Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

The game looks different in three dimensions. There are things you see in person that you just can't see on the television.

I will always remember the first time I saw A.J. Burnett pitch in person. I'd seen him on the television, I'd read the scouting reports, I knew what his numbers were. I wasn't quite sure what everyone was yelling about. Then I saw his first start as a Blue Jay, against Boston in 2006. He didn't pitch well at all, but I was utterly dazzled anyway and instantly understood why every baseball man who's ever seen him pitch seemed so strangely excited. Burnett makes throwing a 97 mph fastball look easy. Ryan, Clemens, Halladay - they all look like they're working out there, like doing what they do requires a fairly significant effort. (Everyone who ever saw Nolan Ryan in person will remember the ear-splitting, Sharapova-level grunts that exploded from him with every pitch.) But A.J. Burnett looks like he's playing catch. It's that smooth, that easy, that effortless.

Mark Prior was like that, once upon a time. Prior was in the news last week - he's signed on with an independent league team, in yet another effort to revive his career. He's still just 29 years old. The conventional wisdom on Prior, I suppose, is that he was headed straight to the Hall of Fame, but Dusty Baker broke him in September and October of 2003. That might be true. Prior was worked pretty hard at a very young age. He was only 22 during that spectacular 2003 season, when he pitched more than 230 innings (including post-season) - and all this despite missing almost a month in mid-season. Now, of course, he hasn't pitched in a professional game since 2006.

Anyway, Prior made it look easy, too. There were actually people who said Prior came as close to having perfect pitching mechanics as anyone. And if his mechanics were that perfect, it must be the way he was used that destroyed him. Right? What else could it be? As the Cubs headed into September 2003, Prior had thrown more than 120 pitches in a game three times, topping out at 127 (as a 21 year old in 2002, he had one start of 135 pitches.) And then, in his 6 September starts, he did that pretty much every time out. In his 5 September wins, he threw from 124 to 133 pitches. He then made three post-season starts (topping out at 133 pitches in the first of them.)

Was this the workload that broke him? Maybe - he was awfully young (he turned 23 in the midst of it all.)

Or maybe his mechanics weren't that perfect after all. Chris O'Leary, who has studied the matter much more deeply than many of us, believes that Prior's mechanics were a disaster waiting to happen. He identifies something he calls the "Inverted W" - after Prior breaks his hands and brings his arm back, his elbow actually rises above the level of his shoulders. Like this:

O'Leary believes, not that this position is itself a problem, but that it destroys the timing of the delivery - that the arm has to catch up to the body as it turns into the pitch, putting enormous strain on the labrum and rotator cuff.

By the way, immediately after reading this article, I saw a picture of Shaun Marcum on the Jays website in mid-delivery. He was doing the exact same thing - an identical elbow position as he loads for delivery. Gulp.

So who the hell knows. Maybe it wasn't Dusty's fault after all. Not that he helped....

I don't believe very strongly in using pitch counts as a guide to much of anything. It's true that your modern manager behaves as if he believes in them absolutely, the way I believe in Elvis. I suspect, however, that something different is at work here (and it's not orders from the GM.) I think managers like pitch counts because it makes their lives so much simpler. It relieves them of that pesky burden of having to consider the situation and make an actual decision, replacing it with an automatic, reflex manoeuvre. Managers, who get second-guessed more than enough (way more than enough) are almost always happy with that.

Ultimately, I think pitch counts are next to useless as a guide to understanding pitcher abuse, for two reasons. One, we don't really know what actually constitutes pitcher abuse. We just don't know, and we probably never will, because: two) every pitcher is different. Neither Shaun Marcum or Jesse Litsch has ever been allowed to throw as many as 120 pitches in a major league game, not even once. It didn't save them from losing entire years out of their careers. Like so many others, they were broken along the way, but they were not necessarily abused. Whereas David Cone and Roger Clemens threw 140 or 150 pitches many times in their careers. They may have been abused, but they certainly weren't broken by it. Every pitcher is different.

But hey - we've now got more than 20 years of pitch count data for the Blue Jays and I thought it would be fun to find out every time a starter was asked to throw 120 pitches or more in a game.Be it noted that 120 pitches is a pretty random place to draw the line - except I do know that every time a pitcher gets up to 120 pitches in a game, everybody starts yelling. Never mind 130. Brandon Morrow, yesterday, was the first Toronto pitcher to clear 120 pitches in a game this season. No one from Cleveland or Oakland has thrown that many in a game. Jim Leyland and Terry Francona have had starters go that high six times apiece (Justin Verlander five times, to lead all AL pitchers.)

1988 (Jimy Williams)
Mike Flanagan (4) - 125, 128, 125, 127
Jim Clancy (4) - 132, 121, 120, 122
Dave Stieb (3) - 126, 129, 127
Jimmy Key (1) - 122

1989 (Williams 36 games, Cito Gaston 126 games)
John Cerutti (2) - 124, 120
Dave Stieb (1) - 122 (Williams)
Al Leiter (1) - 124 (Williams)
Jimmy Key (1) - 122
Mike Flanagan (1) - 122

1990 (Gaston)
Todd Stottlemyre - 120, 120, 124
Dave Stieb - 123, 120
David Wells - 133, 128
Jimmy Key - 124

1991 (Gaston 129 games, Gene Tenace 33 games)
Tom Candiotti (6) - 120, 127, 129, 125, 135 (Tenace), 123 (Tenace)
Jimmy Key (2) - 122, 120 (Tenace)
Todd Stottlemyre (1) - 126
David Wells (1) - 120
Juan Guzman (1) - 123

1992 (Gaston)
Juan Guzman (7) - 130, 127, 120, 128, 124, 120, 120
Jack Morris (5) - 144, 120, 120, 126, 120
David Cone (3) - 133, 141, 120
Jimmy Key (2) - 122, 122
Todd Stottlemyre (2) - 123, 122
David Wells (1) - 121

1993 (Gaston)
Juan Guzman (7) - 138, 122, 124, 125, 122, 129, 127
Pat Hentgen (4) - 122, 123, 120, 121
Dave Stewart (3) - 121, 122, 122
Todd Stottlemyre (2) - 124, 124
Jack Morris (1) - 135
Al Leiter (1) - 121

1994 (Gaston)
Pat Hentgen (10) - 133, 122, 135, 132, 126, 131, 130, 121, 126, 122
Juan Guzman (9) - 123, 125, 132, 121, 122, 123, 121, 122, 128
Dave Stewart (4) - 123, 135, 123, 128
Todd Stottlemyre (4) - 122, 121, 125, 121
Al Leiter (3) - 122, 120, 123

