Should Sale have been left in?
craig44
Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Last night, Chris Sale left the game after completing the 7th inning. he had thrown 108 pitches and struck out 17. it seems, had he been left in the game he could have tied or possibly broken the record for k's in 9 innings. he still seemed strong, having struck out the last three men he faced.
Should Cora have let him continue?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
0
Comments
Sale has some problems with his left shoulder, was on DL last year.
I don't think risking injury is worth going after a meaningless record.
The only pitcher record that would impress me is 162 complete games in 1 season
this is the same inane argument made about Trevor Bauer. the risk is too great and the professionals such as the Manager know that. if Sale could have been at 85-90 pitches I'm sure he would have been left in, at least for another inning maybe. Teams are set up for this kind of situation.
I’m sure Sale couldn’t care less about the record either way
No athlete is more coddled than the MLB pitcher.
Of course Sale should NOT have been left in.
Case closed.
Next topic.
Agreed.
He's coming off injury so I can see why they wouldn't want to push him past 125 pitches which is likely what would have happened had he pitched another inning. He wasn't going to pitch yet another inning after that to possibly break the record (assuming he even struck out the side inthe 8th) so I think pulling him was the correct call.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
A close second is the rest of the MLB players 🙄
I think "coddled" is sort of a strong word, it has always fascinated me that players are able to do the highly specialized things that the MLB level requires. in the NBA it isn't unusual for an 18-20 year old to play at the professional level. in both the NBA and the NFL it is normal for a 22-23 year old to play at the professional level. the learning curve is usually a bit longer for MLB . players in the Majors might arrive there at about the same age but remember that means about 4-5 years in organized play trying to get "good enough" to compete.
also, the nature of the schedule is grueling. for a six month period Teams play virtually every day, sometimes 15-20 days in a row in 3-5 cities flying cross-country. the NBA is close, but have you ever heard those players whine about playing back-to-backs?? if not you haven't been listening, they absolutely hate it. with this in mind it underscores just how impressive the records set by Lou Gehrig and Cal Ripken, jr. are. imagine playing in 2,632 consecutive games; stop thinking about it, because you can't even come close to imagining it.
so, yeah, maybe they are "coddled" in your mind. when you can throw a baseball 95 miles an hour 100 times every 5th day then we will "coddle" you. when you can stand in the box as that pill comes at you and hit it 350 feet, let alone not dive out of the way when you feel danger, then we will "coddle" you. when you can catch a baseball, or even try to catch one, when it's coming towards you from 60 feet 6 inches at 120 miles an hour we will "coddle" you. when you break into a dead run from a standing start and sprint 100 feet to catch a baseball over your should as you crash into a fence then we will "coddle" you.
it was fun to do all those things when I was teenager. now, I want no part of it. I prefer to watch in amazement.
I think Larkincollector was speaking more in terms of pitch counts when he mentioned coddled MLB players. it was not that long ago when Randy Johnson and Roger clemens routinely threw 120-130 pitches per game and on occasion would throw up to 150-160. the same and more was true of Nolan Ryan and others.
Many say players today are bigger, stronger etc, but you sure wouldnt know it by IP and pitch counts. I remember first seeing it with Pedro Martinez. When a guy gets to 100 pitches now, pull them, they are through.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Because we can't just play the games anymore and do our best. Now a small army of nerds has to calculate percentages and potential for whether anything will negatively impact a teams investment in a player.
Bean counters..............hate 'em.
it was not that long ago when Randy Johnson and Roger clemens routinely threw 120-130 pitches per game.
the strategy, and hence the game, have changed in the last 20 years so it is useless to compare eras like that. also, using guys like Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens as the "standard" is deceptive. both were sort of once in a generation type players that happened at the same time, Johnson as a lefty sized like we may never see again and Clemons as just some sort of anatomical freak where all the parts worked like no one else.
At this point, I'd rather just see robots pitch. It's obvious that humans are too fragile for the job and it's the only thing that might get the games to finish in a reasonable timeframe.
