How Do You Feel About Larry Rothschild Now?

[Outshined_One]

After Lou was hired, there was much consternation that Rothschild would be retained. Most people on here were not happy about Larry's performance during his time with this team, especially regarding high pitch counts, mechanics tweaking adventures with the pitchers, and a few other problems this pitching staff had over the past few years. When he was signed, a lot of people were upset.

 

When he was re-signed, news started leaking out that much of that was a result of Dusty Baker overriding Rothschild's advice on decisions. Rothschild apparently was going to get more free rein under Piniella since the two had a positive relationship with one another prior to Piniella coming to Chicago. As most people might recall, Rothschild was more of a Hendry hire than a Baker hire.

 

Now that we're at the halfway point here are how the Cubs stack up against the rest of the majors pitching-wise:

 

#5 in ERA

#2 in Ks

#14 in BBs allowed

#2 in BAA

#8 in HRs allowed

#2 in OBP Against

#6 in SLG Against

#4 in OPS Against

 

All in all, those are some very good numbers.

 

So, given this team's pitching performance, how do you feel about Larry Rothschild this season? Do you think he was unnecessarily handcuffed by Dusty Baker and is finally getting a chance to strut his stuff with Lou Piniella? Was it a good idea to re-sign him?

[badger1679666666]

I think it can be a safe inference, that Dusty had much more to do with that pitching staff than Larry. He's always been respected and I think Lou is letting him do what he should. something Dusty didn't. Dusty is the devil who's evilness just keep becoming more and more evident.

[TruffleShuffle]

Lilly has sliced his BB/9 in half from where it was the past three years. I don't know if that's a fluke or owes to something Rothschild has done, but I like it. A pitcher with Ted Lilly's stuff should not be walking 4+ guys per nine.

[Coach C]

It's encouraging to see that. I would still like to see if it's not one of those "lighting in a bottle" moments, you know?

 

If this type of numbers continue on to next year and the year after, then that'd show me that Uncle Larry was indeed, handcuffed by Dusty Baker.

[Outshined_One]

There is one thing in particular that bugs me.

 

The starting pitching staff has been handled fairly well in terms of pitch counts and whatnot...save for one person.

 

Zambrano's pitches per game is currently at a career-high 112.1.

 

Say what you will about pitch counts and blah blah blah, but I'd really like to see the team let up on Zambrano a bit over the next few starts. I do not want to see Zambrano fade down the stretch because his arm is tired.

[NCCubFan]

I've been giving Larry the benefit of the doubt ever since Lou was hired last fall, and he's certainly earning it big time this year. This is an example of how sometimes the best moves are the ones you don't make.

[Bruce Miles]

I've had a lot of conversations with Larry. Trust me when I tell you he's a very bright guy and, I believe, a very good pitching coach. Zambrano blossomed under his watch. Matt Clement had his best years under Larry and still swears by him. Joe Borowski came out of nowhere in 2002 and 2003 under Rothschild. There's a lot of stuff that happened under the previous regime, and Larry, to his credit, won't get into it. I go by what his pitchers, past and present, tell me.

[Mephistopheles]

ive always thought he was one of the better pcs in the league

[TruffleShuffle]

I've had a lot of conversations with Larry. Trust me when I tell you he's a very bright guy and, I believe, a very good pitching coach. Zambrano blossomed under his watch. Matt Clement had his best years under Larry and still swears by him. Joe Borowski came out of nowhere in 2002 and 2003 under Rothschild. There's a lot of stuff that happened under the previous regime, and Larry, to his credit, won't get into it. I go by what his pitchers, past and present, tell me.

 

thanks for the extra info. I've given Rothschild a clean slate this year, and I've been really happy with the performance of the entire staff this year. Hopefully he can continue to help the kids (Hill, Marshall, Marmol, Wuertz, Ohman, Guzman) blossom as well.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I've had a lot of conversations with Larry. Trust me when I tell you he's a very bright guy and, I believe, a very good pitching coach. Zambrano blossomed under his watch. Matt Clement had his best years under Larry and still swears by him. Joe Borowski came out of nowhere in 2002 and 2003 under Rothschild. There's a lot of stuff that happened under the previous regime, and Larry, to his credit, won't get into it. I go by what his pitchers, past and present, tell me.

 

Thanks, Bruce. I was cautiously hoping this was the case when Larry was retained under Piniella. I know that he was well thought of before coming to Chicago and that Leyland felt he was one of the best as well. I was hoping when Lou kept him that he would prove to be worthy of that high esteem. It's looking like he is.

