Josh Beckett

[3rdManOut]

This whole topic reminds me of the Dodger's Sandy Koufax in 1966. I think that might have been his last season before his arm gave out ending his career. I forget if his arm "exploded" so to speak or if he had developed some type sickness in his arm. But he had pitched complete games before I believe.

 

In any event, getting back to Beckett, in the past I have seen Beckett pitch and when he was doing really well with the Sox up past the comfort point in the score, they would still pull him out of games even if he didnt want to go out. But because of the whole pitch count issue he was pulled. Wouldnt it sound better and more intimidating if your team went up against a pitcher who was known more for pitching complete games?

[a700hitter]

This whole topic reminds me of the Dodger's Sandy Koufax in 1966. I think that might have been his last season before his arm gave out ending his career. I forget if his arm "exploded" so to speak or if he had developed some type sickness in his arm. But he had pitched complete games before I believe.

 

Koufax had been racking up seasons of 300+ innings. Add to that the fact that the Dodgers were in the World Series in 1965 and 66 and he was pitching on 2 days rest sometimes. His elbow was hurting pretty bad, but he never had any structural damage. Some Doctor told him that he was developing arthritis in his elbow. Koufax quickly retired saying that he had to think about life after baseball and he didn't want a crippled arm. He retired at age 30. It was a huge shock to the sports world.

 

I believe that if the money was as huge back then as it is now that he would have continued to pitch. He was making $125k which was huge money for the time, taking into consideration inflation and the devalued dollar, it was still chump change compared to today's salaries. He got a job immediately on network broadcasting and probably was making pretty close to what he made as a player without the health risks.

 

He never did have any arthritis problems with his elbow post retirement. I read and heard stories that he would go to Dodgers Spring Training and throw BP into his mid-late 50's throwing in the mid to high 80's and no one could hit him.

[jung]

I remember Sandy mainly for one of the only true 12 to 6 curve balls I have ever seen in my entire life. it broke hard late as well and for the life of me you would see guys looking like they were swinging at air...just no shot.

 

For most of his career he just carried those two pitches....that exploding fastball of his that at times must have actually been scary for hitters with all that late movement right at the plate and then he would drop that curve on them. It just did not seem fair.

 

Actually I would dearly love to catch an old game clip of him taken from the center field TV position. It was hard not to be amazed at what the ball would do.

[a700hitter]

I remember Sandy mainly for one of the only true 12 to 6 curve balls I have ever seen in my entire life. it broke hard late as well and for the life of me you would see guys looking like they were swinging at air...just no shot.

 

For most of his career he just carried those two pitches....that exploding fastball of his that at times must have actually been scary for hitters with all that late movement right at the plate and then he would drop that curve on them. It just did not seem fair.

 

Actually I would dearly love to catch an old game clip of him taken from the center field TV position. It was hard not to be amazed at what the ball would do.

Every once in a while the MLB Channel replays the World Series clinching game in 1965 pitched by Koufax. I think there are some good shots from behind the pitcher, but the broadcast is in Balck and White.

[seabeachfred]

I live in the metropolitan Los Angeles area and though I have no use for the Dodgers and haven't since they left Brooklyn (I'm originally from Queens), I tried to see Koufax pitch as often as I could because there was always a chance he could throw a no-hitter. From 1962-1966 he could rank right up there with the greatest pitchers in baseball history, and as 700 pointed out, back then pitchers like him, Maloney, Gibson, Marichal and Drysdale pitched over 300 innings a year, they completed the vast majority of their games, and they pitched every fourth day instead of five.

 

Get the impression I'm not a big fan of these damn pitch counts. Beckett is a six or seven innings pitcher but I really believe he could complete a helluva lot more games than he does and that goes for Lester and Bucholz as well. Nolan Ryan has brought that mindset to the Texas Rangers with impressive results. My guess is that with so much money tied into contracts pitchers and their agents don't want to risk an injury to their meal tickets, nor do they want to do what Koufax did after every game his last two years-----soak his elbow in a tub of freezing water. Of course they won't win 26 and 27 games as he did those last two seasons either.

[User Name]

And the rhetoric of the "Nolan Ryan mindset" continues.

 

Baseball Reference has a detailed statistic for pitch average per start for starting pitchers.

 

Here's the average number of pitches per starts for the Rangers rotation:

 

Dave Bush: 72

 

Scott Feldman: 93

 

CJ Wilson: 106

 

Matt Harrison: 100

 

Colby Lewis: 100

 

Alexi Ogando: 93

 

Derek Holland: 100

 

Rangers pitch/start average: 99.

