ronsanto10

That's a pointless question. Prior has been injured more over the past couple of years. Of course Buerhle has accumulated more total. The point is how you get there. If you only throw 1000 pitches in a season, but you do it in 6 games, it's probably going to be worse than racking up 3400 in 34 games. We don't know any of this for sure. But lots of people who have studied this believe that it's not the total number of innings or pitches that matter most (although you probably don't want young guys going from seasons with just 120 IP to seasons with 250 IP), it's how you rack them up. A series of repeatedly high pitch count games back to back without a couple less stressful games thrown in is most likely one of the worst ways to treat a young pitcher. Crossing the 110 pitch threshold in any one game is probably not a big deal, but doing it over and over, especially coming off of a shoulder injury, is probably extremely dumb, not to mention risky. I'd call it malpractice myself. I didn't want these guys pulled at 99 every game. But there was no reason to ever have them go 130 (let alone 140). When they went 110+ a couple in a row, I wanted them to get a break for a game or two on the low end. I wasn't asking for extreme caution, just some level of caution and not the completely reckless treatment they were given. also factor into this the fact that they have been pitching prob since they were 7 years old....and if they threw a curve/slider early on (11 years old or so)....it will add up.....

Kevin Tapani didn't pitch 8 innings a game. Anything he says on the subject is null and void because he's in the same boat as all these other "modern pitchers". Tapani is a part of the modern era. He is not a "then" era pitcher. And I don't care what some sportswriters think. A lot of old men think everybody was tougher in the old days. It's nothing but sentimental mythical BS. Today's pitchers approach the game just like yesterday's pitchers. well, according to your logic, what you have to say about pitchers is null and void since you didn't pitch in the bigs.... like i said in a previous post, im just passing on what i heard on the radio, which is what i thought this board was for.... The difference is I'm not claiming that I threw 200 pitchers per start and went 8 innings every game. Tapani, according to you, is, and that makes him a blatant liar, or a senile old man with a completely unrealistic view about the good ole days. im just passing on some info i heard on the radio, sorry if it upset you.... over the history of baseball, the way the game is played has changed

Kevin Tapani didn't pitch 8 innings a game. Anything he says on the subject is null and void because he's in the same boat as all these other "modern pitchers". Tapani is a part of the modern era. He is not a "then" era pitcher. And I don't care what some sportswriters think. A lot of old men think everybody was tougher in the old days. It's nothing but sentimental mythical BS. Today's pitchers approach the game just like yesterday's pitchers. well, according to your logic, what you have to say about pitchers is null and void since you didn't pitch in the bigs.... like i said in a previous post, im just passing on what i heard on the radio, which is what i thought this board was for....

Kevin Tapani didn't pitch 8 innings a game. Anything he says on the subject is null and void because he's in the same boat as all these other "modern pitchers". i am talking of the differences in the way the game is played by the pitchers prespective then as opposed to now, and since he played then, i think what he says does have some bearing....some sports writers feel the way the game is played now vs then has changed, can we at least agree on that??

do you really think that many pithers make a habit of asking out of games? if not, why does it matter if they think 6 good innings makes a good start? i'm sure all major leaguers think 7 good innings is better than 6 good innings. i'm not seeing these starts where a pitcher makes it through 6 innings with a low pitch count and then decides that's good enough so he comes out. if you're advocating the notion that pitchers should ignore pitch counts and instead pitch deep into every game without exception, well, we aren't going to agree much here. im saying that in baseball as in life if you go into something with lower expectaions(more innings vs less innings) more times than not, you will reach the lower expections...the mindset of MLB, from what i hear, is that if a starter goes 6 innings, then the relievers can finish it up, so maybe the starter is not as frugal with thier pitch count, knowing that he wont have to finish up, as compared to the past when a starter knew that 8 innings were expected from him, he would manage his pitches to get him there.....

