4/16 Dusty Baker's Reds (Fogg) @ Cubs (Z!) 7:05 CSN

[bukie]

Here's my argument:

 

Every time you send a pitcher out there for an inning, it's a calculated risk. Every inning. Z was rolling exceedingly efficiently through 6 innings, and the Cubs had a comfortable cushion. Why blow an additional reliever inning in this situation when you have (A) Lilly going tomorrow, when he's struggled mightily, (B) Hill going Friday, who has also struggled mightily, © Marquis going Saturday, who has once again struggled mightily, and a total of 8 games in 8 days in early April when 3/5 of the rotation hasn't been able to throw 5 innings, let alone 7.

 

At 80-some pitches through 6, I would think it's less of a risk to let a cruising Z go one more inning when he's been averaging 14 pitches an inning than it would be to burn a reliever specifically for the sake of extra rest for the only durable starter the Cubs have.

Edited April 17, 2008 by bukie

[Soul]

I wouldn't mind seeing the Dusty post-game, but I don't know if Comcast is going to show it.

[David]

 

Maybe that's because your argument makes no sense.

 

His argument actually makes complete sense, but ok. Jon is well known for making dumb irrational arguments, after all.

[Guest]

 

Maybe that's because your argument makes no sense.

 

His argument actually makes complete sense, but ok. Jon is well known for making dumb irrational arguments, after all.

 

Just because one usually makes rational arguments does not mean one is incapable of making the occasional dumb, irrational argument.

[David]

 

Maybe that's because your argument makes no sense.

 

His argument actually makes complete sense, but ok. Jon is well known for making dumb irrational arguments, after all.

 

Just because one usually makes rational arguments does not mean one is incapable of making the occasional dumb, irrational argument.

 

That's certainly true. But he isn't making one in this particular case.

 

 

I'll continue until I get the last word in. :wink:

[Jon]

Here's my argument:

 

Every time you send a pitcher out there for an inning, it's a calculated risk. Every inning. Z was rolling exceedingly efficiently through 6 innings, and the Cubs had a comfortable cushion. Why blow an additional reliever inning in this situation when you have (A) Lilly going tomorrow, when he's struggled mightily, (B) Hill going Friday, who has also struggled mightily, © Marquis going Saturday, who has once again struggled mightily, and a total of 8 games in 8 days in early April when 3/5 of the rotation hasn't been able to throw 5 innings, let alone 7.

 

At 80-some pitches through 6, I would think it's less of a risk to let a cruising Z go one more inning when he's been averaging 12 pitches an inning than it would be to burn a reliever specifically for the sake of extra rest for the only durable starter the Cubs have.

Lieber will be the first guy out of the 'pen tomorrow if Lilly doesn't last. If Marshall doesn't pitch tonight, that means he could be facing a long relief appearance having thrown a total of 11 pitches over the previous week. I'd argue that it would have been better for him to get in an inning of work tonight and be better prepared for a long relief appearance. Certainly throwing a little tonight would not have limited his abilities to throw long relief in a couple of days.

 

But let's not forget that Piniella would have let Carlos throw more than 101 pitches. That last AB only lasted 1 pitch and I'm not even sure that he had anyone warming up in the bullpen.

[CubColtPacer]

The question is why. Piniella already decided that the starters don't need extra days off in April in an attempt to keep them in a routine and apparently Zambrano doesn't need any shorter nights, either. What is the logic behind leaving Zambrano in there, especially when you have relievers that need work?

 

The idea that Carlos has had high pitch counts all his life as justification is absurd. Z finished with the 2nd highest PAP total in the majors in 2007, 2006, and 2005. Is there any reason to leave him in there?

 

And how exactly is this a rant?

 

It's a rant because you said a variation of the same thing about 10 times. We get it, you're not happy that Z was still in there but there's no need to keep repeating it over and over.

 

As far as the Z question, you answered your own question with the bolded - it's a routine. And as far as PAP, my basic knowledge of them tells me that they don't start until you go over 100 pitches and, I believe, it's ((# of pitches) - 100) ^3. Z threw 101 pitches which would add up to a whopping 1 PAP. It's not that big of a deal.