[Bruce Miles]

I've had a lot of conversations with Larry. Trust me when I tell you he's a very bright guy and, I believe, a very good pitching coach. Zambrano blossomed under his watch. Matt Clement had his best years under Larry and still swears by him. Joe Borowski came out of nowhere in 2002 and 2003 under Rothschild. There's a lot of stuff that happened under the previous regime, and Larry, to his credit, won't get into it. I go by what his pitchers, past and present, tell me.

 

Thanks, Bruce. I was cautiously hoping this was the case when Larry was retained under Piniella. I know that he was well thought of before coming to Chicago and that Leyland felt he was one of the best as well. I was hoping when Lou kept him that he would prove to be worthy of that high esteem. It's looking like he is.

 

Pitching coaches can coach, push, cajole and work on pitchers' mechanics until the cows come home. Ultimately, it's up to the pitchers to execute those pitches. I heard a lot about Rothschild and the mechanics of Prior and Wood from 2004-present. A lot of times, a pitcher or any athlete will fall back on what feels "comfortable" or what he is used to doing in game/stres situations rather than do what is right or what is coached. Larry spotted a couple things with Zambrano and his arm angle long about May. It took a lot of repetition and convincing to get Carlos to do things right (from what I hear, Larry spotted something on tape with the positioning of Zambrano's lead, or left, arm, and it took a lot of work on the side to get him to change it). He did a lot of work with Marquis beginning last winter. We'll see if some "refresher" work recently gets Jason back on track.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I've had a lot of conversations with Larry. Trust me when I tell you he's a very bright guy and, I believe, a very good pitching coach. Zambrano blossomed under his watch. Matt Clement had his best years under Larry and still swears by him. Joe Borowski came out of nowhere in 2002 and 2003 under Rothschild. There's a lot of stuff that happened under the previous regime, and Larry, to his credit, won't get into it. I go by what his pitchers, past and present, tell me.

 

Thanks, Bruce. I was cautiously hoping this was the case when Larry was retained under Piniella. I know that he was well thought of before coming to Chicago and that Leyland felt he was one of the best as well. I was hoping when Lou kept him that he would prove to be worthy of that high esteem. It's looking like he is.

 

Pitching coaches can coach, push, cajole and work on pitchers' mechanics until the cows come home. Ultimately, it's up to the pitchers to execute those pitches. I heard a lot about Rothschild and the mechanics of Prior and Wood from 2004-present. A lot of times, a pitcher or any athlete will fall back on what feels "comfortable" or what he is used to doing in game/stres situations rather than do what is right or what is coached. Larry spotted a couple things with Zambrano and his arm angle long about May. It took a lot of repetition and convincing to get Carlos to do things right (from what I hear, Larry spotted something on tape with the positioning of Zambrano's lead, or left, arm, and it took a lot of work on the side to get him to change it). He did a lot of work with Marquis beginning last winter. We'll see if some "refresher" work recently gets Jason back on track.

 

Thanks for the inside info, Bruce.

 

So, when can we expect a piece comparing this year's coaching staff to the previous regime?

[RynoRules]

I've been giving Larry the benefit of the doubt ever since Lou was hired last fall, and he's certainly earning it big time this year. This is an example of how sometimes the best moves are the ones you don't make.

[Exile on Waveland]

I think it's odd that people congratulate a pitching coach for pitching performance, but dismiss off-hand a catcher's impact on pitching. (And, no, this isn't a CERA argument, which is obviously a crap stat.) That said, I do think Rothschild was hamstrung by the incompetence of previous management.

[J.R.]

This message proudly sponsored by the Committee to Inflict Torture Worse than Death on Bud $elig if Mark Cuban is Not Approved as New Cubs' Owner

 

Pain worse than death? Like trying to endure your jokes?

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

I think it's odd that people congratulate a pitching coach for pitching performance, but dismiss off-hand a catcher's impact on pitching. (And, no, this isn't a CERA argument, which is obviously a crap stat.) That said, I do think Rothschild was hamstrung by the incompetence of previous management.

 

 

DING,DING, DING,... We have a winner!

[Outshined_One]

I think it's odd that people congratulate a pitching coach for pitching performance, but dismiss off-hand a catcher's impact on pitching. (And, no, this isn't a CERA argument, which is obviously a crap stat.) That said, I do think Rothschild was hamstrung by the incompetence of previous management.

 

 

DING,DING, DING,... We have a winner!

 

...seriously? I mean...really?

 

I think a pitching coach has a significantly greater impact on a pitching staff than any catcher would. Yeah, catchers can have some impact, but the pitching coach is there to, you know, coach. He's there to analyze his pitchers and make sure he gets the best possible production out of them while protecting them from injury. This includes going over hours of game tape with guys, making mechanical adjustments, overseeing various exercises, keeping pitch counts, and a ton of other things which come with coaching. It's his job to do those things.