1995 (Gaston)
David Cone (11) - 125, 134, 127, 135, 126, 139, 135, 121 127, 131, 123
Al Leiter (10) - 120, 120, 122, 129, 120, 122, 134, 128, 138, 129
Pat Hentgen (9) - 125, 123, 121, 128, 128, 123, 124, 121, 126
Juan Guzman (6) - 133, 127, 129, 121, 126, 132
Edwin Hurtado (3) - 121, 124, 124
Giovanni Carrara (1) - 120

1996 (Gaston)
Pat Hentgen (13) - 134, 121, 125, 120, 120, 120, 120, 131, 132, 122, 120, 127, 137
Juan Guzman (4) - 122, 126, 135, 130
Erik Hanson (3) - 128, 121, 123
Huck Flener (1) - 139
Paul Quantrill (1) - 127
Woody Williams (1) - 123

1997 (Gaston 157 games, Mel Queen 5 games)
Roger Clemens (18) - 122, 131, 126, 126, 121, 129, 126, 126, 125, 135, 122, 137, 131, 121, 128, 137, 129, 144 (Queen)
Pat Hentgen (10) - 126, 124, 126, 122, 125, 131, 122, 123, 128, 126
Woody Williams (3) - 121, 128, 122
Robert Person (1) - 121
Luis Andujar (1) - 120

1998 (Tim Johnson)
Roger Clemens (15) - 128, 122, 149, 132, 125, 141, 121, 123, 132, 133, 134, 130, 125, 133, 135
Woody Williams (6) - 131, 120, 121, 121, 122, 134
Juan Guzman (6) - 134, 120, 120, 130, 124, 125
Pat Hentgen (4) - 128, 127, 122, 125
Chris Carpenter (4) - 134, 122, 126, 121
Kelvim Escobar (4) - 120, 122, 135, 123
Erik Hanson (1) - 124

1999 (Jim Fregosi)
David Wells (4) - 122, 122, 124, 129
Pat Hentgen (3) - 120, 123, 120
Chris Carpenter (3) - 120, 121, 131
Kelvim Escobar (1) - 132

2000 (Fregosi)
Kelvim Escobar (6) - 122, 130, 127, 130, 124, 126
Chris Carpenter (4) - 122, 121, 123, 129
David Wells (3) - 121, 126, 120
Esteban Loaiza (3) - 120, 123, 131
Steve Trachsel (1) - 124

2001 (Buck Martinez)
Chris Carpenter (3) - 122, 120, 124
Joey Hamilton (1) - 122
Esteban Loaiza (1) - 120

2002 (Martinez 53 games, Carlos Tosca 109 games)
Roy Halladay (1) - 126 (Martinez)
Pete Walker (1) - 122 (Tosca)

2003 (Tosca)
Kelvim Escobar (2) - 121, 131
Roy Halladay (2) - 120, 122
Cory Lidle (1) - 127

2004 (Tosca 112 games, John Gibbons 50 games)
Miguel Batista (2) - 123 (Tosca), 120 (Gibbons)
Ted Lilly (2) - 125 (Tosca), 126 (Gibbons)
Roy Halladay (1) - 124 (Tosca)
Josh Towers (1) - 128 (Gibbons)

2005 (Gibbons)
Roy Halladay (1) - 124

2006 (Gibbons)
Ted Lilly (2) - 120, 122
A.J. Burnett (1) - 121

2007 (Gibbons)
Roy Halladay (5) - 126, 125, 124, 126, 123
A.J. Burnett (4) - 125, 130, 120, 124
Dustin McGowan (1) - 122

2008 (Gibbons 74 games, Gaston 88 games)
Roy Halladay (2) - 121 (Gibbons), 130 (Gaston)
Dustin McGowan (1) - 125 (Gibbons)
A.J. Burnett (1) - 120 (Gaston)
David Purcey (1) - 120 (Gaston)

2009 (Gaston)
Roy Halladay (1) - 133

2010 (Gaston)
Brandon Morrow (1) - 137

Let's make a pretty picture of it all.

Let's quickly add up how often individual starters were asked to do this work:

53 - Pat Hentgen
40 - Juan Guzman
33 - Roger Clemens
15 - Al Leiter
14 - Davis Cone, Chris Carpenter
13 - Kelvim Escobar, Roy Halladay
12 - Todd Stottlemyre
11 - David Wells
10 - Woody Williams
7 - Dave Stewart, Jimmy Key
6 - Tom Candiotti, Jack Morris, A.J. Burnett, Dave Stieb
5 - Mike Flanagan
4 - Jim Clancy, Erik Hanson, Esteban Loaiza, Ted Lilly
3 - Edwin Hurtado
2 - John Cerutti, Miguel Batista, Dustin McGowan
1 - Giovanni Carrara, Huck Flener, Paul Quantrill, Robert Person, Luis Andujar, Steve Trachsel, Joey Hamilton, Pete Walker, Cory Lidle, Josh Towers, David Purcey, Brandon Morrow
0 - Ricky Romero, Shaun Marcum, Brett Cecil, Jesse Litsch, Brian Tallet, Mark Rzepczynski, Scott Richmond, Casey Janssen, Gustavo Chacin, Scott Downs, Tomo Ohka, David Bush, Justin Miller, Mark Hendrickson, Doug Davis, Steve Parris, Luke Prokopec, Brandon Lyon, Chris Michalak, Frank Castillo, Marty Janzen, Danny Darwin, Jeff Musselman, and a Bunch of Other Guys who made fewer than 10 starts for Toronto.

A few thoughts: Cito Gaston has had a long run managing this team, and his approach has changed, and changed, and changed yet again. When he replaced Jimy Williams, he was even more reluctant to let his starters throw a lot of pitches (and by 1980s standards, Williams was pretty cautious.) Gaston gradually began to let his starters go deeper - partially because the team was acquiring on the one hand veteran mercenaries like Cone and Morris, who had demonstrated conclusively that they could handle the load, and on the other hand hard-throwing wild men like Guzman and Leiter, who needed 100 pitches just to get through five innings. And then, around 1995-96, Gaston's bullpen was swallowed up and disappeared off the face of the earth. He literally had no one out there. There really were times when it was one journeyman (Tony Castillo) and five AAA guys. In response, Gaston started going as deep with his starters as he possibly could. Edwin Hurtado, in half a season, had more 120 pitch outings under Gaston than Dave Stieb.

Tim Johnson liked to leave the starters out there to throw a lot of pitches, and he didn't care if it was the Cy Young winner or a rookie. The 120 pitch outings drop significantly under Jim Fregosi, and come the new millennium, with Buck Martinez, Carlos Tosca, and John Gibbons, these outings become an endangered species. And Gaston Mark Two is definitely following the new trend.