I'm being told that it's better to let Zambrano throw over 100 pitches because he's used to it and that makes no sense to me at all. There's a long list of reasons why he shouldn't have been out there and just how risky the decision was is completely irrelevant. Piniella is managing a roster of 25 guys and not a video game. He shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions.

 

IT'S ONE FLIPPING PITCH OVER 100!! If he had thrown 99 pitches, would you be bitching and moaning so much? You're making it seem like he threw 115 or 120.

Apparently nobody is getting my argument, or David's, so I'll start over.

 

It has nothing to do with how much risk there was involved. It's that Lou made a decision that carried some risk when there was no reason to. Again, the amount of risk is totally irrelevant.

 

I would have liked to have seen Zambrano taken out after 6, when his PC was in the 80s. We have three long relievers who need work. One will be held back for tomorrow, but that still leaves two. But the overall point is that there's no redeeming value to Lou's decision yet there's a risk, so why do it?

 

We've given at least a couple of potential benefits though.

 

1) It makes Z happy. Why sit Z down after 79 pitches and 6 innings? He wants to go back out there and do what he does. He's not going to react very well to him being babied like that.

 

2) Your argument is that the relievers are rested. They may be right now. However, the Cubs still have 11 straight games after this one. Their starters for the next 3 days are Lilly, Marquis, and Hill, and those 3 pitchers are averaging less than 5 innings per start combined in the early going. It's not easy to trust them to go deep into the game, and so the Cubs are going to need their relievers to be rested in order to handle those innings.

 

The benefit alone of getting Hart back a day earlier by him not throwing that 3rd inning is worth the risk of Z throwing an extra inning. 101 pitches is a light day's work for Z, especially since the majority of the innings had almost no stress on him with a huge lead.

[Keener98]

The question is why. Piniella already decided that the starters don't need extra days off in April in an attempt to keep them in a routine and apparently Zambrano doesn't need any shorter nights, either. What is the logic behind leaving Zambrano in there, especially when you have relievers that need work?

 

The idea that Carlos has had high pitch counts all his life as justification is absurd. Z finished with the 2nd highest PAP total in the majors in 2007, 2006, and 2005. Is there any reason to leave him in there?

 

And how exactly is this a rant?

 

It's a rant because you said a variation of the same thing about 10 times. We get it, you're not happy that Z was still in there but there's no need to keep repeating it over and over.

 

As far as the Z question, you answered your own question with the bolded - it's a routine. And as far as PAP, my basic knowledge of them tells me that they don't start until you go over 100 pitches and, I believe, it's ((# of pitches) - 100) ^3. Z threw 101 pitches which would add up to a whopping 1 PAP. It's not that big of a deal.

I'm being told that it's better to let Zambrano throw over 100 pitches because he's used to it and that makes no sense to me at all. There's a long list of reasons why he shouldn't have been out there and just how risky the decision was is completely irrelevant. Piniella is managing a roster of 25 guys and not a video game. He shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions.

 

IT'S ONE FLIPPING PITCH OVER 100!! If he had thrown 99 pitches, would you be bitching and moaning so much? You're making it seem like he threw 115 or 120.

Apparently nobody is getting my argument, or David's, so I'll start over.

 

It has nothing to do with how much risk there was involved. It's that Lou made a decision that carried some risk when there was no reason to. Again, the amount of risk is totally irrelevant.

 

I would have liked to have seen Zambrano taken out after 6, when his PC was in the 80s. We have three long relievers who need work. One will be held back for tomorrow, but that still leaves two. But the overall point is that there's no redeeming value to Lou's decision yet there's a risk, so why do it?

 

 

We do have 3 long men in the pen. 1 is being held back for tomorrow in case Lilly is a disaster again. 1 is being held back for Friday in case Hill cant find the strikezone. Then on Sat Marquis is pitching, and we may very well need a long man that day.

[abuck1220]

wait, so baseball players are just as likely to get hurt on the way to the park as they are playing in the game?

 

good stuff.