Huckabay on Lincecum

I was going to write a post about this, but I didn't have nearly the vigor of Huckabay.

about 1 year ago R.J. Anderson 10 comments 0 recs |

Comments

It was still only 3-0 after seven

and 4-0 after eight.

There’s a legitimate argument that the games mean nothing to the Giants (in fact, winning might endanger their draft position, and they clearly know how to draft better than, say, the Reds), but it’s not as if the game was 7-0 after three.

And 21 of those pitches were in the ninth inning, 33 in the last two innings.

So there’s a case for pulling him—at home, with a shutout and a 3-0 lead—after seven because he’s thrown 105 pitches and your bullpen should be able to hold a 3-0 lead. But it’s very dependent on both of those assumptions, and not the way to bet at home if you want anyone coming to the ballpark the next day.

There’s a stronger case after the eighth, obviously; once you’ve let him start the ninth, you pretty much leave him in until the shutout is ended. But by that time, you’re already at 117, and the previous inning was a lesson in efficiency.

Yes, it’s ridiculous to “let” him throw 138 pitches—but there’s really no point in the sequence (without knowing in advance that the ninth is going to be a 21-pitch nightmare) where you can take him out of the game without a small but positive chance of having 31,000 people (well, reality was probably closer to 17K, but the NL decided to join the AL in lying about their attendance several years ago, so…) causing a 7-0 win to turn into a 9-0 forfeit.

by klhoughton on Sep 14, 2008 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

They were..

Away not home.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
How is my adopted son almost twice as old as I am? Nevermind...Go Omar! Warm the Bench!

by WalrusMan on Sep 14, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That changes quite a bit.

by R.J. Anderson on Sep 14, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m still not convinced that an individual high pitch count start is problematic, even for young pitchers (within reason of course – no 200 pitch outings).

If Lincecum’s next start is a quality 90 pitches, I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with it, and there may later be value in having the experience of going 130+ pitches (probably not with the Giants). If he gets thrown out there for another 115-120, then that’s a different story.

Also, any thought that Tim might have been sent back out because a shutout might really solidify his Cy Young chances?

by Dan Turkenkopf on Sep 14, 2008 2:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Huckabay addressed that.

I’m sure it helps, but at what long-term costs, if any? We know a few things:
1. No pitcher is alike.
2. Lincecum won’t sustain 130 pitch outings
3. There may or may not be long term damage from throwing tired.
4. If Lincecum were tired.

I haven’t look at his velocity, which isn’t the tell all of fatigue anyhow, but putting him in danger for some added Cy Young consideration seems excessive. I question whether it’s about Lincecum or being able to promote the NL Cy Young winner.

by R.J. Anderson on Sep 14, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I missed the fact that he had thrown 127 pitches his previous outing.

Yeah, definitely should have been taken out, probably after the 7th.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Sep 14, 2008 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So is your hypothesis that high pitch counts back to back are an issue, but one game is not?

What’s your reasoning behind that? Have you seen any data, no matter how inconclusive?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Sep 14, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, not at all

It’s definitely just conjecture on my part.

The thought is that throwing pitches while tired is more dangerous than simple number of pitches, and that fatigue will build from deep start to deep start, especially if the pitcher expects to be close to 100% at the beginning of the game.

I know the same argument can be made for a single start, but I think the occasional “big” start is valuable to allow the pitcher to build up the stamina to go deeper later. Again, no real evidence, but I’m not convinced that we’ve really learned a whole lot about keeping pitchers healthy by looking at pitch counts. It’s obviously better to be safe than sorry, but I don’t know if it requires the vitriol that BP tends to apply (although I’ve only read the snippet quoted by BBTF in this case).

by Dan Turkenkopf on Sep 14, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I gotcha and pretty much agree with all that.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Sep 14, 2008 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But nobody's sure it's NOT a problem.

And why risk it?

The only gain to the Giants is a happier fan base right now. How much would taking Lincecum out of the game hurt them financially or in fan interest? I just don’t see anything significant. And even if the high pitch count only increases Lincecum’s chance of a serious injury over the next few years by a single percentage point, that’s a significant chunk of expected value lost.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Sep 14, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs