he doesn't come through like he did the whole postseason? You don't. The Cubs didn't lose the series with this game.

 

The Cubs didn't lose the series with Prior throwing 116 pitches in Game 2. Why would that one game have any effect on him in Game 6 especially considering he had 5 DAYS OFF between Games 2 and 6. That's one more day off than he was used to having. Wouldn't you think the 113 pitches per start Prior averaged over the course of the whole season have the bigger effect on his arm? He only threw 3 more pitches than his season average. Now if Prior had averaged 90 pitches per start during the year and threw 120 in Game 2, then you might have an argument. I'm not saying that Dusty was right in leaving him in, and I think he definately should have taken him out considering the circumstances. But to say that Game 2 killed Prior's arm is ludicrous.

 

Beckett shut down the Cubs in Game 5 and they didn't have a chance to win that game. He pitched unbelievably well at home in Florida so the Cubs didn't lose that game, the Marlins won it.

 

Game 6 was what lost the Cubs the series. They had numerous opportunities to make things right. Whether that means Gonzalez fielding that ball cleanly or Baker having a reliever ready it doesn't matter. The Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6.

 

The Cubs didn't have a chance in Game 7. Sure Kerry Wood hit the homer that electrified Wrigley and tied the game. Alou homered to give the Cubs the lead. But the Game 7 loss was inevitable. Sure, theoretically the Cubs could have pulled the series out and managed a stunning comeback the day after an unbelievable loss. But that doesn't happen.

 

The bottom line is that the Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6 and the Marlins won the NLCS in Game 7.

Well if Prior throws arond 90 pitches in game 2, he doesn't run out of gas at the end of game 6, which is what happened to him.

[TXCubsFan]

At the end of the day, any fault about the how the pitching staff was used in 2003 should be put at the feet of Hendry. I can't fault Dusty for leaning on his starters because the bullpen (except for Borowski) was awful, and not worthy of a team in the hunt for a playoff spot.

 

Remlinger and Farnsworth were both good in 2003.

 

Veres too.

 

Farnsworth has always been useless under pressure. Veres was injured towards the end of the season. El Pulpo was erratic, as was Juan Cruz. Not a group of players I would want pitching with the game on the line.

[Careless]

Guthrie's ERA was 2.74.

 

If I recall correctly, the bullpen was actually quite decent at everything except preventing inherited runners from scoring. Which is arguably the the most important role.

Especially when your manager is famous for running out starters who shouldn't be pitching at all that inning and not getting the pen up until they've given up a couple of hits

[soccer10k]

 

Needle, meet haystack.

 

Wouldn't that be blind squirrel, meet acorn?

 

:wink:

 

Probably.

[soccer10k]

That series was lost in Game 6 and only Game 6. Not the Lowell Game 1 home run because you don't walk the leadoff hitter in an extra inning tie game unless he's an MVP player (re: Bonds circa 2001ish or David Ortiz now), which Lowell isn't. By doing so you are just asking to lose the game. Look at the way that inning went:

 

M Lowell homered to center.

J Pierre grounded out to second.

A Alfonseca relieved M Guthrie.

L Castillo reached on infield single to shortstop.

L Castillo stole second.

I Rodriguez intentionally walked.

D Lee walked, L Castillo to third, I Rodriguez to second.

M Cabrera lined into double play, shortstop to second, I Rodriguez doubled off second.

 

Ok. So say they walk Lowell. Pierre likely bunts him over to second. Castillo would still reach on a single to the shortstop which puts 1st and 2nd with 1 out. Then you have to pitch to Pudge. How do you know he doesn't come through like he did the whole postseason? You don't. The Cubs didn't lose the series with this game.

 

The Cubs didn't lose the series with Prior throwing 116 pitches in Game 2. Why would that one game have any effect on him in Game 6 especially considering he had 5 DAYS OFF between Games 2 and 6. That's one more day off than he was used to having. Wouldn't you think the 113 pitches per start Prior averaged over the course of the whole season have the bigger effect on his arm? He only threw 3 more pitches than his season average. Now if Prior had averaged 90 pitches per start during the year and threw 120 in Game 2, then you might have an argument. I'm not saying that Dusty was right in leaving him in, and I think he definately should have taken him out considering the circumstances. But to say that Game 2 killed Prior's arm is ludicrous.

 

Beckett shut down the Cubs in Game 5 and they didn't have a chance to win that game. He pitched unbelievably well at home in Florida so the Cubs didn't lose that game, the Marlins won it.

 

Game 6 was what lost the Cubs the series. They had numerous opportunities to make things right. Whether that means Gonzalez fielding that ball cleanly or Baker having a reliever ready it doesn't matter. The Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6.

 

The Cubs didn't have a chance in Game 7. Sure Kerry Wood hit the homer that electrified Wrigley and tied the game. Alou homered to give the Cubs the lead. But the Game 7 loss was inevitable. Sure, theoretically the Cubs could have pulled the series out and managed a stunning comeback the day after an unbelievable loss. But that doesn't happen.

 

The bottom line is that the Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6 and the Marlins won the NLCS in Game 7.

If we would have brought in a righty to start the inning McKeon had mentioned he would have used Harris in placee of Lowell. Dusty bringing in a lefty to start the inning which he later mentioned was to keep a check on Lenny. So it was lost in Game 6, but could have been won long before Game 6 even happened.

 

What if Lenny Harris singles since it's unlikely he would have hit a home run? Then it ends up with the same situation outlined above with Lowell being walked.

[soccer10k]

That series was lost in Game 6 and only Game 6. Not the Lowell Game 1 home run because you don't walk the leadoff hitter in an extra inning tie game unless he's an MVP player (re: Bonds circa 2001ish or David Ortiz now), which Lowell isn't. By doing so you are just asking to lose the game. Look at the way that inning went:

 

M Lowell homered to center.

J Pierre grounded out to second.

A Alfonseca relieved M Guthrie.

L Castillo reached on infield single to shortstop.

L Castillo stole second.

I Rodriguez intentionally walked.

D Lee walked, L Castillo to third, I Rodriguez to second.

M Cabrera lined into double play, shortstop to second, I Rodriguez doubled off second.

 

Ok. So say they walk Lowell. Pierre likely bunts him over to second. Castillo would still reach on a single to the shortstop which puts 1st and 2nd with 1 out. Then you have to pitch to Pudge. How do you know he doesn't come through like he did the whole postseason? You don't. The Cubs didn't lose the series with this game.

 

The Cubs didn't lose the series with Prior throwing 116 pitches in Game 2. Why would that one game have any effect on him in Game 6 especially considering he had 5 DAYS OFF between Games 2 and 6. That's one more day off than he was used to having. Wouldn't you think the 113 pitches per start Prior averaged over the course of the whole season have the bigger effect on his arm? He only threw 3 more pitches than his season average. Now if Prior had averaged 90 pitches per start during the year and threw 120 in Game 2, then you might have an argument. I'm not saying that Dusty was right in leaving him in, and I think he definately should have taken him out considering the circumstances. But to say that Game 2 killed Prior's arm is ludicrous.

 

Beckett shut down the Cubs in Game 5 and they didn't have a chance to win that game. He pitched unbelievably well at home in Florida so the Cubs didn't lose that game, the Marlins won it.

 

Game 6 was what lost the Cubs the series. They had numerous opportunities to make things right. Whether that means Gonzalez fielding that ball cleanly or Baker having a reliever ready it doesn't matter. The Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6.

 

The Cubs didn't have a chance in Game 7. Sure Kerry Wood hit the homer that electrified Wrigley and tied the game. Alou homered to give the Cubs the lead. But the Game 7 loss was inevitable. Sure, theoretically the Cubs could have pulled the series out and managed a stunning comeback the day after an unbelievable loss. But that doesn't happen.

 

The bottom line is that the Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6 and the Marlins won the NLCS in Game 7.

Well if Prior throws arond 90 pitches in game 2, he doesn't run out of gas at the end of game 6, which is what happened to him.