They also didn't wear helmets back in the day, and faced several terrible hitters in just about every lineup that they didn't have to bear down for. tonight on WGN, david kaplan talked to Kevin Tapani, and they talked about pitch counts....he said that when he pitched, it was expected of them to make it 8 innings to not let the team down, now a good outing is comsidered 6 innings or so, and you cant say that money has nothing to do with it, i dont care if they wore helmets or not, baseball is big business and the team wants to protect the investment..... Kevin Tapani? I thought all the "we pitched deep every game or we were wimps" talk was revisionist history, this just proves it. Tapani was crap. career W-L---143-125 = better than average...or crap as you call it...either way...that does not discount the fact that starters were expected to pitch 8 innings back then and now 6 innings is considered a good outing... and i know all about set up guys and all that stuff...im just saying... kevin tapani started 354 games he came in as a reliever in 7 games let's give him the benefit of the doubt and just pretend those 7 games don't exist. this will result in his ip/start being slightly higher, as he's getting those relief innings counted in with his starting innings. 2265 career innings pitched / 354 starts = 6.39 innings pitched per start kevin tapani = huge wimp so you are saying that the general thinking of 6 innings by todays pitchers being a good outing and the thinking that in the past starters were expected to pitch more innings per start is not the case because you think tapani is a huge wimp?? i dont want to get into a p****ing match with you, i was just passing on what i heard from an ex-big league pitcher and how it translates to the situation now....im not trying to make you mad

They also didn't wear helmets back in the day, and faced several terrible hitters in just about every lineup that they didn't have to bear down for. tonight on WGN, david kaplan talked to Kevin Tapani, and they talked about pitch counts....he said that when he pitched, it was expected of them to make it 8 innings to not let the team down, now a good outing is comsidered 6 innings or so, and you cant say that money has nothing to do with it, i dont care if they wore helmets or not, baseball is big business and the team wants to protect the investment..... Kevin Tapani? I thought all the "we pitched deep every game or we were wimps" talk was revisionist history, this just proves it. Tapani was crap. career W-L---143-125 = better than average...or crap as you call it...either way...that does not discount the fact that starters were expected to pitch 8 innings back then and now 6 innings is considered a good outing... and i know all about set up guys and all that stuff...im just saying...

but the thing is in 2003, if prior woulda sat, everyone would have questioned his "toughness" if/when the cubs lost... you cant have it both ways... we all wanted to ride woody and prior to the world series in 2003, as im sure prior wanted the ball...i think this is very frustrating for all us fans cuz the cubs are stinking it up now...not to mention the frustration prior must be feeling.....

im not talking about that....i mean he has been shut down for a shoulder strain since spring training...i have no prob with the food poisoning, but you also have to agree, it just seems like one thing after another with prior, he has had a run of bad luck, not to mention he owes some $$ for a signing that when bad a few years ago....

They also didn't wear helmets back in the day, and faced several terrible hitters in just about every lineup that they didn't have to bear down for. tonight on WGN, david kaplan talked to Kevin Tapani, and they talked about pitch counts....he said that when he pitched, it was expected of them to make it 8 innings to not let the team down, now a good outing is comsidered 6 innings or so, and you cant say that money has nothing to do with it, i dont care if they wore helmets or not, baseball is big business and the team wants to protect the investment..... Horrible post. Come on, don't even try to tell me that everything would have played out the same if everything that happened to Prior happened to Rusch instead....no freaking way. i don't really know what you mean there at all i just didn't like the post because the implication that prior is choosing not to pitch because he's so rich seems silly to me. you misunderstood, the implication is the cubs are paying mark prior big money to pitch and they see fit to treat him with kid gloves when he "feels something" when he throws...the cubs have invested lots of money in prior and the cubs choose the course of his rehab...so i say the cubs are having prior take is slow to protect the cubs investment....

