Papelbon is the closer according ESPN

[castigs850]

exactly what i was thinking supermanny, you all talk about how big his ego is and how he doesnt want it deflated by failure, but how many egotisticle guys do you know that ever worry about failing? isnt that the reason their egos are so big, because they can't do anything wrong in their minds

[a700hitter]

Anyone think this could be a whole smoke and mirror act? Just for conversation sake what if we where trying to get Cordero or some other closer, and the other teams GM was trying to take advantage of our FO because they knew we were out of options and getting desperate. Papelbon coming out and saying he wants to be the closer gives Theo the ultimate leverage. He cans ay now well I wouldn't mind getting Cordero but I'm not willing to pay your ransom for him since I have Paps as a closer...

 

I fully believe Paps wants to be the closer and he will but I just bring up this part of the argument for conversation and conspiracy theorist alike...

I suspected that until it became clear that Papelbon asked to close. Also, the Red Sox are not stretching him out like they should be if he is going to start.

[RobZombie]

His peripheral statistics in his last full season starting are kind of irrelevant now' date=' I think. He was a different pitcher then. He struggled a bit with his FB command, and he really didn't have a plus second pitch at the time. Last year he really refined his command, and he developed a plus splitter. His curve has shown drastic improvement in ST, and his splitter is looking plus plus. I think he's a different animal than what he was two years ago. I think they are sacraficing what could be a really good thing without finding out if it will be. That is shortsighted and irresponsible.[/quote']

 

I disagree. The fact remains that as a starter his record isn't outstanding while his record as a reliever is. Yes he developed a plus splitter, but that splitter is more effective because he can throw in the mid 90s. The reason should be obvious. You are more likely to be fooled by a splitter if you have to gear up for a plus fastball. Without that plus fastball, that splitter wouldn't be nearly as effective as hitters would lay off of it, and force him to throw a mediocre fastball.

 

According to Peter Gammons, Papelbon's velocity would fall from the mid 90s to the high 80s after a few innings of work.

 

Though many, especially those who lean to be more statminded, poo poo velocity, its really an essential tool to being a great pitcher. Yes its possible to be a great pitcher with a mediocre fastball. Yes its possible to be a terrible pitcher with a plus fastball. Its just that the odds are in your favor if you can throw hard. If Papelbon couldn't maintain his velocity into the middle innings, it would be difficult for him to be anything more than a mediocre pitcher.

 

I think his long-term future is as a reliever.

[ARod2212]

I like this a lot, from a Yankee standpoint. Elaboration later.

[ORS]

I disagree. The fact remains that as a starter his record isn't outstanding while his record as a reliever is. Yes he developed a plus splitter, but that splitter is more effective because he can throw in the mid 90s. The reason should be obvious. You are more likely to be fooled by a splitter if you have to gear up for a plus fastball. Without that plus fastball, that splitter wouldn't be nearly as effective as hitters would lay off of it, and force him to throw a mediocre fastball.

 

According to Peter Gammons, Papelbon's velocity would fall from the mid 90s to the high 80s after a few innings of work.

 

Though many, especially those who lean to be more statminded, poo poo velocity, its really an essential tool to being a great pitcher. Yes its possible to be a great pitcher with a mediocre fastball. Yes its possible to be a terrible pitcher with a plus fastball. Its just that the odds are in your favor if you can throw hard. If Papelbon couldn't maintain his velocity into the middle innings, it would be difficult for him to be anything more than a mediocre pitcher.

 

I think his long-term future is as a reliever.

Everything you mention there is a function of endurance. If he never went to the pen, then the building of his endurance would have continued and we'd be seeing him be able to stay in the low-to-mid 90's for longer stretches. This is exactly why I'm against this move. Another year in pen, and you are right, his long-term future is as a reliever, but that's because it will be too late to get him on track to be a SP during his prime years.

 

We can debate it until we are blue in the face without agreeing, but this is a fact, without finding out the answer the FO is selling an asset short. I know, I know, one in hand is better than two in the bush, but in this scenario, you can go for the two in the bush without losing the one in hand. He can always go back to the pen. After this year, I don't think there's anyway he goes back to the rotation. It's shortsighted.