 

So you're going to seriously tell me that one game of being overworked ruined Prior - even though he had 5 DAYS OFF rather than his normal four - and not a whole season of being overworked? That's ludicrous.

[CubsBullsBears]

That series was lost in Game 6 and only Game 6. Not the Lowell Game 1 home run because you don't walk the leadoff hitter in an extra inning tie game unless he's an MVP player (re: Bonds circa 2001ish or David Ortiz now), which Lowell isn't. By doing so you are just asking to lose the game. Look at the way that inning went:

 

M Lowell homered to center.

J Pierre grounded out to second.

A Alfonseca relieved M Guthrie.

L Castillo reached on infield single to shortstop.

L Castillo stole second.

I Rodriguez intentionally walked.

D Lee walked, L Castillo to third, I Rodriguez to second.

M Cabrera lined into double play, shortstop to second, I Rodriguez doubled off second.

 

Ok. So say they walk Lowell. Pierre likely bunts him over to second. Castillo would still reach on a single to the shortstop which puts 1st and 2nd with 1 out. Then you have to pitch to Pudge. How do you know he doesn't come through like he did the whole postseason? You don't. The Cubs didn't lose the series with this game.

 

The Cubs didn't lose the series with Prior throwing 116 pitches in Game 2. Why would that one game have any effect on him in Game 6 especially considering he had 5 DAYS OFF between Games 2 and 6. That's one more day off than he was used to having. Wouldn't you think the 113 pitches per start Prior averaged over the course of the whole season have the bigger effect on his arm? He only threw 3 more pitches than his season average. Now if Prior had averaged 90 pitches per start during the year and threw 120 in Game 2, then you might have an argument. I'm not saying that Dusty was right in leaving him in, and I think he definately should have taken him out considering the circumstances. But to say that Game 2 killed Prior's arm is ludicrous.

 

Beckett shut down the Cubs in Game 5 and they didn't have a chance to win that game. He pitched unbelievably well at home in Florida so the Cubs didn't lose that game, the Marlins won it.

 

Game 6 was what lost the Cubs the series. They had numerous opportunities to make things right. Whether that means Gonzalez fielding that ball cleanly or Baker having a reliever ready it doesn't matter. The Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6.

 

The Cubs didn't have a chance in Game 7. Sure Kerry Wood hit the homer that electrified Wrigley and tied the game. Alou homered to give the Cubs the lead. But the Game 7 loss was inevitable. Sure, theoretically the Cubs could have pulled the series out and managed a stunning comeback the day after an unbelievable loss. But that doesn't happen.

 

The bottom line is that the Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6 and the Marlins won the NLCS in Game 7.

Well if Prior throws arond 90 pitches in game 2, he doesn't run out of gas at the end of game 6, which is what happened to him.

 

So you're going to seriously tell me that one game of being overworked ruined Prior - even though he had 5 DAYS OFF rather than his normal four - and not a whole season of being overworked? That's ludicrous.

I'm not saying that, but he should've saved him when he could have. I think it was lost there b/c those are 30-40 good pitches we could have had for game 6.

[soccer10k]

That series was lost in Game 6 and only Game 6. Not the Lowell Game 1 home run because you don't walk the leadoff hitter in an extra inning tie game unless he's an MVP player (re: Bonds circa 2001ish or David Ortiz now), which Lowell isn't. By doing so you are just asking to lose the game. Look at the way that inning went:

 

M Lowell homered to center.

J Pierre grounded out to second.

A Alfonseca relieved M Guthrie.

L Castillo reached on infield single to shortstop.

L Castillo stole second.

I Rodriguez intentionally walked.

D Lee walked, L Castillo to third, I Rodriguez to second.

M Cabrera lined into double play, shortstop to second, I Rodriguez doubled off second.

 

Ok. So say they walk Lowell. Pierre likely bunts him over to second. Castillo would still reach on a single to the shortstop which puts 1st and 2nd with 1 out. Then you have to pitch to Pudge. How do you know he doesn't come through like he did the whole postseason? You don't. The Cubs didn't lose the series with this game.