 

A catcher, on the other hand, has nowhere near the same impact. Yeah, a catcher can educate himself to do those things, but his basic job with a pitcher is to call a game and receive the ball without incident. On occasion, he might need to do stuff like switch up the signs or go out to the mound to calm his guy down. That's pretty much it.

 

The difference between the two is rather stark, if you ask me. The impact of a pitching coach on a given pitching performance is a heck of a lot greater than a catcher.

[Sarcastic]

I think it's odd that people congratulate a pitching coach for pitching performance, but dismiss off-hand a catcher's impact on pitching. (And, no, this isn't a CERA argument, which is obviously a crap stat.) That said, I do think Rothschild was hamstrung by the incompetence of previous management.

 

The pitching was fine while Barrett was here. See Fred's stats on ERA w/ different catchers this year.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

I think it's odd that people congratulate a pitching coach for pitching performance, but dismiss off-hand a catcher's impact on pitching. (And, no, this isn't a CERA argument, which is obviously a crap stat.) That said, I do think Rothschild was hamstrung by the incompetence of previous management.

 

 

DING,DING, DING,... We have a winner!

 

...seriously? I mean...really?

 

I think a pitching coach has a significantly greater impact on a pitching staff than any catcher would. Yeah, catchers can have some impact, but the pitching coach is there to, you know, coach. He's there to analyze his pitchers and make sure he gets the best possible production out of them while protecting them from injury. This includes going over hours of game tape with guys, making mechanical adjustments, overseeing various exercises, keeping pitch counts, and a ton of other things which come with coaching. It's his job to do those things.

 

A catcher, on the other hand, has nowhere near the same impact. Yeah, a catcher can educate himself to do those things, but his basic job with a pitcher is to call a game and receive the ball without incident. On occasion, he might need to do stuff like switch up the signs or go out to the mound to calm his guy down. That's pretty much it.

 

The difference between the two is rather stark, if you ask me. The impact of a pitching coach on a given pitching performance is a heck of a lot greater than a catcher.

 

Seriously yes I do. Go read my post on page 3 of the Cubs catchers post.

 

The thing you didnt put in there is that the catchers are watching that same film, and going over those same charts as the pitching coach. Its part of their job.

 

As far as the catchers on field job you have just barely scratched the surface. He has to be shrink, diplomat, parent, situationally aware, field aware, and the Managers /pitching coaches eyes and ears on the field.

 

The hardest thing I have had to teach catchers is the mental side of the game. To look at your friend and tell me honestly, " he is done coach."; is the hardest thing to teach. A good "mental catcher", (to me anyway), is a good defensive catcher. I say a defensive catcher is a catcher that will block and throw 1.8 to 2.1 to second. In addition to knowing the charts as well as I do, and will be able to tell me that so and so didnt sleep well last night.

 

There is just so much that goes into catching. Other than the SS he has to be the smartest baseball guy on the field. I have seen lots of idiots that can pitch and pitch well. I have never seen a good, baseball dumb catcher.

[Exile on Waveland]

I think it's odd that people congratulate a pitching coach for pitching performance, but dismiss off-hand a catcher's impact on pitching. (And, no, this isn't a CERA argument, which is obviously a crap stat.) That said, I do think Rothschild was hamstrung by the incompetence of previous management.

 

 

DING,DING, DING,... We have a winner!

 

...seriously? I mean...really?

 

I think a pitching coach has a significantly greater impact on a pitching staff than any catcher would. Yeah, catchers can have some impact, but the pitching coach is there to, you know, coach. He's there to analyze his pitchers and make sure he gets the best possible production out of them while protecting them from injury. This includes going over hours of game tape with guys, making mechanical adjustments, overseeing various exercises, keeping pitch counts, and a ton of other things which come with coaching. It's his job to do those things.

 

A catcher, on the other hand, has nowhere near the same impact. Yeah, a catcher can educate himself to do those things, but his basic job with a pitcher is to call a game and receive the ball without incident. On occasion, he might need to do stuff like switch up the signs or go out to the mound to calm his guy down. That's pretty much it.

 

The difference between the two is rather stark, if you ask me. The impact of a pitching coach on a given pitching performance is a heck of a lot greater than a catcher.

 

Both are imputing a tangible value from an intangible. I have no idea how much difference a catcher or pitching coach makes on a pitcher. They're both basically immeasurable, and I doubt we ever know the impact of either. I don't think it's a stretch, however, to believe that the player actually on the field participating with the pitcher could have a similar affect as a coach in the dugout.

[Sarcastic]

You just can't find any significant difference in the overall numbers of the pitching staff before and after the departure of Michael Barrett.[snip]

 

Code:

04/02 - 07/14 IP H R ER BB K HR BB/9 K/9 HR/9 WHIP ERA

CUBS w/Barrett 627.0 563 290 271 228 510 77 3.27 7.32 1.11 1.26 3.89

CUBS without 176.3 159 81 76 67 170 17 3.42 8.68 0.87 1.28 3.88

CUBS overall 803.3 722 371 347 295 680 94 3.30 7.62 1.05 1.27 3.89

 

Please look at the above, all who think that Barrett's departure madde a big difference for the pitchers.