[jacksonianmarch]

Jacko' date=' you ridiculed us all this winter, saying the Sox wont win much games without a pure closer? They have brought back their all-star closer, but now its being layed on thick about the middle relief. With the way youre talking Im very surprised you are expecting them to have a good season[/quote']

 

The sox and the yankees are very similar. Their rotations are now very top heavy. They both have very solid offenses and they both have very good closers. The only major difference IMO is the middle relief. The minor difference is the yankees have the better offense and right now, at least the same (in terms of performance) rotation.

 

But just because they arent better than the yankees on paper does not mean they arent good. The sox are very good and will win 90 games IMO.

[RobZombie]

Everything you mention there is a function of endurance. If he never went to the pen, then the building of his endurance would have continued and we'd be seeing him be able to stay in the low-to-mid 90's for longer stretches."

 

Quite honestly, we have no idea if Papelbon would have built up his endurance had he remained in the rotation. Its quite possible that he would not have. The fact is that some pitchers just can't maintain their stuff over more than 25-30 pitches no matter how long they are in the rotation and Papelbon maybe one of those pitchers. Its no automatic that just being in the rotation allows you to maintain your stuff for longer.

 

In Papelbon you have a guy who's already shown that he can be a dominant closer, and who we've already established has a lot of hurdles to becoming a top flight starter, at least right away.

 

Yes the Red Sox could experiment with their top closer and possibly have a top starter if Papelbon were able to build his endurance and maintain his fastball. But its also quite possible that they would be trading a dominant closer for a mediocre starter. If these were the Pirates, a team with nothing to play for and no one cares about, I'd say go for it. But in Boston there isn't time for science experiments.

 

"but this is a fact, without finding out the answer the FO is selling an asset short."

 

The asset you maybe selling short are the teams chances to win in 07 despite their $140M payroll. Blowing lots of games in the 9th inning can become a disiese that infects the entire team. It causes the manager to manage differently and the players to play differently.

[ORS]

He maintained his velocity in '05 during his 3 starts after his call-up. In fact those three starts, where he struggled with command, but not effectiveness resulted in his 2.25 starter ERA. According to you, that is struggling as a starter. Quite frankly, when you think that is struggling, and when you can't see the difference in the pitcher he was then compared to now, I'm inclined to think you don't really have a clue.

 

As you keep stating, they don't know he would have been good. That is part and parcel to my point all along. They don't know, and now, they aren't going to find out. This circular argument of yours keeps returning to your opinion, which is worthless when trying to determine what we know. My argument isn't that he will be an elite starter, just that he could be one, and we ought to find out. You'd rather go off your assumptions. That's just not sane or rational.

 

I want to win now, and as such, I see the value of having him in the closers role. I also want them to win the next year and the next year and the next year, ad infinitum. As an elite starter, he could have more value to the team over the long haul. He's a special pitcher. They ought to see just how special he can be.

[Gom]

It's not believing everything I read. It makes sense if you think about it, but you aren't very good at that. I'll bring up the runner analogy again since it silenced you last time. Stating that it is better for Papelbon's shoulder to close is analogous to stating a gifted runner with a trick hammy should train to be an every-day sprinter instead of a once a week mid-distance runner. Do you counter that notion? I think it perfectly analogous, and equally ridiculous.

 

I know your extensive WebMD.com training will come up with something.

Silenced me? Don't remember that, but when I know I'm right, I don't follow up. Maybe thats what you mean, lol.

 

I don't use WebMD, I use it from my knowledge of medicine, as well as conversation with my brother, who is a surgeon [ok, just a resident, but close enough]. Looseness of a shoulder joint will invariably be under more stress the more the violent action is perpetrated. Wherein the extra rest will undoubtedly help, the fact remains that the trauma caused by such an action is not given enough time to heal. Papelbon would be much better suited to being limited, for example, to no more than one inning and never on back to back games. Anything else is pure folly.

 

Like a700 said, it isn't a muscle issue. Looseness in joint is a completely different thing.