And in these 20 seasons, just four times has a Blue Jay pitcher thrown more than 140 pitches in a game. Some of you may actually remember Jack Morris' Opening Day statement game against the Tigers in 1992. Gaston would also let David Cone, a veteran hired gun bound for free agency, throw 141 pitches that September. It's remarkable that one of these four games came during Mel Queen's brief tenure running the team at the end of 1997 - it was Clemens, as was the biggest Blue Jay pitch count of the last 20 years, Clemens against Oakland in May 1998.

Posted by Magpie on Monday, August 09 2010 @ 12:09 AM EDT.

Counting Pitches | 75 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Callum - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 02:04 AM EDT (#220179) #

Many pitchers use the "inverted W" delivery without experiencing injury. Don't get too stressed out about Marcum. Who knows really why some pitchers are susceptible to injury and others not? Not all men are created equal...

Callum - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 02:08 AM EDT (#220180) #

Also, how the hell was Huck Flener able to throw 139 pitches in one game!? Astounding.

Magpie - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 02:24 AM EDT (#220181) #

Don't get too stressed out about Marcum.

Oh, it got me. I spent a long time looking over O'Leary's piece - he's got frame-by-frame videos comparing Prior's motion to Maddux and Johnson. Quite fascinating. And then, when I'm done, the very next thing I see is Marcum making that inverted W. There may even have been creepy organ music out of a a horror movie suddenly coming up... it was spooky, man!

Moe - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 07:25 AM EDT (#220184) #

I'm not against having someone pitch 130-140 pitches in a situation like this if they routinely go up to 120. But that's not the case with Morrow. He has been super protected and as a result this was a huge increase (+23 pitches) over his previous high. As others have said (to defend 137), you can do it every now and then and you only build the strength by throwing those pitches. But this is exactly my point, Morrow has not been allowed to go this high all season (would be a completely different story with Doc). This is what makes it so risky in my opinion, he just not used to this. And not being used to do something and then pushing through, this is where a lot of the injuries start.

Of course, I hope nothing will happen and I'm not doing this to look smart in a few months (like Will claimed on his blog). I just wonder whether given the circumstances of this particular outing it was smart to let him get the final out. And I stand by my view that it wasn't. Play it save and protect the young arm (like the Jays have all season).

lexomatic - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 08:51 AM EDT (#220187) #

moe's answer is exactly why i wanted him gone after 8, or at least a man up ready to take over at any sign of trouble in the 9th.

Gerry - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 09:22 AM EDT (#220189) #

There is no way Cito Gaston could have pulled Morrow from that game with the no-hitter intact and it was probably difficult for Gaston to have had anyone in the bullpen ready to take over. Baseball players are not statistically inclined, they are out there to win and to achieve. Morrow was in the middle of doing something that all those pitchers dream of, and if Cito had pulled Morrow on account of his pitch count there would be a lot of complaining today from the players. Cito would have lost the respect of his players. There was not one player on either team who would have agreed with pulling Morrow until he gave up the hit. I agree that it would have been better if Morrow did not throw 135 pitches but that's the luck of the draw, he gets to keep going until his arm falls off.

I heard an interview with Dr James Andrews a few months ago and he said that a lot of injuries happen when athletes are fatigued. They could be fatigued from a long inning, from a long game, or from a long season. So his advice was for pitchers under age 25 to limit the above three factors. He did say, as Magpie does, that despite this advice you never know. He sees pitchers regularly with sore arms who have done everything right, there is some element of genetics and/or luck in getting injured.

At this stage Morrow has game related fatigue. The Jays will need to get him to, and through, his next start without significantly adding to that fatigue.

Spifficus - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 09:30 AM EDT (#220191) #

I'm not too worried about his pitch count at this point, as long as they ease off for the next couple starts, or skip him, skip his side session, or something like that. I didn't see any signs of fatigue until the 9th, and that wasn't worrisome fatigue. It looked like normal fatigue that a pitcher gets in their last inning of work, where they elevate their breaking ball and/or fly open a little bit, but didn't lose any stuff. If I were in Gaston-sized shoes I would have left him in for the 9th, and quite possibly in for that last batter.

Magpie - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 09:35 AM EDT (#220192) #

At this stage Morrow has game related fatigue. The Jays will need to get him to, and through, his next start without significantly adding to that fatigue.

I think I agree with that - a bunch of relatively taxing outings in succession worries me more than any single game. And, alone of my tribe, I care more about the minutes it all takes than the number of pitches thrown along the way.

Morrow turned 26 a couple of weeks ago. Roger Clemens turned 26 at the beginning of August in 1988. Through the end of July 1988, Clemens was pitching about as well as a man can pitch. He was 15-5, 2.24 with 232 Ks in 193 IPT. However, in his last two July starts, he threw first 162 and then 154 pitches. The first of those games, by the way, was played in Texas. In late July. Holy smokes! Obviously, there wasn't any long-term damage, but over the final two months of the season Clemens went 3-7, 4.82 and fanned just (just!) 59 in 71 IPT.

I'd accept that as an instance of Pitcher Abuse! 162 pitches, in Texas, in July! Temperature at game time was 100 degrees...

jmoney - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 09:55 AM EDT (#220193) #

It was a start for the ages. Let the kid have his day.

They can skip his next start if too many pitch counters are on Cito's back. That seems to placate some of them.

Mike Green - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 10:11 AM EDT (#220194) #

I wasn't watching yesterday, so I cannot comment about Morrow's delivery and pacing late in the game (which would be the key factors in deciding how tired he was). It probably helped that the dome was closed. Nothing like AC on a muggy summer's day.

Walton, it seems to me, has none of the machismo that Arnsberg had. It seems likely that Morrow was not sent out there in the ninth to prove a point about his toughness, but rather in recognition of the exceptional game he was pitching. For a 26 year old pitcher, I don't have a problem in principle with this. You wouldn't want to do that every outing, but I am sure that they won't.

Mike Green - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 10:12 AM EDT (#220195) #

Or, what Gerry, Magpie and Spifficus said.

lexomatic - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 10:16 AM EDT (#220196) #

just because someone did something in the past doesn't make it ok...
my argument is all about risk aversion, you don't put an asset at risk for personal glory. a shared no hitter is still a no hitter. people seem to be forgetting that point. everyone
there have also been enough shared no hitters in the history of the game that it should be no big deal to have someone from the pen take over. people talk of Cito's guts to let him finish the game. it doesn't change that it was bad decision making. it takes more guts to make the right decision against popular opinion defending the pitch count talks about how we don't know whether it really has an effect. true, WE DON'T know, and that's all the more reason NOT to do something. If someone jumped off a bridge and survived, and we dont' know if that height is high enough to hurt you, do you still jump? not unless you have problems, or are really really dumb. or for another analogy, do you drill an oil well when you aren't sure if you can close it if something goes unexpectedly wrong?