They also didn't wear helmets back in the day, and faced several terrible hitters in just about every lineup that they didn't have to bear down for. tonight on WGN, david kaplan talked to Kevin Tapani, and they talked about pitch counts....he said that when he pitched, it was expected of them to make it 8 innings to not let the team down, now a good outing is comsidered 6 innings or so, and you cant say that money has nothing to do with it, i dont care if they wore helmets or not, baseball is big business and the team wants to protect the investment.....

They also didn't wear helmets back in the day, and faced several terrible hitters in just about every lineup that they didn't have to bear down for. tonight on WGN, david kaplan talked to Kevin Tapani, and they talked about pitch counts....he said that when he pitched, it was expected of them to make it 8 innings to not let the team down, now a good outing is comsidered 6 innings or so, and you cant say that money has nothing to do with it, i dont care if they wore helmets or not, baseball is big business and the team wants to protect the investment.....

pitch counts....thats lame...back in the day, they would throw till thier arms fell off....the real problem is $$$$$$ if you are paying a guy MILLIONS of dollars to throw a baseball, you want to get the most for your money, so when pitchers "feel" something, they shut him down...thinking it is better to lose him for a few weeks/months than end a career forever.....because ending the career means less $$$ for the team/owner....IMO

i hear all the stuff about woody and wade miller, but nothing about prior??? whats up with him??? whats even wrong with him??? cus it sure seems like along time for a strain....

i got tickets too!!!! where are we all gonna meet ??? :wink:

I GOT IT!!!! we shall name him.... THE ORANGE CRUSH!!!!! :shock:

dude.....i KNEW it!!! :wink:

see this post...... viewtopic.php?t=30992

NO DOUBT ABOOT IT(for all our canadian friends)

here is some more.... Buzz: Gotham Says Mets, and others, Like Maddux by Matthew Cerrone at 02:20PM (EDT) on April 25, 2006 | Permanent Link The guys at Gotham Baseball cite ‘industry sources,’ as saying the Cubs are actively shopping RHP Greg Maddux, who has an ERA of 0.99 this season following four starts… According to Gotham, the Mets, as well as the Yankees, Brewers, Phillies, D’Backs, Royals and Cardinals, among others, are interested… …i have no idea what to make of this…honestly, i have not had my hands in the rumor mill for quite some time, since teams typically do a whole lotta talking, and no trading, prior to june…that being said, the only team in that above list that i have ever heard linked to the cubs and maddux is the phillies, and, honestly, i would not even put a whole lot of stock into where i heard that from… …from a baseball p.o.v., if this is accurate, what are the cubs thinking…their rotation is a disaster…and pitching wins…so, if there is a reason to not buy into this, it’s that from chicago’s position, any deal that didn’t bring back an effective starter would be foolish, and why would any team trade an effective starter for maddux…something just doesn’t add up to me, and it seems way, way too early for this type of deal to occur…

saw this on another site....this is so lame, but i thought i'd post it for you guys..... Cubs Shopping Maddux? A good one from the rumor mill over at Gotham Baseball. Unfortunately their page is not working right now so here's a link to MetsBlog's take on Gotham's report. According to Gotham, Greg Maddux is being shopped. Interested parties: Mets, Yankees, Brewers, Phillies, Diamondbacks, Royals, and Cardinals. The Cubs would essentially be reducing their rotation to "Carlos Zambrano and pray for a tornado," but Maddux is an impending free agent. My opinion from a couple of weeks ago: he's the same old Mad Dog, just with a well-timed hot streak. Still, dealing him now would be a very early white flag for a Cubs team with a $94MM payroll. Doesn't seem to compute. And the obligatory intradivision thing must be cited for the Brewers and Cards. I am surprised no West Coast teams have been mentioned.

can we get a WAV file of that??? :) you should hear me say it.

thats the best one!!

Yeah, he uses both. In fact, he loves "Murton for certain." oh, sorry guys.....i did not mean to steal his thunder.... and please move to polls

i heard murphy call him matt the bat, but not the other one, but i must admit i dont really listen to the score....