 

For anyone with any semblance of common sense, do you really believe that going through a violent action like throwing a baseball 100 times every five days for 7 months, for a total of approximately 180 innings, will be less strenuous than the same action every other day for say about 25 pitches a day for a total of 70 innings over the same course of time? It's not like relievers are brain dead idiots, going out and throwing as hard as they can on every pitch. If they had gotten enough rest, then pitchers should never get tired in September. In fact, they should be able to pitch year round. Especially starting pitchers. They should pitch until they are old enough to qualify for social security.

 

The analogy is weak, and you know it.

 

The fact that you are using what someone else stated that is blatantly false and you believe it with out even remotely questioning it, well...actually, come to think of it, I'm not surprised.

[jacksonianmarch]

Gom, relievers typically do throw as hard as they can on every pitch. That is why they are relievers. Paps would sit in the low 90s as a starter, but as a reliever, he sits high 90s.

[Gom]

It is undeniable that relievers worry less about stressing their bodies, but that is mainly because they CAN. If a starting pitcher only had to go 3 innings a start, they wouldn't stress themselves either, jacks.

[ORS]

Silenced me? Don't remember that, but when I know I'm right, I don't follow up. Maybe thats what you mean, lol.

 

I don't use WebMD, I use it from my knowledge of medicine, as well as conversation with my brother, who is a surgeon [ok, just a resident, but close enough]. Looseness of a shoulder joint will invariably be under more stress the more the violent action is perpetrated. Wherein the extra rest will undoubtedly help, the fact remains that the trauma caused by such an action is not given enough time to heal. Papelbon would be much better suited to being limited, for example, to no more than one inning and never on back to back games. Anything else is pure folly.

 

Like a700 said, it isn't a muscle issue. Looseness in joint is a completely different thing.

 

For anyone with any semblance of common sense, do you really believe that going through a violent action like throwing a baseball 100 times every five days for 7 months, for a total of approximately 180 innings, will be less strenuous than the same action every other day for say about 25 pitches a day for a total of 70 innings over the same course of time? It's not like relievers are brain dead idiots, going out and throwing as hard as they can on every pitch. If they had gotten enough rest, then pitchers should never get tired in September. In fact, they should be able to pitch year round. Especially starting pitchers. They should pitch until they are old enough to qualify for social security.

 

The analogy is weak, and you know it.

 

The fact that you are using what someone else stated that is blatantly false and you believe it with out even remotely questioning it, well...actually, come to think of it, I'm not surprised.

Medical professionals who have completeled their residency and specialize in orthopedics have stated this was the right move. Why am I to believe your brother, a surgical resident, over the specialist? Also, it's very comical that you ridicule someone for using the opinions of others while doing the same. Stop being so hypocritical. If their opinions means nothing, then so does your brother's. Besides, the people I believe are right are certainly more credible and have superior training to your brother.

 

The analogy fits. The muscles of the shoulder help hold the joint together, and the lack of regular rest combined with more intense action for a reliever put more strain on those muscles. This is about stress on the muscle. When the muscle is overtaxed, it will fail, for the sprinter, or fail to do its job, for the reliever. Anyone with even minimal understanding of muscle physiology knows that a muscle is more likely to fail after repeated intense use than it is to fail after regemented and less intense use.

 

The problem here is you are too full of yourself to drop your preconceived notions. I, like you, originally thought relieving was a better way to avoid injury, and it probably still is for most injury concerns, but this one is different. However, I know what I know and what I don't. You define idiocy by sticking to your guns in the face of contrary expert analysis. Oh, I questioned the opinion at first, but the reasoning was cold hard common sense regarding the physiology. So, I accepted that my perceived notion was wrong and moved on. You can't do that because your ego won't allow it. Pity for you.

[EvilDonut]

From Schillings blog on Papelbon going back to closer role,

 

No it wasn’t a rash decision brought about by uncertainty. I can promise you there were many meetings involving many people that occurred before this took place.

 

Paps wanted to close because that’s where he felt he helped the team best, but he had no issues or problems being a starter either. He was going to do whatever role they asked of him.

 

I think the most important aspect, and what will be the most talked about part of this move is his health. One of the important points to note here is just how much smarter, and stronger he is, than he was last year.