I repeat, this was dumb because:
*we don't know what the effect on the body will be.
*Morrow hasn't regularly worked to such a level before so it presents a significant jump, even taking into consideration the ease of innings 1-8
*he has as much potential as anyone on the staff to be a difference maker.
*he figures into the organization's plans at least while he is controllable, or until someone better comes along.
(this isn't Brian Tallet, who nobody except him and his agent care if he throws another pitch ever again. )
* a shared no -hitter is still a no-hitter. * pitching injuries happen often, it's one thing if it happens in the course of things, it's another thing entirely if a player is pushed.

Am I particularly concerned about the one game? no, but I am concerned about what it represents, and in general the defense of putting a pitcher at risk, however slightly. i don't think a team should ever allow this to happen, because then you have assets on the disabled list paid by insurance (until they won't cover you).
bad asset management, bad financial management.

Dave Till - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 10:20 AM EDT (#220197) #

In addition baseball players are very superstitious. If Cito had the bullpen warming up in the middle of a no-hitter that would be a jinx, or bad karma. A lot of baseball players will stay in their same spot on the bench or in the bullpen as long as the no-hitter is in play.

Another thing I noticed, while I was watching the game on TV: the other players left Morrow completely alone between innings. They made a point of not even sitting near him on the bench. I think this is a baseball superstition as well - they don't want to say or do anything to throw off his concentration or hint that, well, the number of hits he had given up was, er, not very large.

The announcing team were in line with this too: not once, during the course of the broadcast, did either of the Jays' announcers even hint that Morrow was pitching a no-no. They mentioned his strikeouts a lot, and pointed out that Morrow was being overwhelmingly dominant - but they didn't mention the hit count. The "Game In A Flash" summary, produced late in the game, did briefly show a shot of the Rays' hit column - I was actually annoyed with them for doing this.

Chuck - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 10:34 AM EDT (#220199) #

While I concur with leaving the pitcher alone -- no-hitter or not, let him stay focused -- I find the whole superstition forbidding broadcast teams to discuss no-hitters to be asinine. Do we really want to go around acting as if jinxes exist? Maybe we can start burning witches again.

CSHunt68 - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 10:36 AM EDT (#220200) #

The problem with the "risk aversion" argument, is that you've arbitrarily drawn a line where you think the risk is too great.
Frankly, the physical act of pitching itself is risky to a person's health - so, if you wanted to be totally risk-averse, you'd never let anyone pitch ever. Since you don't think the Jays are contending this year, don't you think the best option would be to shut EVERYONE down? That is, everyone you think will contribute when the Jays are ready? Naturally, not - the key pieces of the Jays puzzle will only develop by playing. So, Morrow must start, if you think he's worth protecting. So, you draw the line somewhere above zero pitches.
Where you draw the line is a matter of debate - this is NOT an open and shut issue, no matter how you wish to portray it. For all you know, throwing this number of pitches will HELP him in the long-run. You're just guessing, like the rest of us.

Paul D - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 11:08 AM EDT (#220202) #

Slightly off-topic, but who were the TV guys yesterday?

Spifficus - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 11:12 AM EDT (#220203) #

I always find it amusing to hear broadcast teams try to find 1000 different ways to communicate what's happening without actually using "no-hitter". If the broadcast team is talented enough, it can lead to some colourful turn of phrases. Buck was pretty good at this earlier in the season when it seemed a starter was throwing 6+ no-hit innings every time out. It seemed he would get as close as possible without actually uttering the words. It's rather surprising, considering he was an ex-player.

That's actually something to keep in mind - TV crews typically have at least one ex-player, who, if they were fortunate enough to be on the field for one (or a near-miss) remember the superstitions involved, and carry them into the booth, whether out of belief or out of respect.

whiterasta80 - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 11:16 AM EDT (#220204) #

Well put CSHunt68, I think that the benefit on confidence gained by having thrown either a no hitter, or even a 17K shutout is worth the risk of throwing 15 extra pitches.

Plus there were all kinds of mitigating factors, pitching indoors, relatively quick pace of the game, no extended innings (on either side), very few spots missed, the maintenance of velocity throughout the game. For God sakes we don't even know how many he threw warming up (its not out of the realm of possibility that his warmup was shorter than normal).

I'd argue that his start on July 10th (4 IP, 100 pitches, runs allowed in the first 3 innings, pitching from the stretch constantly) or any of his April away starts are far more likely to tax him than his very clean and efficient (considering the Ks) game yesterday.

Chuck - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 11:20 AM EDT (#220205) #

Slightly off-topic, but who were the TV guys yesterday?

Sam Cosentino (filling in for Buck Martinez) and Pat Tabler. Jamie Campbell was parking cars.

jerjapan - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 11:30 AM EDT (#220206) #

*he figures into the organization's plans at least while he is controllable, or until someone better comes along.
(this isn't Brian Tallet, who nobody except him and his agent care if he throws another pitch ever again. )

Alexi, I can't buy this 'kid gloves' argument - from a managerial perspective, if you treat two members of your team with different standards, you are doing some serious damage to the concept of 'team' and this group does seem like a team to me. Ostensibly, Wells is the leader on this team, and you saw him giving up the body to preserve the no hitter.

Cito managed Morrow the same way he would manage any veteran who'd earned his trust -he asked him if he could finish off the game, and gave him the chance to do it when he said he could. Players aren't totally naive - their agents and the team would make them well aware of the need to preserve their arms - but being an athlete is about pushing past your limits.

Mike Green - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 11:30 AM EDT (#220207) #

Eight games out of a playoff spot in early August is enough to get me looking at schedules. The Jays have 9 games left with the Sox and Yankees and 6 with the Rays. Right now, that seems more like a challenge and an opportunity than an imposing obstacle.

joeblow - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 11:33 AM EDT (#220208) #

Very interesting stats with a dramatic drop off in 120+ pitch starts recently.

Not sure why there is a big concern. The Jays pitchers are being babied along quite a bit (justifiably at this point in the franchise). But they need to experience some starts out of their comfort zone in order to grow.

Morrow is not a 22 year old kid. He's 26 and coming into his prime. For the Jays top starters to really blossom over the next few years I would expect they could stretch their games by about an inning each. I'm guessing it's rare to win 18-20 games by averaging 6 innings.Would be nice to check stats on this.