 

The Cubs didn't lose the series with Prior throwing 116 pitches in Game 2. Why would that one game have any effect on him in Game 6 especially considering he had 5 DAYS OFF between Games 2 and 6. That's one more day off than he was used to having. Wouldn't you think the 113 pitches per start Prior averaged over the course of the whole season have the bigger effect on his arm? He only threw 3 more pitches than his season average. Now if Prior had averaged 90 pitches per start during the year and threw 120 in Game 2, then you might have an argument. I'm not saying that Dusty was right in leaving him in, and I think he definately should have taken him out considering the circumstances. But to say that Game 2 killed Prior's arm is ludicrous.

 

Beckett shut down the Cubs in Game 5 and they didn't have a chance to win that game. He pitched unbelievably well at home in Florida so the Cubs didn't lose that game, the Marlins won it.

 

Game 6 was what lost the Cubs the series. They had numerous opportunities to make things right. Whether that means Gonzalez fielding that ball cleanly or Baker having a reliever ready it doesn't matter. The Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6.

 

The Cubs didn't have a chance in Game 7. Sure Kerry Wood hit the homer that electrified Wrigley and tied the game. Alou homered to give the Cubs the lead. But the Game 7 loss was inevitable. Sure, theoretically the Cubs could have pulled the series out and managed a stunning comeback the day after an unbelievable loss. But that doesn't happen.

 

The bottom line is that the Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6 and the Marlins won the NLCS in Game 7.

Well if Prior throws arond 90 pitches in game 2, he doesn't run out of gas at the end of game 6, which is what happened to him.

 

So you're going to seriously tell me that one game of being overworked ruined Prior - even though he had 5 DAYS OFF rather than his normal four - and not a whole season of being overworked? That's ludicrous.

I'm not saying that, but he should've saved him when he could have. I think it was lost there b/c those are 30-40 good pitches we could have had for game 6.

 

Again, Prior was tired because of being overworked over the course of the whole season, not one game. To use an example, let's just say that Prior had the same pitches per start average that Marshall did this year (84 per game with a max of 102) rather than what he actually had in 2003 (113 per game with a max of 133), threw 116 pitches in a playoff game, then came out in his next start and wore down as the game went on. In that scenario you could make the argument that Prior had been worn down because he threw 32 more pitches than his average. But Prior was used to throwing 115+ pitches in 2003 so saying he wore down because of one start in which he threw 3 more pitches than his season average is just wrong. In fact, I would think that the 126 pitches he averaged every start in September of 2003 would have had a bigger effect on his arm.

[frostwyrm]

Again, Prior was tired because of being overworked over the course of the whole season, not one game. To use an example, let's just say that Prior had the same pitches per start average that Marshall did this year (84 per game with a max of 102) rather than what he actually had in 2003 (113 per game with a max of 133), threw 116 pitches in a playoff game, then came out in his next start and wore down as the game went on. In that scenario you could make the argument that Prior had been worn down because he threw 32 more pitches than his average. But Prior was used to throwing 115+ pitches in 2003 so saying he wore down because of one start in which he threw 3 more pitches than his season average is just wrong. In fact, I would think that the 126 pitches he averaged every start in September of 2003 would have had a bigger effect on his arm.

What (if any) downside do you see to Prior throwing 116 pitches in game 2?

 

Just curious.

[soccer10k]

Again, Prior was tired because of being overworked over the course of the whole season, not one game. To use an example, let's just say that Prior had the same pitches per start average that Marshall did this year (84 per game with a max of 102) rather than what he actually had in 2003 (113 per game with a max of 133), threw 116 pitches in a playoff game, then came out in his next start and wore down as the game went on. In that scenario you could make the argument that Prior had been worn down because he threw 32 more pitches than his average. But Prior was used to throwing 115+ pitches in 2003 so saying he wore down because of one start in which he threw 3 more pitches than his season average is just wrong. In fact, I would think that the 126 pitches he averaged every start in September of 2003 would have had a bigger effect on his arm.

What (if any) downside do you see to Prior throwing 116 pitches in game 2?

 

Just curious.