 

Since he was hurt last year, like any smart athlete, he has taken the time to get educated on exactly how his shoulder works, and how best to address it and take care of it. The great part about that is that in my experience it’s always taken a major surgery to get young pitchers with unhealthy shoulders to see the light, and that’s not the case here.

 

read the rest here http://38pitches.com/2007/03/22/paps-to-the-pen/#more-50

 

Good find Manny

[rician blast]

If Clemens goes to the Red Sox then they have a better shot and going to the playoffs then the Yankees do. No one could match up with a rotation that consisted of Schilling' date=' Beckett, Matsuzaka, Wake and Clemens. I'm going to play devils advocate for a second here and say, what if Clemens comes back here and wins 3-4 postseason games enroute to a W.S. title? I think that would greatly help how he is remembered in Boston, and I think he is probably bothered by the fact that he never one the big one with the Red Sox. Also he is 8 wins away from 200 as a red sox, and just 1 win away from being the All time leader in wins. There are plenty of reasons for Roger to finish his career here.[/quote']

 

 

Valid point regarding what a successful post-season pitching for Boston would do for him.

I've been a Roger basher for a long time because of his inability to lead the Sox to significant playoff victories. The Blister of 1986. The meltdown against the A's in the late 80's.

 

He could change the perception of him in Sox fans eyes...but he could risk being known as the guy who couldn't do it without the biggest payroll in MLB if he doesn't step up.

 

I tend to think that he'll choose the safer road. Maybe I'm wrong, you guys make some good points.

[RobZombie]

He maintained his velocity in '05 during his 3 starts after his call-up. "

 

This is completely untrue. In fact as he got into the later innings in these three starts his velocity AND command started to wane.

 

"In fact those three starts, where he struggled with command, but not effectiveness resulted in his 2.25 starter ERA. According to you, that is struggling as a starter."

 

One Red Seat. You should know very well that an ERA can be a highly deceptive stat over an entire season, never mind a few starts. You can easily luck into a 2.25 ERA over three short starts, or have a highly inflated ERA over three short starts.

 

Over those three starts he only made it through 6 innings once. The one time he did, his peripherals were hardly outstanding, as he walked three and struck out two. His average game score during these three starts was 54, which in my mind is pretty mediocre. If he had that kind of average game score over 30-35 starts you can bet that his ERA would likely be a lot higher than 2.25

 

"when you can't see the difference in the pitcher he was then compared to now, I'm inclined to think you don't really have a clue."

 

As I've said, there is no evidence that the changes that he has made solve his original problem. He can't at present, maintain his stuff past a few innings. If he can't do that, he can't be any any better than mediocre. And really, don't be one of those Red Sox fans who starts to insult the intelligence of anyone who isn't completely optimistic. You don't see me debating you with insults. Just facts.

 

"As you keep stating, they don't know he would have been good. That is part and parcel to my point all along. They don't know, and now, they aren't going to find out. This circular argument of yours keeps returning to your opinion, which is worthless when trying to determine what we know. My argument isn't that he will be an elite starter, just that he could be one, and we ought to find out. You'd rather go off your assumptions. That's just not sane or rational."

 

He most certainly would NOT be an elite starter right away, as he currently can't maintain his stuff past a few innings. THAT'S what we know. He IS an elite closer too we know that too. My opinion is that I don't think its worth throwing away the 07 season on the off-chance that Papelbon can maintain his stuff late into games. I'm sorry if that opinion annoys you, but in this market, there isn't time for science experiments.

 

"He's a special pitcher. They ought to see just how special he can be."

 

He's a special CLOSER, there is no evidence that he's a special starter today. There's not evidence that he would be one given time. You may think that insulting me would turn Jonathan Papelbon into Julio Santanna but it will not....and if its a track that you continue on, we really have nothing to talk about.

[ORS]

Julio Santana? I'm arguing about baseball with a guy that thinks Julio Santana is an elite pitcher (is he even a pitcher)? Thanks for making it easy. You don't know baseball, so I won't waste any more of my own time.