Magpie - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 11:44 AM EDT (#220209) #

I am concerned about what it represents

Well, what it represents ought to encourage you. It represents an exception, rather than standard operating procedure. It's the only time Cito Gaston has let a pitcher who wasn't Roy Halladay throw more than 120 pitches in a game during the last two seasons. It is the exception to the extreme amount of caution he's exercised.

Bearing in mind, as always, that nobody actually knows anything...

85bluejay - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 11:45 AM EDT (#220210) #

I have to agree with what GERRY said .. if Cito had pulled Marrow, he likely would have lost the Team -. besides,

with the off day today, Marrow will get an extra day off.

MIKE, it is intriguing that the Jays are 8 back and only 3.5 back of the Sox/Twins and we have games left against

all 3 teams - the depressing thing is that the RAYS have the easiest last week schedule in baseball

Mick Doherty - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 11:53 AM EDT (#220211) #

Baseball players are not statistically inclined

I understand, and even agree with, what you're meaning to say here, but in a very real way, that is exactly wrong. Especially in this Big Dollar Era, players are VERY aware of their numbers, probably moreso than ever before, because Big Numbers on the fields mean Big Number$ in the checkbook.

There have always been stories of players who -- Gregg Jefferies comes to mind as one I heard about -- "calculate their batting average while running to first base" but now, I think awareness of numbers is extremely important to many, obviously not all, ballplayers.

Mike Green - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 11:58 AM EDT (#220212) #

Zack Greinke watches his FIP. Many players spend hours and hours watchin video. I'll bet that a number are familiar with pitch f/x. The times they are a-changing...

rtcaino - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 12:01 PM EDT (#220213) #

Maybe we can start burning witches again.

With due process, I am not against that. We just need to update our methods for finding who the real witches are.

Though obviously we should be much more concered with the Werewolf/Vampire thing these days.

Jonny German - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 12:10 PM EDT (#220215) #

I have to agree with what GERRY said .. if Cito had pulled Marrow, he likely would have lost the Team -.

No doubt. Pulling marrow sounds like a very painful surgical procedure, and there's no way Cito is qualified to do it.

brent - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 12:15 PM EDT (#220216) #

I'm curious what the buzz (if any) is around the team now? Have people started to take notice?

Is anyone here going to keep track of attendance figures changes?

whiterasta80 - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 12:35 PM EDT (#220218) #

I watched 9 innings of 3 consecutive games by the Jays for the first time this year. So my interest was piqued, but then I'm still a relatively hardcore fan. I think it will take time for people to believe again.

They key is for us to have the prospect of winning. We have a very intelligent casual fan-base which knows exactly what competing in the AL East entails. The reason so much buzz came out of this weekend was because we saw two potential franchise players on display. It at least gave us the brief illusion of one day competing in our division. But realistically only by actually making the playoffs, and proving its possible to compete, will we get the casual fan base back.

Alternatively we could just switch divisions or get some sort of realignment. I've said all along that if we were in the AL Central we'd average 32-38000 fans per game just because the sense of hopelessness would be gone.

brent - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 12:36 PM EDT (#220219) #

Actually, I found the numbers here.

They are only 3,000 behind last season's final average.

Mylegacy - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 12:37 PM EDT (#220220) #

FIRST: Magpie what an EXCELLENT post! Bravo!

SECOND: As to Morrow's game yesterday. Unless Morrow had been coming back from an injury the week before - or something similar - a manager who wouldn't give one of his starters a shot at a no-hitter - when that starter was obviously not struggling - is a BUM. And Cito - say what you will - he ain't no bum!

smcs - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 12:39 PM EDT (#220221) #

Is anyone here going to keep track of attendance figures changes?

Baseball-reference...is there anything it can't do?

This year, the Jays are averaging 18,631 at home games. This will be their lowest per-game figure since...1982. The crowd at Saturday's game (24,168) was their 10th highest of the season. So, not good. I'd venture a guess (I'll dig into it later) that this past series was their highest average of the year.

But hey, they are counting attendance differently than years past, so that has to mean something, right?

Moe - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 12:42 PM EDT (#220222) #

If you look at Clemens' 1988 game log, you will see he routinely threw over 140 pitches. So he had the arm strength build up. I would argue Morrow didn't. because he was handled so (too?) carefully all season.

Yesterday is a good example of the problem with being so careful. If he had done 110-115 all the time, much fewer people would say something about 137 (I wouldn't). You may argue he was treated too carefully all season but this is the situation he was in and you have to be consistent. You can throw everything out off the window because of "history". He would not be the first pitcher to share a no-hitter (and I don't even complain about him starting the 9th). But saying you can't have someone warm up because of superstition after he issued a walk in the 9th is a very weak argument.

Spifficus - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 12:59 PM EDT (#220225) #

But someone was up warming up after he gave up the walk - you can see someone standing on top of the bullpen mound on the flyball from Crawford, and I assume he wasn't there for the view. It's just that there were other things for the TV crew to talk about... like a no-hitter attempt.

Moe - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 01:03 PM EDT (#220226) #

I only asked that in reference to the earlier comments that no one was available to relief him. Possibly because of superstition.

John Northey - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#220227) #

On the radio they talked about Gregg being up and ready after the hit. I'm glad Morrow was given the last batter (read somewhere that Cito told Morrow that was to be his last hitter).

Spifficus - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 01:10 PM EDT (#220228) #

I am making the assumption that if he was standing on the bullpen mound he was warming up, which isn't foolproof. The only shot I could find of the bullpen in the ninth was that second during the Crawford flyball, so it's not really definitive.

Spifficus - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 01:12 PM EDT (#220229) #

On the radio they talked about Gregg being up and ready after the hit.

That, on the other hand, is rather definitive.

TamRa - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 01:16 PM EDT (#220230) #

Of course, I hope nothing will happen and I'm not doing this to look smart in a few months (like Will claimed on his blog). I just wonder whether given the circumstances of this particular outing it was smart to let him get the final out. And I stand by my view that it wasn't. Play it save and protect the young arm (like the Jays have all season).

First, let me clarify and say my inference was a general one, not said with any one or two posters in mind (though the overall feeling of perceived negativism goes back to some posters on other boards i used to frequent more than most of what I see here). My overall impression of you (Moe) would not fit in with the sort of poster i was describing there. You just happen to be caught in that particular line of fire on this point.

I won't rehash my arguments made there on here, except to say that part of my irritation was the immediacy of the complaints. We can look back on ANYTHING after the warm fuzzies have faded and ask questions, tobe sure.