[Exile on Waveland]

I think it's odd that people congratulate a pitching coach for pitching performance, but dismiss off-hand a catcher's impact on pitching. (And, no, this isn't a CERA argument, which is obviously a crap stat.) That said, I do think Rothschild was hamstrung by the incompetence of previous management.

 

The pitching was fine while Barrett was here. See Fred's stats on ERA w/ different catchers this year.

 

I have no idea how this response is relevant to my post. I didn't mention Barrett, and I'm quite aware of Fred's stats. I thought my parenthetical would quell such condescending responses, but I guess not. The post had nothing to do with Barrett or CERA -- and the post explicitly stated the later. It had everything to do with the logical fallacy of assuming one intangible affects a tangible, while another quite similar intangible doesn't. It's pretty simple: if a pitching coach can affect pitching, then so can a catcher. Maybe neither do, as I'm not sure any persuasive empirical data exists. But you can't have it both ways.

[Exile on Waveland]

You just can't find any significant difference in the overall numbers of the pitching staff before and after the departure of Michael Barrett.[snip]

 

Code:

04/02 - 07/14 IP H R ER BB K HR BB/9 K/9 HR/9 WHIP ERA

CUBS w/Barrett 627.0 563 290 271 228 510 77 3.27 7.32 1.11 1.26 3.89

CUBS without 176.3 159 81 76 67 170 17 3.42 8.68 0.87 1.28 3.88

CUBS overall 803.3 722 371 347 295 680 94 3.30 7.62 1.05 1.27 3.89

 

Please look at the above, all who think that Barrett's departure madde a big difference for the pitchers.

 

Who exactly are you arguing with? Are you lost? I don't believe Barrett was mentioned at all in this thread. And, if he was, those stats are really circumstantial anyway.

[Sarcastic]

I think it's odd that people congratulate a pitching coach for pitching performance, but dismiss off-hand a catcher's impact on pitching. (And, no, this isn't a CERA argument, which is obviously a crap stat.) That said, I do think Rothschild was hamstrung by the incompetence of previous management.

 

The pitching was fine while Barrett was here. See Fred's stats on ERA w/ different catchers this year.

 

I have no idea how this response is relevant to my post. I didn't mention Barrett, and I'm quite aware of Fred's stats. I thought my parenthetical would quell such condescending responses, but I guess not. The post had nothing to do with Barrett or CERA -- and the post explicitly stated the later. It had everything to do with the logical fallacy of assuming one intangible affects a tangible, while another quite similar intangible doesn't. It's pretty simple: if a pitching coach can affect pitching, then so can a catcher. Maybe neither do, as I'm not sure any persuasive empirical data exists. But you can't have it both ways.

 

I'll agree that there is no way to accurately measure the difference between one PC and another. I never said I gave any credit to Larry for the staff this year. My second response was aimed more at DDS' post than yours.

[Exile on Waveland]

I think it's odd that people congratulate a pitching coach for pitching performance, but dismiss off-hand a catcher's impact on pitching. (And, no, this isn't a CERA argument, which is obviously a crap stat.) That said, I do think Rothschild was hamstrung by the incompetence of previous management.

 

The pitching was fine while Barrett was here. See Fred's stats on ERA w/ different catchers this year.

 

I have no idea how this response is relevant to my post. I didn't mention Barrett, and I'm quite aware of Fred's stats. I thought my parenthetical would quell such condescending responses, but I guess not. The post had nothing to do with Barrett or CERA -- and the post explicitly stated the later. It had everything to do with the logical fallacy of assuming one intangible affects a tangible, while another quite similar intangible doesn't. It's pretty simple: if a pitching coach can affect pitching, then so can a catcher. Maybe neither do, as I'm not sure any persuasive empirical data exists. But you can't have it both ways.

 

I'll agree that there is no way to accurately measure the difference between one PC and another. I never said I gave any credit to Larry for the staff this year. My second response was aimed more at DDS' post than yours.

 

I'll give Rothschild credit. He's the pitching coach and the pitching has improved. Did he have anything to do with it? I really don't know; but what he's in charge of has been successful. That may be an oversimplification, but I'll believe that pitching coaches have at least some minimal affect on pitching. Why? I know that if I was running a team, I sure wouldn't eliminate the position.

 

Regardless, Rothschild was hamstrung by former management. Maybe it's irrelevant and pitching coaches don't matter, but it's obvious Rothschild was often overruled by Dusty and his minions.