[RobZombie]

"ulio Santana? I'm arguing about baseball with a guy that thinks Julio Santana is an elite pitcher (is he even a pitcher)? Thanks for making it easy. You don't know baseball, so I won't waste any more of my own time."

 

Its quite annoying when people love certain players so much that facts won't stand in their way. Instead of responding with actual arguments, they trot out the old and tired "you don't know baseball"/ "you don't have a clue" line. To anyone who questions their assertions. As you noticed kind sir, I haven't done this to you.

 

That you chose to focus on one trivial misspelling then used it to throw bombs as opposed to defending your argument tells me one thing. You don't have anything real to respond with the argument so you trot out tired insults. Its a cool tactic, one that's quite often used by three year olds. I don't enjoy arguing with three year olds.

 

Yes its true, no matter how many times you insult me it won't turn Jonathan Papelbon into an elite starter. The facts are that he probably wouldn't be one, at least not right away.

 

And Red Seat, you know darn well which Santana I was referring to, but chose not to debate the point. If the way you debate points is by trying to tell us that you are smarter than anyone who disagrees with you then I am quite glad that you have chosen to take your ball and go home.

 

Red Sox fans like that are annoying as hell.

[Sox Fan on Cape]

RZ, learn how to use the quote function. It would make reading your posts easier, or at least differentiate by using colors.

[ORS]

"ulio Santana? I'm arguing about baseball with a guy that thinks Julio Santana is an elite pitcher (is he even a pitcher)? Thanks for making it easy. You don't know baseball, so I won't waste any more of my own time."

 

Its quite annoying when people love certain players so much that facts won't stand in their way. Instead of responding with actual arguments, they trot out the old and tired "you don't know baseball"/ "you don't have a clue" line. To anyone who questions their assertions. As you noticed kind sir, I haven't done this to you.

 

That you chose to focus on one trivial misspelling then used it to throw bombs as opposed to defending your argument tells me one thing. You don't have anything real to respond with the argument so you trot out tired insults. Its a cool tactic, one that's quite often used by three year olds. I don't enjoy arguing with three year olds.

 

Yes its true, no matter how many times you insult me it won't turn Jonathan Papelbon into an elite starter. The facts are that he probably wouldn't be one, at least not right away.

 

And Red Seat, you know darn well which Santana I was referring to, but chose not to debate the point. If the way you debate points is by trying to tell us that you are smarter than anyone who disagrees with you then I am quite glad that you have chosen to take your ball and go home.

 

Red Sox fans like that are annoying as hell.

FYI, it is not a mispelling, his name is Johan, which is nowhere near Julio.

 

As to the rest of your post. I didn't respond to it because I don't think you know what you are talking about. I watched each and every Papelbon start in '05. He stuggled with command both early and late. What made the difference was he got a lot of chasing early, and more patience the second time through the order. He was also throwing one pitch at the time, so it's no surpise the hitters made adjustments. Unless you can show me some velocity game logs, I'll go with my recollection that he held his velocity.

 

Here's the true absurdity of the situation though. I'm not contending he is a great starter, or will be a great starter immediately. I'm contending he can be. You are saying there's no way it can happen based on opinion, not fact as you like to claim. There is limited data to make any assertion from, yet you jump right in, don't you Julio?

 

The comedy is that you think you are reasonable here, and that I'm the irrational fanboy. I've made no assertions about how great he is going to be, so your comment about me being blinded by love is pure assumption on your part. I've taken what we have, limited to meaningless data, my own observations, and the relative values of elite RP vs elite SP, and have come to a conclusion that they should try it. You would rather have the immediate gratification, and there is a valid case for that. I don't take issue with the need for Papelbon as a closer this year. I take issue with your justification for it. You are justifying your point with extrapolated and unproven information. It is as if you didn't think the value of him closing was enough and felt the need to demean his value as a starter.

 

Lastly, me stating you don't have a clue is not insulting. It is what my opinion is based on what you have shared. Stating you don't know baseball is just more of the same. I have called you no names, Julio (aside from Julio, but you earned it). You threw the first dart in this post calling me a child.