 

League pitch/start average: 98.

 

The numbers state otherwise. Texas was right about league average in pitches per start.

 

Their IP/GS (Innings pitched per games started) was exactly the same as the league average: 6.1

[jung]

There are guys that have bionic arms. Nolan Ryan fits into that category as a pitcher but I don't think anything that he is doing in Texas is an effort to overlay what he was capable of onto those pitchers. There may have been 10 guys in the history of baseball with an arm like Ryan's and he is as aware of that as anybody. It will likely take a number of years for the records to compile so that we can really see what benefit the Rangers get from the systemwide changes that they have made.

 

I do agree that regardless of the fact that work that strengthens the arm would produce more innings pitched without injury, agents are going to be on the other side of any such argument. In fact the agents are just about the only guys that truly benefit from the reduced number of complete games and innings pitched by pitchers. Pitchers likely benefit monetarily but they will never be considered in the same class as the Gibsons', Ryans', Seavers' and Koufax' of the world and well they should not be.

[a700hitter]

Texas had 10 complete games

Boston had 2 complete games

[User Name]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the pitch count issues. If a pitcher can do more with less pitches, then great. There's also the fact that statistically, the Texas rotation was far superior to the Red Sox rotation, yet their starters had pretty much the same amount of pitches per start.

 

Even if you use just the main starting fives (No spot-starters) you end up with 100 pitches/start for Texas starters, and 97 pitches per start for Boston starters.

[jung]

And Holland went 116 tonight, was allowed to pitch into the 9th inning and was lifted based on the same logic Managers all used to use. He was getting his pitches up in the strike zone clearly evidenced by the last batter he was allowed to face. That happens because the pitchers arm is tiring and that is why he was lifted. He was allowed to make his case but there was no way the ball was not going to be taken from his hands at that point.

[User Name]

It also depends on the manager. I'll go out on a limb and say that if Jimmy Leyland was the manager and Justin Verlander was pitching, he would have finished that game. Ryan can say whatever he wants, but the game is played on the field and Washington has a relatively quick hook.

[a700hitter]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the pitch count issues. If a pitcher can do more with less pitches, then great. There's also the fact that statistically, the Texas rotation was far superior to the Red Sox rotation, yet their starters had pretty much the same amount of pitches per start.

 

Even if you use just the main starting fives (No spot-starters) you end up with 100 pitches/start for Texas starters, and 97 pitches per start for Boston starters.

Average pitch count is not the issue. Francona seemed to be obsessed with getting starters to 100 pitches resulting in the frustrating frequency of starters giving up 7 runs. It seemed to me that Crack Head Washington would pull starters earlier in games when they weren't pitching well. Plus, he had a better bull pen so he could go to it earlier. I don't think average pitch count shows much. I think Ryan's influence regarding pitch count may be reflected in those games where the starters went 115+ pitches. The overall average isn't a good measure if managers like Tito are leaving pitches in to get to 100 pitches regardless of the number of runs surrendered.

[jung]

I would say that the starting pitcher would have had a much better chance of not being lifted if the score was 5-0 instead of 4-0 since you can't hit a 5 run home run. However based on where the ball was going to the last batter Holland faced, based on the same set of circumstances I would be surprised to have seen Holland left in the game by Leland and I even doubt that Verlander would have been allowed to stay again based on where the last 5-6 pitches Holland threw were going. In fact the last pitch he threw was a dead nuts lollypop. It was the only true lollypop that he threw in the entire game. He clearly had no control of where that pitch was going. Had it been a few inches lower it would have very likely not come back to him from the catcher. It had nothing on it and it was dead straight.

[User Name]

The Texas Rangers had 104 starts where their SP went between 100-119 pitches, and three where they went 120 +. The Boston Red Sox had 78 starts where their SP went between 100-119 pitches, and five where they went 120+ pitches. Keep in mind this is without Dice-K Matsuzaka or Clay Bucholz pitching the whole season, both of whom combined for 39 100-119 pitches starts last year. The 2010 Sox had 110 starts of 100-119 pitches by their starters by the way.

 

Essentially, this is, as stated before, mostly rhetoric. Francona was bad at managing a pitching staff, that is a certainty, but his sin was usually taking starters out too late (after they've been hammered) than too early.