All we need is a few hundred Bob Gibson's.
Its a team sport so robots would be acceptable to me if they speed things up. Sports card weenies here might object due to their bizarre need to idolize individual players.
To be fair I think at minimum, half the sport card weenies you speak of are in it for the money 😂
Whatever commeman says, I'll go the other way.
I'm sure Cora and the whole Boston organization couldn't give a rat's a$$ what we think here about taking Sale out or not!
The same could be said about the Cowboys, Mets, Eagles, Phillies, Patriots too. ( Not sure if I missed any team that gets talked about more here or not ) 🤷♂️
Whenever any of those mentioned wants our opinion.....I'm sure they will call and ask!
And all of us would give pretty good opinions I think!
All we need is a few hundred Bob Gibson's.
man, I hate it when facts get in the way of what we remember, or, in some cases, never even knew.
Bob Gibson pitched in his 10th season in 1968 and it was his best, recording a stellar 1.12 ERA that easily led MLB. for some reason that almost doubled in 1969 and never was under 2.00 before or after. in MLB 1968 is considered "The Year of The Pitcher" because of that position's dominance, so MLB gave it some thought. they promptly lowered the pitchers mound by a staggering 1/3 of its height from 15 to 10 inches and shrank the strike zone: it moved from the shoulders to the "letters" but stayed at the knees on the lower end. the strike zone is even smaller today, moving down farther to midway between the belt and "letters."
understanding these facts is part of the reason why pitchers today aren't as dominant as in the past. to do so, they would all need to be able to paint like Greg Maddux since they have about one foot less of strike zone on the top half than pitchers of Bob Gibson's era had.
All of that is true keets, but the new rules didn't hurt the really good pitchers like Ryan, R. Johnson, Seaver...etc.
it isn't reasonable to measure the way MLB is affected by using the best players as the measuring stick. it is undeniable that things changed in favor of the hitters and against pitchers starting in 1969. check the statistics.
pitchers like Tom Seaver and Bob Gibson could work with a much smaller strike zone, not so the overwhelming majority of pitchers.
Some maybe.
...Who would want coinstartled running the show! 
Or SteveK picking your QB! 
I think the real point of this thread is not dominance, but endurance. Manager was unwilling to let Sale venture beyond 108 pitches. I dont know that shrinking the strike zone hurt innings pitched or pitch counts. look at the 70's and some of those innings totals. of the 22 league leaders in IP between 1970 and 1980, 18 of those were above 300 innings. the four below 300 were all above 290. I havent done the research, but with a smaller strike zone, it would seem pitchers would need to be throwing more pitches to make it through each inning.
from 1973-1978 there were 132 starters who pitched at least 11 innings in a game. this tells me endurance was still very solid at least through the 1970s.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
There are several reasons why pitchers don't throw as many pitches as they once did but the primary factors in my mind are the salaries they make, as teams are reluctant to risk injury and therefore take extra precautions to protect their investments, and more importantly, at least in my mind, is the velocity of the pitches being thrown today. Pitchers today on average throw much harder than pitchers from decades ago, and with that velocity comes shorter outings. I remember years ago a 90-mph fastball was something to marvel about. Now you must throw mid 90s on average just to get noticed by scouts. Also, there is no longer any offfseason like there was years ago. Guys today pitch all year round in winter ball when they are developing and also throw a lot more breaking balls at a younger age, too. All that excess mileage and increased velocity comes at a cost and those are the reasons, IMHO, why pitchers are also undergoing surgery with arm problems at a much higher rate today than years ago even with all the pitch counts in place.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
the velocity and breaking balls thrown today put much more stress on pitchers' arms.
Craig, if Sale through 108 pitches in seven innings, 15.4/inning, that works out to 138.6 pitches in nine innings. since I don't think pitchers routinely threw 140 pitches/game during the time we're considering I believe that the smaller strike zone today does in fact make the pitchers work harder and throw more pitches. accuracy is a premium when you consider the small target the strike zone presents.