[jacksonianmarch]

Medical professionals who have completeled their residency and specialize in orthopedics have stated this was the right move. Why am I to believe your brother, a surgical resident, over the specialist? Also, it's very comical that you ridicule someone for using the opinions of others while doing the same. Stop being so hypocritical. If their opinions means nothing, then so does your brother's. Besides, the people I believe are right are certainly more credible and have superior training to your brother.

 

The analogy fits. The muscles of the shoulder help hold the joint together, and the lack of regular rest combined with more intense action for a reliever put more strain on those muscles. This is about stress on the muscle. When the muscle is overtaxed, it will fail, for the sprinter, or fail to do its job, for the reliever. Anyone with even minimal understanding of muscle physiology knows that a muscle is more likely to fail after repeated intense use than it is to fail after regemented and less intense use.

 

The problem here is you are too full of yourself to drop your preconceived notions. I, like you, originally thought relieving was a better way to avoid injury, and it probably still is for most injury concerns, but this one is different. However, I know what I know and what I don't. You define idiocy by sticking to your guns in the face of contrary expert analysis. Oh, I questioned the opinion at first, but the reasoning was cold hard common sense regarding the physiology. So, I accepted that my perceived notion was wrong and moved on. You can't do that because your ego won't allow it. Pity for you.

 

In his defense ORS, they are both right. You can find medical professionals on both sides of the fence on this issue. Actually, for most tough decisions, you can find damn good doctors on both sides of the fence on nearly anything. I can see both sides of the argument. And Paps will be an anecdotal case for this discussion later. If he truly did strengthen the cuff while stabilizing the shoulder, then he should be in better shape. But he needs to keep up the shoulder strengthening during the season. Like I said, I am not going to be an orthopedist, so this is as far as I can go. But both are right until it plays out.

 

And it isnt like his brother doesnt have a useful opinion. He is in a surgical specialty and he did finish med school. Depending on how far he is into residency could make his opinion very useful.

 

And one other thing. These opinions are being displayed through the sox media net. Meaning, they really only allow what they want to hear to hit the airwaves. I have been trying to get an opinion from the ortho docs at my school, I'll see if I can get anything useful.

[ORS]

That's all well and good. I'm aware that there is not consensus on the issue. There rarely is on the source of greater stress regarding sports injuries. What I take issue with is the notion that they are somehow being sneaky and hiding the real reason for the move.

 

Immediately after his injury last year, there were reports from non-Sox media outlets stating that specialists (some even naming Dr. Andrews) thought the best move was to have him start in order to protect his shoulder. Gom portrays the issue as if they knew it was better for him to relieve all along, and that the reason they are putting him there now has less to do with need and more to do with being sneaky regarding the injury.

 

I have yet to see one report from one specialist stating that the move to the rotation was outright folly. There is other media outside of Boston, you know, and several members rejoice in painting the Sox FO as either laughable buffons or coniving ne'er-do-wells. If this was a prevalent opinion amongst the medical crowd, I'm certain we would have seen something from another media outlet (Murray Chass comes to mind).

 

I suspect this is for the reasons you have stated. No one is absolutely sure, but it seems like the majority opinion, at this point, is they were following sound medical advice.

[jacksonianmarch]

I think the only consensus was to have Papelbon strengthen the shoulder to a point where the laxity could become a non-issue. I had heard the media report that the subluxation was due to weak rotator cuff muscles. That could play into it, but a subluxation is essentially a "dislocation" with the joint returning to natural alignment. This would make the ligament the likely culprit. But the shoulder is essentially the most unique joint in the body and my expertise is only on a med school grad's level. From my training, I would believe that the glenohumeral ligaments were the culprits and the rotator cuff muscles getting stronger will help stabilize the joint extrinsically because the intrinsic ligaments are weak. Either way, his cuff sounds like it is very sound right now, and the fact that he is throwing at all makes last yr look less and less likely to recur. Either way, if it were me, I'd call Andrews and just ask his opinion. He is the shoulder/elbow God.