[User Name]

I would say that the starting pitcher would have had a much better chance of not being lifted if the score was 5-0 instead of 4-0 since you can't hit a 5 run home run. However based on where the ball was going to the last batter Holland faced' date=' based on the same set of circumstances I would be surprised to have seen Holland left in the game by Leland and I even doubt that Verlander would have been allowed to stay again based on where the last 5-6 pitches Holland threw were going. In fact the last pitch he threw was a dead nuts lollypop. It was the only true lollypop that he threw in the entire game. He clearly had no control of where that pitch was going. Had it been a few inches lower it would have very likely not come back to him from the catcher. It had nothing on it and it was dead straight.[/quote']

 

I would disagree with you based on Leyland's decision to leave Verlander in against the Yankees on his second start in the ALDS against them. He came out in the seventh throwing nothing, got hammered, then got through eight.

[jung]

I would disagree with you based on Leyland's decision to leave Verlander in against the Yankees on his second start in the ALDS against them. He came out in the seventh throwing nothing, got hammered, then got through eight.

 

That is a totally specious argument and if you don't know why I sure and hell am not going to spend the time to explain it to you.

[User Name]

Well i was assuming that since Verlander was previously mentioned as one of the guys who has a "rubber arm" by equating the settings (playoff baseball) it would give validity to the fact that, more likely than not, Leyland would have continued his habit of letting Verlander throw 130 + pitches regardless of the initial results in an inning. It was more an attempt to illustrate the difference on the usual behaviors of some managers regarding some pitchers.

 

Observation of Leyland's management of Verlander for the season would tend to back up that statement.

[seabeachfred]

The Rangers had ten complete games; we had two. Ten is not an abnormal amount but it is five times what two is, and we have a real head twister here, and some of you hit it right on the head---and is one reason why I never had much use for Francona as a field manager. Too often he would lift a starting pitcher out after six innings, seven tops, if the pitch count got to 100-105 even if they were pitching a shutout or one run ball. I saw this with Beckett at least a half-dozen times in Boston and Anaheim, and San Diego. Yet, he was woefully slow in pulling a pitcher who was getting his pants ripped off (think Wakefield, Weiland, Miller, take your pick) until the pitch count reached between 90-100. That is why I treat lightly on this because the arguments can go either way, but I think the philosophical bent plays a big part in this. My guess is the Rangers' number of complete games will continue to rise, albeit slowly, while ours won't rise as fast unless we get a manager who knows how to use a pitching staff, something I do not believe Francona was adept at very well.

[SoxSport]

There's nothing that pisses me off more in a game when a manager takes out a starter who is cruising with a shutout, 2-0, after 100-110 pitches, with no signs of fatigue. And then blows the game bringing in a piece of crap from the bullpen who can't hold the starter's jock. And in some cases will waste 2-3 more pitchers out of the bullpen for the rest of the game. That's typical Francona, who went strictly by the FO book. The result was a burned out bullpen the FO had to replace every year, and a few games lost that should have been wins.

 

I don't know what the James Bible says about this, but I do know that statistically it is unwise to fix what isn't broke. It's also unwise to take any Bible too literally when it comes to the human element. What is the statistical measure of heart?

[ORS]

There's nothing that pisses me off more in a game when a manager takes out a starter who is cruising with a shutout, 2-0, after 100-110 pitches, with no signs of fatigue. And then blows the game bringing in a piece of crap from the bullpen who can't hold the starter's jock. And in some cases will waste 2-3 more pitchers out of the bullpen for the rest of the game. That's typical Francona, who went strictly by the FO book. The result was a burned out bullpen the FO had to replace every year, and a few games lost that should have been wins.

 

I don't know what the James Bible says about this, but I do know that statistically it is unwise to fix what isn't broke. It's also unwise to take any Bible too literally when it comes to the human element. What is the statistical measure of heart?

I don't think the 100-pitch count is a James construction, in fact I've read that he is not a supporter of the concept (not as a chiselled in stone rule at least). I do think it came from the movement he generated though (sabermetrics). I can't remember the source, ie the original study, but the synopsis I read indicated the study showed a strong correlation to shoulder/arm injuries when pitchers crossed the 100-110 pitch threshold....especially young pitchers or those with a history of arm injury. The problem seems to be that a cautionary threshold for young guys developing arm stamina and those being nursed back from injury is being used across the board. For veterans with no history of problems, it should be thrown out the window, IMO. They should pitch until they can't get hitters out.