As for the final out point - it all comes down to, as KLaw said on twitter, whether or not the effect of extra pitches (beyond the unknown point where you are "safe" is linear or exponential.

My guess is that it is neither, but somewhere in between - probably on a curve tha6t grows gently steeper as the count rises.

BUT I'm of the opinion we can't know definitively and - as noted above every pitcher is different - the variables between pitchers and circumstances vary so wildly that there's no reliable way to quantify a study of the effect.

among the factors involved (off the top of my head)

the pitcher's history (including injury history, workload history, pitch-count history, and recent history)
The particulars of the game itself (time of game, type of pitches thrown, wait time while the other team bats, number of free bases issued, and so forth)
the pitcher's physical make-up and mechanics

and likely several more I'm not thinking of.

to control for all those factors and chart a reliable study of the effect of outlier pitch-counts seems, to me, to be a fool's errand.

In summary, we don't KNOW whether the effect of going past your previous season high is linear or exponential or something in between - we CAN'T know.

That being the case, whether or not 8 more pitches was abusive, or just wrongheaded, is a matter of unsupported and unsupportable opinion. it comes down to "The risk is not worth it" or "the risk was acceptable in the moment"

I'm not violently opposed to either position - I just think that absent strong evidence, the instinct to assume it was absolutely the wrong move is unfortunate.

I assume it arises from the long string of bad luck the Jays have been on previous to this year. Whatever the case, the claim strikes me as more a manifestation of pessimism than analysis. Even if it's subconscious.

As I said last night - at some point i think risk-management is trumped by "the moment" - or the game loses it's magic. The best illustration of that is what Vernon said about the Catch - at that point concern for his body gave way to the magic of the moment, even though there's a possibility it would cost the team two weeks of his at-bats.

whiterasta80 - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 01:23 PM EDT (#220231) #

It was actually that interview with Wells that made me like him for the first time in his career. Say what you will about his defense slipping, on that play, for that moment he was as good as any CF in baseball. He absolutely willed himself to make that catch and I didn't realize he still had that in him.

TamRa - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 01:28 PM EDT (#220232) #

I agree that it would have been better if Morrow did not throw 135 pitches but that's the luck of the draw

The guy on FanGraphs pointed out that if you assume the minimum number of pitches to do what he did (3 per strikeout, 4 per walk, the error, etc) that this alone is 70 pitches.

As to Cito's intent - the specific quote was that he asked Morrow if he had "one more out in him"

One would assume that he was implying one more HITTER but that would be unclear.

robertdudek - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 02:06 PM EDT (#220233) #

Anyway, Prior made it look easy, too. There were actually people who said Prior came as close to having perfect pitching mechanics as anyone. And if his mechanics were that perfect, it must be the way he was used that destroyed him. Right? What else could it be?

If his mechanics were that "perfect", then any amount of pitching would not cause injury. The conclusion I draw is that there isn't anything remotely like "perfect" mechanics (i.e. it is pure myth) and that throwing a baseball in anger is inherently dangerous. There have been many pitchers through history that have been worked harder at a younger age than Prior and have not blown their arms out as quickly. Even Doc Gooden, who didn't have much of a career in his 30s, lasted much longer than Prior while suffering much more "abuse" at an age before Prior was even in the big leagues.

A key factor always ignored (because we know so little about it) is genetic predisposition. Another factor ignored (even though we know a lot about it) is chance - maybe the guys who get injured were simply unluckier than others.

Mick Doherty - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 02:09 PM EDT (#220234) #

Gooden is an excellent counter-example, especially since we now understand that his early demise was more a problem with his nose than his arm.

Jeremy - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 02:34 PM EDT (#220235) #

Mike Green - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 02:41 PM EDT (#220236) #

I did a quick Entrez Pub Med search for the latest on rotator cuff tears. To my surprise, one of the first articles (from 2010) was about a study which suggest that cigarette smoking increased one's risk of having a rotator cuff tear significantly.

It is generally true that there is a dose-response relationship in repetitive strain injuries, be it UCL tears, rotator cuff tears or whatever. The more repetitive and the more strain, the greater the risk of injury. That does not mean that the same number of pitches will equate to the same "dose" for each pitcher. All you can do is have some guidelines and adapt them according to what you know may affect the appropriate "dose" of arm "exposure" for each pitcher.

Magpie - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 02:44 PM EDT (#220237) #

maybe the guys who get injured were simply unluckier than others.

I agree completely. It's all shrouded in a misty haze, and you have to respect the Fog.

Magpie - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 02:46 PM EDT (#220238) #

Or, to put it another way - just because we want to know something (and we want to know everything, don't we?) doesn't mean that thing is knowable.

Mick Doherty - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 02:56 PM EDT (#220239) #

you have to respect the Fog.

Thus speaketh Darth Magpie!

jerjapan - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#220240) #

Not sure where to post this, but the Jays have signed three more pics:

The Blue Jays signed left-handers Justin Nicolino (second round) and Mitchell Taylor (seventh round), as well as second baseman Brandon Mims (ninth round) from June�s First Year Player Draft, the club announced Monday.

Callum - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 03:25 PM EDT (#220241) #

Well said, Gerry.

lexomatic - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 05:39 PM EDT (#220251) #

part of being a good manager is clearly outlining expectations at the beginning. i would make it clear i would act the same way for anyone pitching, that I would have a system if you want for determinining when is when.if you are consistent and fair, you will not lose the team, especially if you can back up your reasoning for your decisions. frankly makign the tough decisions is worth far more respect. a lot of athletes just want to play, want to challenge themselves- it's how they get to where they do - even when it's not in their best interests. it's a manager's job to exercise their authority to make decisions that increase the odds of WINNING the game, like taking a pitcher out when they've thrown a ton of pitches. I feel that leaving the starter in any similar situation is a bad move, compounded by unknown health issues etc. etc. as previously explained.
i still maintain the risk is not worth it, and i find the attempts to refute this position mostly rest on belittling my views. yes, most of this is opinion, and i stand by it, and you haven't proven your point.

on an aside- i think wells' defence has been better this year than for the past few. that catch was great.

CSHunt68 - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 06:50 PM EDT (#220253) #

You presume that pulling a pitcher when they've thrown "a ton" of pitches increases the odds of winning a game. Of course, this isn't necessarily the case.

But, the point, which you seem to have missed (since we've been accused of "belittling your views", we might as well), is that you don't know that it's unhealthy for a guy to throw 130 pitches vs. throwing 30, or 50, or 100. Also, that 137 might not constitute "a ton", especially if you look at the historical context.. Where is the evidence for this assertion? To this point, you have provided none - except to say that you would make it CLEAR, as manager, that this was your belief, and this is how you would act, despite the fact that there is no good reason for your belief.