[Mr Crunchy]

laxity shouldnt be an issue

eat a lot of fruit and muscle down a berry flavored smoothie and you should be ok

[CrespoBlows]

Julio Santana? I'm arguing about baseball with a guy that thinks Julio Santana is an elite pitcher (is he even a pitcher)? Thanks for making it easy. You don't know baseball' date=' so I won't waste any more of my own time.[/quote']

 

I think he meant to say, "turning Papelbon into a starter won't make him Julio Santana," as in turning Papelbon into a starter won't make him a journeyman minor league pitcher, but the star of the Minnesota Twins, Johan.

 

He's subconsiously agreeing with us.

[Gom]

Medical professionals who have completeled their residency and specialize in orthopedics have stated this was the right move. Why am I to believe your brother, a surgical resident, over the specialist? Also, it's very comical that you ridicule someone for using the opinions of others while doing the same. Stop being so hypocritical. If their opinions means nothing, then so does your brother's. Besides, the people I believe are right are certainly more credible and have superior training to your brother.

 

The analogy fits. The muscles of the shoulder help hold the joint together, and the lack of regular rest combined with more intense action for a reliever put more strain on those muscles. This is about stress on the muscle. When the muscle is overtaxed, it will fail, for the sprinter, or fail to do its job, for the reliever. Anyone with even minimal understanding of muscle physiology knows that a muscle is more likely to fail after repeated intense use than it is to fail after regemented and less intense use.

 

The problem here is you are too full of yourself to drop your preconceived notions. I, like you, originally thought relieving was a better way to avoid injury, and it probably still is for most injury concerns, but this one is different. However, I know what I know and what I don't. You define idiocy by sticking to your guns in the face of contrary expert analysis. Oh, I questioned the opinion at first, but the reasoning was cold hard common sense regarding the physiology. So, I accepted that my perceived notion was wrong and moved on. You can't do that because your ego won't allow it. Pity for you.

 

Come on ORS, think about it. Does it make sense? How can doing an action three times more over the course of seven months be a healthier option? It wasn't just me, or my brother, but every doctor and physical therapist I spoke to backed it up [most of my friends are die hard fans]. It just didn't make sense. This was that case. The truth is that four days is not enough time to heal the muscle, so he will severely degrade the muscle/joint to the point of injury by August in all likely hood. Your preconceived notion was correct ORS. You let yourself be swayed by so called "specialists". After all this, the Red Sox are supposed to agree with Papelbon, and put him at greater risk by going against what their specialists and putting him back in the pen? You are saying that they don't care about this young phenom's health or career, and now put him back in the bullpen? Oh, I forgot, his shoulder is healthy. That's the reason to pitch him less innings. If it was destroyed, throw him in the rotation for 200 IP. Doesn't make sense. I can't believe I'm saying this, but you were right, you just changed your mind.

 

All in all, I hate injuries, so I hope Papelbon stays healthy and has a decent career.

[ORS]

Gom, four days is more than enough for muscle recovery. You should know this as a former athlete. Hell, if it wasn't then starters wouldn't have throw days in between starts. When muscle failure is most likely to occur is on consecutive days of use, even more so than with sustained use and regular rest. This is where the inning count becomes a bit irrelevant. If your contention is that it will be better for him provided that they don't use him on consecutive days, then I'd agree. But, what is the usefulness of that?

 

Sure, I allowed my opinion be be swayed by those more trained than I. What they were saying agreed with my own knowledge of physiology. And, this is the most important part, I haven't see one go on the record with a contrary opinion.

[Gom]

If four days was enough, then pitchers could pitch year round. It isn't. The body eventually wears down. I always felt run down at the end of a season, even though we didn't play nearly as often as pro athletes. Remember, this isn't just a muscle issue. Far from it. In fact, it is a joint problem. The rest and recovery and strengthening of the muscle around it creates a natural encapsulation that keeps the humerus in place.

 

Now, with this being said, the more the action takes place, the bigger the chance of the humerus popping out. Although rest and recovery will help, the fact isn't the damage done on one pitch..it's the cumulative effect. The third pitch has a bigger effect than the second, which had a bigger effect than the first, etc.

 

Think about yourself. Is it easier on your body to work out for 20 minutes every other day or four hours every four days?