The smaller strike some came into effect after the 1968 season. Why then did it not seem to effect the pitchers of the 1970s? There were tons of big inning years like I mentioned above.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Cora thinks you should remove at least one of the teams from your list.
Eric
Erikthredd’s MJ Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/publishedset/395035
Erikthredd’s Nike Air Jordan Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/basketball/key-card-sets/nike-poster-cards-michael-jordan-1985-1992/alltimeset/408486
I don't know how, or even if, this pertains to the larger discussion here regarding pitcher durability, but I've often heard it mentioned in broadcasts over the years that more than any legislated rule change regarding the strike zone, the change in umpires going from the big balloon outside chest protectors to the hard shell inside protectors worn under their clothing changed the game by "lowering" the strike zone. Rather than having to stand more erect and calling higher strikes based on their viewpoint, umpires now get lower in the crouch behind the catcher and subsequently, have been calling a lower strike zone. I don't know if this is supported factually, or only anecdotal tales told by somewhat bored announcers during blowouts. I do believe most hitters prefer the ball down lower in the zone, and if the umpires aren't going to call those high strikes, they can then wait for a pitch to get under and hit with the required launch angle for homeruns. Maybe there's something to this? I don't know, I'm just spitballing here.
Interesting.
Part of it could be that Billy Martin left his pitchers out there a long time and it SEEMED to have a bad effect on their long term performance.
Now ownership has a lot of money tied up in these pitchers and are being more cautious.
I never heard this before. Possible something this minor could have an impact.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I am just paraphrasing or parroting what I've heard discussed, but essentially, the outside protector was used until 1973??, when the National League switched to the inside protectors while the American League continued to use the old style.
Players, managers, announcers, etc., immediately noticed that the National League umpires began lining up lower and in "the slot" between the catcher and the hitter. The Leagues soon had distinctive styles, as the American League became known for the high strike, but because the umpire was upright and stayed directly over the plate, the width of the zone was more true. The National League became more known for the low strike, and more strikes that painted the inside corner, as the catcher somewhat blocked the view of the outside and the umpires had their inside perspective changed by their setup.
Whether it was for uniformity or some other reason, the American League also switched to the inside protector at the end of the 70s??, but grandfathered in any current umpires that wanted to continue using the old style. I believe the last of those holdouts retired sometime in the late 80s.
As time passed, catchers became aware that umpires, because the inside protectors don't really protect anything besides the chest, would use the catchers to "hide behind". If the catcher would shift in the windup and move outside or inside, rather than being stationary and be exposed to the pitch or a foul, would shift with the catcher. Doing all of this movement while trying to track a pitch is tough. A strike was more likely to be called when a pitch ended up where the catcher had his glove, as long as it was in between the catchers shinguards and center body mass. So the strike zone may have flattened to the belt area of the player, but widened considerably more than 17 inches, depending on how good the catcher was at moving at the last second, and how accurate the pitcher was at hitting his spots. Think Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux. Pitchers who were good, were going to be good regardless, but guys that struggled with command or stuff were going to constantly be in high stress situations, as they had to be too fine to keep the ball low enough for a strike but not in the hitters' wheelhouse, while also being able to weave in and out with the catcher, and not end up with a lot of hitters' counts. It did them no good to throw an actual strike over the inside if catcher had moved outside, as the umpire had moved also, and now that actual strike looked like an inside ball. I have heard many times on broadcasts of pitchers not liking to work with certain catchers because they moved around too much, or vise versa, that the catcher wasn't adept at moving around before the pitch in order to frame these balls as "strikes". Pitchers like Maddux would have personnel catchers for this reason.
The Fox tracker, or whatever they call the technology grading the umpires now, may have been the beginning of trying to rectify this discrepancy of calling actual strikes, but the impact on the game by switching the umpires' equipment was more than minor, apparently.