If you want a reference for the opposing view to yours, check out the Hardball Times article. If that doesn't help "prove" the point, I don't know what will.

And there is NO historical context, whether you've explained it to players beforehand or not, for pulling a player going into the 9th with a no-hitter. If you're only arguing the few pitches he needed to finish the game after the no-no was lost, I'd argue it's a pittance. You would lose the team, and many of the fans

Magpie - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 07:09 PM EDT (#220254) #

i find the attempts to refute this position mostly rest on belittling my views. yes, most of this is opinion, and i stand by it, and you haven't proven your point.

No one's proven any point. That is the point. It's all opinion. But you're the one who started out by saying END OF DISCUSSION, which is an extremely irritating thing to say to anyone, anytime.

Hodgie - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 07:55 PM EDT (#220257) #

With respect to risk management, while great in theory it is a difficult justification to use in absolute terms when it has yet to be demonstrated reliably what are the causal factors of the risk nor the vulnerability of an individual to that risk. Already noted by others, the modern day pitch count limitation is an arbitrary number more suited to a CYA strategy and is hardly the basis for efficient and effective risk mitigation. Furthermore, the risks cannot be assessed in isolation as there is an associated opportunity cost that has to be factored into any risk assessment. In assessing and prioritizing risks, an overly restrictive mitigation strategy can be every bit as wasteful as no strategy at all if it results in less than optimal usage of your resources.

In this instance, there were several risks to assess with the human factors not the least of those to consider. Gaston made a decision based on the information that was available to him at that time, set what he felt was an appropriate boundary and was prepared to reassess the situation based upon the outcome of the following event. Given the situation, he acted in a responsible manner in my estimation.

Mick Doherty - Monday, August 09 2010 @ 09:49 PM EDT (#220261) #

the modern day pitch count limitation is an arbitrary number more suited to a CYA strategy

How does this affect a Cy Young Award strategy? ;-)

John Northey - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 12:15 AM EDT (#220264) #

Pitch counts are interesting, and one of the few pieces of information we easily have access to in order to guess when a pitcher has been pushed too far. I recall some pitching coaches mentioning their biggest worry though is a pitchers arm angle/motion shifting while on the mound. IE: if he throws in a certain way on fastballs then drops the arm a bit in the 7th inning then they quickly adjust him but if he keeps shifting they have to pull him quick or his arm goes ka-blooey.

Thinking about it, that makes a lot of sense. Do any of the pitch tracking programs have the ability to see if that has occurred (shifting release point on fastballs for example)? That might be a better way than strict pitch counts.

As we all know, pitchers used to be pushed a heck of a lot harder. Checking old Nolan Ryan game logs (1966 rookie season, arm injury, back in '68 no more injuries till his final season)...
1968: 2 games listed - 135 pitches and 49 (49 is way off, saw 28 batters with 4 walks and 7 K's).
1974: faced 58 batters in one game - minimum if just 3 pitches per PA = 174 pitches, 4 pitches (more likely given 10 walks and 19 strikeouts) = 240 pitches.

Wow eh? Imagine a guy going 13 IP now and throwing (probably) 200+ pitches.

Thomas - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 01:12 AM EDT (#220265) #

Before it is lost in what should be a very exciting Red Sox-Jays series, I again want to reflect on how awesome Morrow was on Sunday. It was dominance, pure and simple. I believe Longoria called it the best pitching performance he's ever seen and he's been no-hit twice this year.

I don't think it's been mentioned here, but unless I'm mixing up my Daren Browns, the one who has been appointed as Seattle's new manager is a former Blue Jays pitching prospect who advanced as far as Knoxville before playing some independent league baseball and then entering the coaching ranks.

ComebyDeanChance - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 08:39 AM EDT (#220268) #

I think there is a considerable distance between stating that 'we don't know the effect of (something)' and calling Cito Gaston or his decisions 'dumb'. Frankly, I find the latter at best pompous, and disturbing in the ease and regularity with which some posters do so casually.

jerjapan - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 09:16 AM EDT (#220271) #

For what it's worth, Joe Sheehan in his chat at BP yesterday didn't like the way Cito handled Morrow. He also suggested that the Jays might be the 4th best team in baseball according to third order wins.

jerjapan (Toronto): Hey Joe, what are your thoughts on Gaston letting Morrow throw 137 pitches in his gem of a ballgame yesterday? Personally, I think the Jays have done a great job shielding their young pitchers from overwork and that Cito managed the situation perfectly.

Joe Sheehan: I didn't like leaving him in to face Dan Johnson after the no-hitter was lost. As I saw it, Morrow had lost his fastball command in the ninth inning, while retaining his sick breaking ball. The loss of command on the FB, rather than the pitch count, is why I would have lifted him after the first hit. I don't see any way Morrow, at that moment, gave the Jays the best chance to win the game, and I see no value in "completing the game" when some of the best starters in baseball throw 0-2 CGs a year.

Anders - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 09:45 AM EDT (#220277) #

Well, yeah. I think that coming from a purely rational/logical perspective Morrow should have been lifted at the top of the 9th, or when Longoria got on. Relievers are almost always more effective than the starters are after they've been through the order 3 times (or thrown 130 pitches.) Bringing in Scott Downs to face the lefty (or more likely Kevin Gregg) probably increases the Jays chances to win by some not insignificant percentage, so of course the Keith Law's and Joe Sheehan's of the world are going to disagree with the way things were handled. With that being said, from a completely non-rational perspective, I still like the decision by Cito and think that he was right to leave Morrow in to finish the game.

China fan - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 10:00 AM EDT (#220283) #

Joe Sheehan would make a poor manager because he seems to have no interest in the internal dynamics of team morale. Cito Gaston cares about the morale and respect and pride of his players, and all of those factors are important (though intangible) for the team's future performance. After Morrow allowed his first hit, Gaston knew that he couldn't just yank him unceremoniously from the game. You need to show respect to a pitcher who has pitched one of the greatest games of recent years. He went out to the mound and talked to Morrow and asked him if he wanted to face one more hitter. Morrow did. Gaston was ready with a reliever (Gregg) in case Morrow lost that next hitter, but he showed respect to his pitcher by offering him that chance. That's what helps to keep a team happy and motivated.