 

That he stayed in 2 innings too long in a blowout win. What better time to give your bullpen a little work, especially with an day off the following day, than in a blowout?

 

My main argument that it wasn't that one game that killed Prior, it was the whole season of being overworked and September in particular. As I said before, Prior also had 5 days off in between Games 2 and 6. If Prior wore down in Game 6, it wasn't 116 pitches in Game 2 that caused it.

[Andy]

What if Lenny Harris singles since it's unlikely he would have hit a home run? Then it ends up with the same situation outlined above with Lowell being walked.

Harris's AVG in 2003 was .193, and his OPS was .506. I think I would've taken my chances.

[soccer10k]

What if Lenny Harris singles since it's unlikely he would have hit a home run? Then it ends up with the same situation outlined above with Lowell being walked.

Harris's AVG in 2003 was .193, and his OPS was .506. I think I would've taken my chances.

 

Just to throw something else out there, that game was tied. Let's just say the Marlins don't score that inning. The Cubs didn't score in the bottom of that inning anyway so the game would have gone to the 12th. My point is, how can you say that they trailed since the third inning. The Cubs tied the game in the 6th and Sosa's HR tied it in the ninth. If Sammy doesn't hit that, the Cubs lose anyway.

 

Game 6 on the other hand, the Cubs were leading in the eighth inning. The Cubs lost Game 6.. The Marlins won Game 1 and the Cubs did not blow that game.

[CubsBullsBears]

Again, Prior was tired because of being overworked over the course of the whole season, not one game. To use an example, let's just say that Prior had the same pitches per start average that Marshall did this year (84 per game with a max of 102) rather than what he actually had in 2003 (113 per game with a max of 133), threw 116 pitches in a playoff game, then came out in his next start and wore down as the game went on. In that scenario you could make the argument that Prior had been worn down because he threw 32 more pitches than his average. But Prior was used to throwing 115+ pitches in 2003 so saying he wore down because of one start in which he threw 3 more pitches than his season average is just wrong. In fact, I would think that the 126 pitches he averaged every start in September of 2003 would have had a bigger effect on his arm.

What (if any) downside do you see to Prior throwing 116 pitches in game 2?

 

Just curious.

 

That he stayed in 2 innings too long in a blowout win. What better time to give your bullpen a little work, especially with an day off the following day, than in a blowout?

 

My main argument that it wasn't that one game that killed Prior, it was the whole season of being overworked and September in particular. As I said before, Prior also had 5 days off in between Games 2 and 6. If Prior wore down in Game 6, it wasn't 116 pitches in Game 2 that caused it.

That still does not validate letting him throw 116 pitches. You save 30 of those pitches, I know it was overuse that caused him to run out of gas, but those are 30 good pitches we could've had from him in game 6.

[frostwyrm]

Again, Prior was tired because of being overworked over the course of the whole season, not one game. To use an example, let's just say that Prior had the same pitches per start average that Marshall did this year (84 per game with a max of 102) rather than what he actually had in 2003 (113 per game with a max of 133), threw 116 pitches in a playoff game, then came out in his next start and wore down as the game went on. In that scenario you could make the argument that Prior had been worn down because he threw 32 more pitches than his average. But Prior was used to throwing 115+ pitches in 2003 so saying he wore down because of one start in which he threw 3 more pitches than his season average is just wrong. In fact, I would think that the 126 pitches he averaged every start in September of 2003 would have had a bigger effect on his arm.

What (if any) downside do you see to Prior throwing 116 pitches in game 2?

 

Just curious.

 

That he stayed in 2 innings too long in a blowout win. What better time to give your bullpen a little work, especially with an day off the following day, than in a blowout?

 

My main argument that it wasn't that one game that killed Prior, it was the whole season of being overworked and September in particular. As I said before, Prior also had 5 days off in between Games 2 and 6. If Prior wore down in Game 6, it wasn't 116 pitches in Game 2 that caused it.

A lost opportunity to give the bullpen some work? Is that honestly the only downside you see to having Prior throw 116 pitches?