[SoxSport]

I don't think the 100-pitch count is a James construction' date=' in fact I've read that he is not a supporter of the concept (not as a chiselled in stone rule at least). I do think it came from the movement he generated though (sabermetrics). I can't remember the source, ie the original study, but the synopsis I read indicated the study showed a strong correlation to shoulder/arm injuries when pitchers crossed the 100-110 pitch threshold....especially young pitchers or those with a history of arm injury. The problem seems to be that a cautionary threshold for young guys developing arm stamina and those being nursed back from injury is being used across the board. For veterans with no history of problems, it should be thrown out the window, IMO. They should pitch until they can't get hitters out.[/quote']

 

You're right about that. I don't know enough yet about James' views on pitchers, and my source credits the Red Sox medical staff for their handling of pitching--including their farm system. Where they got the pitch count limit I don't know.

 

Intuitively, the pitch count limit is a must for kids and young pitchers in the minors. Their arm and shoulder muscles aren't fully developed. But for mature major league pitchers--I doubt it. In fact , pitch count limits may be counterproductive and even weaken their arms--and their competitiveness. The ones I've talked to (2 or 3 hall of famers--great pitchers) don't like pitch counts, and would never agree to it. Jim Palmer told me Weaver wouldn't dare take him out under those circumstances, though Earl practiced sabermetrics with his teams. He was a very progressive manager--why the Orioles had great teams in those days.

[Dawgma]

When Shill left Beckett slumped.......... He needs a mentor all the time.

Plus the Sox changed his attitude.. He's not the high strung take no crap guy anymore.

They should have left him alone.

[SCM33]

Beckett looked great tonight.

 

Very encouraging after the disaster first start.

 

See......I dont just hate on the players, I give credit when due!!!! Hes still an ******* though...

[BornToRun]

Full disclosure, the fact that he's a belligerent ******* is part of the reason I love him so much. He's like Clemens, without the needle in his ass and grand jury ********.

[Dojji]

... and a great deal less consistent as an actual pitcher.

[SCM33]

Full disclosure' date=' the fact that he's a belligerent ******* is part of the reason I love him so much. He's like Clemens, without the needle in his ass and grand jury ********.[/quote']

 

Hes nothing like Clemens....

 

Clemens was pretty tame around these parts. He didnt start becoming a retard til he joined the Yankees.

 

Clemens also has a HOF career to back up anything that leaves his mouth.

[BornToRun]

Hes nothing like Clemens....

 

Clemens was pretty tame around these parts. He didnt start becoming a retard til he joined the Yankees.

 

Clemens also has a HOF career to back up anything that leaves his mouth.

 

Well, they're both big, loud, pricks from Texas who have no issues buzzing the tower.

[jung]

I don't know what baseball is going to do with guys like Clemens and others that fall into the same category of "preponderance of evidence" more than just suggests steroid use but for whom no definitive verdict has been rendered.

 

If I had to go by what I think I have seen so far, it looks like baseball is going to try to bury those guys. No induction into the HOF but no final, definitive decision one way or the other.

 

In this specific instance I think MLB has been pretty gutless. Either MLB should have the courage to deal with these guys or treat them like they were clean. It is not like we will not recognize what is happening when ten years from now Clemens and others like him are not allowed into the HOF.

 

I would love to know what really happened in Clemens case. From the outside looking in it looks to me like the government and MLB simply found a convenient way to side step the issue cause MLB was unwilling to deal with it. While Clemens ends up let off the hook on a technicality, I will bet you anything that he and others like him will never see the inside of the HOF as an inductee.

 

While Clemens has to be responsible for his own actions, there is a basic dishonesty here that is the responsibility of MLB. That said Clemens is not exactly shouting to the heavens to have his day in court.

[FredLynn]

Beckett looked great tonight.

 

Very encouraging after the disaster first start.

 

See......I dont just hate on the players, I give credit when due!!!! Hes still an ******* though...

 

He pitched a great game. No doubt about it. I watched the whole game and he hit his corners all night. His location was near perfect.

I am concerned that his velocity still maxed out at 91, the same as in the Detroit game. If he has to keep pitching there then there is very little room for error. It would indicate to me that he is not completely healthy.

[SoxSport]

Very few of these guys making big bucks can resist becoming prima donnas. And to some degree, the team has to live with it. Beckett has had his ups and downs, but he pitched well the start of last year--and for most of the year until September. When he stays focussed on the mound, he can be tough.

 

I noticed some early posts here about Verlander. The guy has pitched two great games to start the season--and has lost both of them. The first because the manager went to the closer in the 9th inning to get him a fantasy save, the second because the Rays got a few seeing eye hits in the 9th and the manager again made a mistake--replacing him with another pitcher instead of the closer. Leyland makes two mistakes, Verlander gets two losses, and his fantasy holders get pissed.