But honestly, the second-guessing of a manager's on-field decisions is so tiresome and pointless. It's a good parlor game, but nobody should take it seriously by using words like "dumb" to describe a manager. In the course of a game, a manager has to make a series of gambles about pitchers, hitters etc. None of those gambles is guaranteed, and some will always fail. To seize on the decisions that fail, or could have failed, is absolutely pointless. It doesn't matter who is managing -- some decisions will always fail. Even the smartest Vegas blackjack player cannot win every hand. A failed gamble says nothing about the intelligence of the manager, it just says something about the inherent nature of baseball or any other sport.

Magpie - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 10:29 AM EDT (#220289) #

I see no value in "completing the game"

There is no measureable value, none whatsoever. That's not the point. There are things, in baseball as in life, that are important even if they can't be measured. Every pitcher who's worth a damn wants to be on the mound when they record the final out to win the game. Complete games used to be utterly routine; now they're just somewhat more common than no-hitters. It's a big, big deal to the player. Shaun Marcum and Brett Cecil are proud of Morrow, and envious at the same time. They want one, too.

92-93 - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 11:47 AM EDT (#220307) #

Morrow struck out Johnson and took the Jays win expectancy from 83.4% to 100%...isn't that the value of completing the game?

Dave Till - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 12:06 PM EDT (#220315) #

I'm not sure that asking the pitcher what he wants to do is always the best strategy. Major league pitchers always want to stay in the game; they're intensely competitive. That's what got them where they are (that, and the genetic ability to throw a baseball very hard). So, sometimes, the manager has to go against the pitcher's wishes.

However, I think the risk of damaging Morrow's arm - which is unknown - has to be balanced against the damage to Morrow's and the team's morale if he had been pulled. If Morrow had given up a second hit or a walk, Gaston would have had to pull him (and I believe that Gregg was ready, in case that happened). But leaving him in to get the final out was better than pulling him, in my opinion.

The damage to Morrow's arm, if any, can be mitigated by being very cautious with him in his next starts. He'll get an extra day of rest (I believe), which should help. And he now has the honour of having pitched one of the greatest games in baseball history. They'll never take that away from him, even if his arm falls off tomorrow.

Chuck - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 12:25 PM EDT (#220318) #

I'm not sure that asking the pitcher what he wants to do is always the best strategy.

I agree with this, but I think that Gaston visited Morrow in the 9th to settle him down, not to actually see if he wanted to stay in. I think he did ask Morrow if he felt like staying in, but I think that was just for Morrow's benefit, to give him the sense of self-determination. I'm quite sure Gaston knew the answer he'd hear and went to the mound already comfortable with that answer.

Or I could be way out to lunch here.

John Northey - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 01:04 PM EDT (#220323) #

Wouldn't be shocked if Cito asked Morrow to see what his mindset was too. Different tones of voice would say 'yeah, I want it bad' or 'I think I can, maybe, perhaps' or 'saying it because you expect it but I can't do it'.

Or I could be giving Cito too much credit :)

Spifficus - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 01:06 PM EDT (#220324) #

Or I could be way out to lunch here.

Nah. I'm with you - it was effectively a rhetorical device to get him to refocus on the task at hand (just one more batter).

And he now has the honour of having pitched one of the greatest games in baseball history.

It's been two days now, and this thought still has me grinning ear-to-ear. We just witnessed one of the most dominant pitching performances of all-time. Awesome. And now I'm grinning again...

ComebyDeanChance - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 01:18 PM EDT (#220326) #

I remember when Gaston visited a lefthanded pitcher in the 11th and asked exactly that question. The pitcher told Gaston he didn't think he could get Otis Nixon, or words to that effect, and was replaced. It takes a lot to build that kind of relationship between a manager and a pitcher in the last inning of the World Series. I wonder how many pitchers would put that trust in Joe Sheehan.

92-93 - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 02:12 PM EDT (#220329) #

Jimmy Key was the man. Was there discussion about Gaston's decision to use him as the #4 as opposed to someone else, or was the choice obvious at the time?

Chuck - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#220331) #

Awesome. And now I'm grinning again...

I said it before but I think the most smileworthy thing about Morrow's season has been his apparent coachability. It may be my imagination, but he appears to be doing things differently, not merely getting different results.

During his first 10 starts, he appeared to be the talented but raw pitcher his reputation suggested. His K and BB rates were 10.4 and 5.4. His ERA was 6.66. Lucifer laughed, all others wept.

In the 12 starts since (half of which have been against NY, Boston and TB), he has seemed to take deliberate measures to reduce his BB rate: nibbling less and not trying to throw every fastball 98 MPH. His K and BB rates in this stretch have been 10.1 and 2.9. His ERA, 3.03. It must be encouraging for him to see that he can still rack up the Ks while pitching, rather than throwing.

There are still many hurdles ahead and it would definitely be premature to officially declare him a finished product, but he is certainly moving in the right direction. The coaching staff deserves praise for their part in Morrow's development, and Morrow himself deserves praise for following the program.

Dave Till - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 03:19 PM EDT (#220342) #

There are still many hurdles ahead and it would definitely be premature to officially declare him a finished product, but he is certainly moving in the right direction. The coaching staff deserves praise for their part in Morrow's development, and Morrow himself deserves praise for following the program.

At this moment in time, Morrow is a much better pitcher than A.J. Burnett. You can look it up, as Casey Stengel used to say.

JohnL - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 04:15 PM EDT (#220356) #

Jimmy Key was the man. Was there discussion about Gaston's decision to use him as the #4 as opposed to someone else, or was the choice obvious at the time?

I would have thought being slotted as #4 -- which meant being "demoted" to the bullpen in the ALCS -- might have bothered him. My first recollection was that neither he nor Guzman (who was slow regaining effectiveness after an August DL stint) were particularly sharp as September went on, and I remember hearing Gillick say they were going to wait to make up their mind who was 3 & 4. In the end, Guzman's last start decided it.

After a quick glance at Baseball Reference, it seems I was half right. Key in fact was mostly doing fine in September, but their last starts were night and day: Guzman went 8IP, giving up just one hit. Key's last start only lasted 2IP, 64 pitches thrown. Only 2 runs, but he gave up 4 walks which tied his season high for a game.

Magpie - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 07:00 PM EDT (#220410) #

As I recall, another factor was that Key actually had some experience pitching out of the bullpen (he'd done it as a rookie.) But after the LCS, Gaston shifted gears and decided (and decided only at that point) to use four starters in the WS.

If I remember correctly. Gosh, that was a long time ago!

Magpie - Tuesday, August 10 2010 @ 07:03 PM EDT (#220411) #

the most smileworthy thing about Morrow's season has been his apparent coachability. It may be my imagination

The people I talk to around the ballpark would say it's not your imagination. They all say he's a great kid, and very coachable indeed.

Counting Pitches | 75 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.