[CubsBullsBears]

Again, Prior was tired because of being overworked over the course of the whole season, not one game. To use an example, let's just say that Prior had the same pitches per start average that Marshall did this year (84 per game with a max of 102) rather than what he actually had in 2003 (113 per game with a max of 133), threw 116 pitches in a playoff game, then came out in his next start and wore down as the game went on. In that scenario you could make the argument that Prior had been worn down because he threw 32 more pitches than his average. But Prior was used to throwing 115+ pitches in 2003 so saying he wore down because of one start in which he threw 3 more pitches than his season average is just wrong. In fact, I would think that the 126 pitches he averaged every start in September of 2003 would have had a bigger effect on his arm.

What (if any) downside do you see to Prior throwing 116 pitches in game 2?

 

Just curious.

 

That he stayed in 2 innings too long in a blowout win. What better time to give your bullpen a little work, especially with an day off the following day, than in a blowout?

 

My main argument that it wasn't that one game that killed Prior, it was the whole season of being overworked and September in particular. As I said before, Prior also had 5 days off in between Games 2 and 6. If Prior wore down in Game 6, it wasn't 116 pitches in Game 2 that caused it.

A lost opportunity to give the bullpen some work? Is that honestly the only downside you see to having Prior throw 116 pitches?

To him it was valid, b/c he had an extra day and had been throwing 120 pitches every start.

[Monco]

What I saw was Prior get rattled and lose his cool. Bartman, walked Castillo, hung 0-2 pitch to Pudge, Gonzalez error ,DLee double. Blaming his game 2 pitch count on what happened in the 8th inning of Game 6 is really reaching. He did throw 119 in Game 6. Those pitches would be much more relevant to a fatigue arguement.

[CubsBullsBears]

I GIVE UP!! No one understands my point. Good day.

[Sammy Sofa]

Your "point" is terrible and absurd.

[Monco]

I GIVE UP!! No one understands my point. Good day.

 

I agree that he should of been pulled earlier in game 6 with an 11 run lead. To give him a break and to get some work for a middle guy or 2. But I don't believe it had anything to do with Game 6.

[soccer10k]

Again, Prior was tired because of being overworked over the course of the whole season, not one game. To use an example, let's just say that Prior had the same pitches per start average that Marshall did this year (84 per game with a max of 102) rather than what he actually had in 2003 (113 per game with a max of 133), threw 116 pitches in a playoff game, then came out in his next start and wore down as the game went on. In that scenario you could make the argument that Prior had been worn down because he threw 32 more pitches than his average. But Prior was used to throwing 115+ pitches in 2003 so saying he wore down because of one start in which he threw 3 more pitches than his season average is just wrong. In fact, I would think that the 126 pitches he averaged every start in September of 2003 would have had a bigger effect on his arm.

What (if any) downside do you see to Prior throwing 116 pitches in game 2?

 

Just curious.

 

That he stayed in 2 innings too long in a blowout win. What better time to give your bullpen a little work, especially with an day off the following day, than in a blowout?

 

My main argument that it wasn't that one game that killed Prior, it was the whole season of being overworked and September in particular. As I said before, Prior also had 5 days off in between Games 2 and 6. If Prior wore down in Game 6, it wasn't 116 pitches in Game 2 that caused it.

A lost opportunity to give the bullpen some work? Is that honestly the only downside you see to having Prior throw 116 pitches?

To him it was valid, b/c he had an extra day and had been throwing 120 pitches every start.

 

No, you are misunderstanding my point. I am not saying that the 116 pitches Prior threw in Game 2 shouldn't matter because he should be used to it since he averaged 113 pitches during the regular season. I am saying that claiming Prior ran out of gas in Game 6 on five days rest rather than four after throwing 116 pitches in Game 2 is just wrong. He is much more likely to have worn out in the eighth inning due to the whole season of being overworked as well as (as Monco pointed out) throwing 119 pitches in Game 6. If Prior had pitched in Game 6 on three days rest, or even four, then you could use the extra 30 pitches as a legitimate argument. But to claim that Prior wore down in Game 6 because of one game is ridiculous.