[ORS]

In the end, it is the strengthening of the muscle that will keep the house of cards together, so I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that it isn't a muscle issue. Taxing the muscle will create a situation where a future subluxation could occur. I'm aware of the cumulative effect, and I agree that there would be some danger when he got into the upper range of pitches. That is why a move to the rotation would have to be accompanied by a "stretching out" period where he developed muscle stamina. We aren't talking about him going from throwing one inning to throwing 7 overnight. He'd have to start with a limit and work up. This is what he was doing prior to last year and there was never a problem or scare.

 

I think the greater danger is consecutive days of usage. Everything I have learned or read about muscle fatigue has cautioned against repeated intense usage without rest. Remember, he got hurt in game that was his 3rd appearance in 3 days. This is no coincidence.

 

Your workout ratios are all off. First of all, a RP has to warm up before each outing, so there is warmup time to consider. Second, your timing places it at 12 to 1. A typical start is about 100 pitches, and a typical relief appearance is around 15. That's about a 6.5 to 1 ratio. And, it makes no mention of intensity or consecutive day usage. Is it easier on your body to run at a full sprint for 35 minutes every day or to run at a comfortable pace every 4th day? That is much more analogous to the situation.

 

In the end, his shoulder has been cleared to make this move, so I'm not overly concerned about injury going forward. I don't think this team would risk an asset like that. So, while the point may be moot now, I still agree with the original assessment, and I still think that if there were strong contrary opinions from professionals in the field, then we would have seen them. We haven't, and that says a lot to me.

[RobZombie]

One Red Seat:

 

Suffice to say you are completely wrong about Papelbon....I think its obvious that you really don't know as much about baseball as you say you do. I am aware that I had a momentary lapse on Johan Santanna's first name, credit it to lack of sleep and old age. But I don't think that detracts from my original argument.

 

I personally believe that the chances that Jonathan Papelbon would ever become an elite starter are slim. I didn't make up the idea that Papelbon doesn't maintain his velocity. I received the info from a pretty reliable source. Again, my source for this information was a Peter Gammons radio interview on Mike and Mike in the morning, the day after it was announced that Papelbon would return to the pen. According to Gammons, "several scouts tell me that around the 4th inning his velocity would go from 94 to about 88." I don't think I was dreaming either because Scaffolds mentioned the very same thing on another board. I'm not a scout and I wasn't charting his velocity nor do I have a log of his velocity, but I'd say that if Gammons says that several scouts told him something, its as good as actual fact. Even if you think "I don't know baseball" and "I don't have a clue". I think its pretty obvious that Peter Gammons HAS a clue, and either he or the people he is interviewing, DO know baseball.

 

Your argument is that there is a significant chance that with time Papelbon would build up his endurance. I think the chances of this happening are quite slim. He was starter for two years and he was still not maintaining his velocity. If two years aren't enough for him to build this endurance how is three going to help? Compounding this, is that he's coming off a shoulder injury, AND would have to increase his innnings pitched by a large amount. If anything his enducrance would probably get WORSE as time went on. Sure stranger things have happened, but I think the odds of him becoming an elite starter are quite long. He sure as heck would have trouble getting guys out throwing 88.

 

As far as your insults of me...and denying that they are insults...I think that stating that "I don't have a clue"...and that "I don't know baseball", is childish. Again just my opinion. There are certain posters on message boards that like to question the accumen or knowledge of the person they are debating with when they are losing an argument. Its pretty clear to me that when you state things like this, its because you are losing the argument. You didn't attack my ideas, you attacked me personally, and to me that's extremely unclassy and childish.

 

No I am not in favor of throwing away 2007 because of the small chance that Papelbon might become one of the best pitchers in the league. I'll take the 80+% chance that he's one of the best closers in the league.

 

I look forward to your response....which I am sure will basically deny that the Gammons interview ever occured, and that I don't know baseball because I had a temporary brain cramp on the first name of the best pitcher in baseball.

[Mr Crunchy]

paps is still young

who knows how he would develop as a starter

we never stretched him out enuff to determine this and when he did get the ball as a rookie he fared ok

it isnt in cement that he dont have the endurance to become a 7ip guy