OT: Verlander and his decline
Hgh is so obvious ! No way you can decline that fast
Her gorgeous hiplessness?
slowly over the last 3 or so years. The key for him is if he can learn to pitch without an upper 90s fastball. Other pitchers have but I am not sure he's got it in him.
But if you look at the trajectory on Nolan Ryan's early career and Verlander they are not that far off in many ways. Ryan, however, was able to lock it down mid career as a consistent 12 to 15 win pitcher. If Verlander can learn to manage with less velocity he can be that guy and perhaps get it to 250 wins.
Mark Buehrle's career trajectory from power pitcher to control and command pitcher comes to mind and Verlander could do a lot worse going forward than running 200 innings a year for (so far) 14 years.
Absolutely. He would get himself into the same problem innings 4 years ago, but then he could just fire off a bunch of 98+ mph fastballs and that curve and get out of it. But now you see him struggling to get the ball past guys because they can wait on his 93 mph and he never had great accuracy.
My guess is that he'll have spurts where he's good but, overall, he's like an average power pitcher in that he is light-outs early on but struggles to adapt to a body that is slowing down.
He actually pitched well for the first 4 innings. Shoddy defensive play contributed to the 1st-inning run. But the 5th?
Boom!
Most great athletes fall off the cliff suddenly. Especially pitchers. There are certainly exceptions, but they are exceptions.
It happened with Lincecum, Sabathia, Zito, Santana etc. It's more proof that Roger Clemens was on something to last as long as he did.
Clemens was just a throwback pitcher. 24 MLB pitchers won 300 games or more. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that nobody from this era is going to win that many. There is a good chance that the game has gone "too far the other way" and coddles pitchers too much now.
At any rate, nobody accused any of the old greats of using PED's, but they still managed to pitch a lot of innings and win 300 games.
I think the real problem might be a combination of the addiction we all have to the radar gun and the tendency to not have pitchers pitch complete games anymore. Pitchers are expected to throw every fastball as hard as they can. The oldtimers used to know they were going to pitch nine innings if they weren't in "trouble" the last few. They also knew they were going to throw more than 100 pitches.
Old time pitchers were marathon runners. This era's pitchers are sprinters. I think it may have been better the other way. At any rate, I don't see anyone having the opportunity to win 300 games anymore. But if someone does, I'm sure the media will accuse them of PED's...
Nice try, Roger.
There was nothing throwback about his pharmaceuticals. Except for the speed. Greenies were throwback.
Clemens looked quite a bit like Verlander around age 30. I don't I need to explain about his renaissance at age 34.
Lots of those "old" pitchers came up during a different era. If you think Cy Young could pitch in today's league and survive long enough to get even 300 wins, not even considering 500, then I'll just get off your lawn. Young was a great pitcher, but there's a reason there was a sweet spot when a lot of guys got their wins.
And with certain pitchers, it absolutely helped that they pitched on consistently great teams. Tom Glavine was a fine pitcher, but when you are on a Brave's team that consistently won 90+ games a year with very strong offenses, you get a win or two a year you might not have somewhere else. So then you get 305 wins and everyone sees you as an elite pitcher instead of, say, 285 wins and then you're just a better version of Mike Mussina.
Wins are very much an overrated stat in baseball, and I'm starting to think innings are to a degree when they relate to 20-30 years ago, and to keep harping on it as some measure of talent and ability when we have literally dozens of better stats is silly.
Proof? Ummmm no.
Most great athletes fall off the cliff suddenly.
Some fall off two cliffs.
I think his curveball is fine, and in fact, effective. It's the fact that he thinks he can still throw it past hitters that's the problem.
I think his curveball is fine, and in fact, effective. It's the fact that he thinks he can still throw it past hitters that's the problem.
He threw (way) more pitches than anyone else for like 5 straight years. Leyland murdered his arm.
Verlander has never been a very efficient batter seemingly more willing to take a an 0-2 count full rather than quickly dispatching the batter. He's never had a very reliable out pitch, other than more gas, which likely contributes heavily to his high pitch counts.
We all have this idea that thowing over 100 pitches is somehow "risking" something down the road--either trouble that game, or trouble in the future. This idea is not supported by any facts whatsoever related to pitchers health. For the first 80 years of baseball pitchers pitched on three days rest, then the last 20 years we've decided that they need four days rest between starts. Same thing with innings pitched. You would think pitchers would get injured less frequently right? You'd be wrong. there is no evvidence that less workload leads to fewer injuries.
is straight and not 100mph or even 98mph.
This isn't out of the ordinary for pitchers...we've seen it often. He had a great run. At his peak, he about was as good as we've seen from anybody in the 2000's.
It's a shame we never won with that Verlander/Max/Miggy/Prince/etc. I probably took those teams for granted...I just assumed they would win eventually. Had some great playoff runs, but never finished them off.
With the parody that exists in baseball, it's not completely over, but those days of being the perennial favorites/contender are over. Was fun while it lasted.
It feels like it's over for the Tigers, but you just never know. Most people thought the Red Sox would never win after the 2003 ALCS implosion. Or how about the Giants blowing the 2002 WS with Bonds at the end of his career. Both teams bounced back and have each won three World Series.
What are they doing a parody of?
"parody?"
Yes, parody. You heard me right muthafucka....
You mean like this guy?
Max Patkin was the best!
He looked really good til the 5th. The contract is a noose for this team unless he can learn to bob and weave with his slider and curve.
The numbers for pitchers once they turn 30 aren't good. Its why, as good as Scherzer is doing, I don't regret for a second that DD didn't match 215. And no way we should sign Price, either. Got to learn how to draft and develop good young pitchers that we have club control over.
JD at least might make this summer interesting, if nothing else.
I can do what he's doing for $10 dollars a year.
link?
Only 4 more seasons and $112 million to go!
In other news, JD Martinez is an absolute beast.
Rally time!
Turn him into a closer.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
He is worst in first inning. That would make him a horrible closer
Don't you think that's because he doesn't want to waste his arm early? If he can go out and throw straight gas he might be ok.
All star game.
I think that he my have used steroids for a while. It would explain why he was SO dominant and then fell off a cliff.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
he can carve out a decent Tanana-ish second career. If he can't or won't they're just going to have to release him (after Illitch dies probably).
is a good example of a pitcher who was able to re-invent himself once he lost his fastball. Tanana (a Detroit-area native) had a blazing fastball for his first half-dozen or so seasons for the Angels. Then his arm went dead and he struggled until he learned how to pitch without that high-90's heat. If I remember correctly, by the time he joined the Tigers in '85, his "fastball" probably hit not much more than 85 but his off-speed junk made him a very effective starter.
I believe there was an arm injury which was then subsequently aggravated by a shoulder injury in the late 1970s that in combination were the impetus for Tanana's abrupt but effective change in style. It's interesting because the Angels spent a good portion of the 70s anchored by "Tanana and Ryan and two days of cryin'" and both at the time had some of the deadliest (figuratively speaking, although woe to the person hit by one of those fastballs) stuff in the majors.
We will always have 2011. Watching him pitch that summer was such a delight.
I am at the game. It's totally embarrassing. The f'ing Blue Jays fans are talking shit about JV and I've got zilch.
They're probably talking shit about you surfing blogs during a live baseball game. My fiance does that. Drives me crazy.
Yes, I'm busted. They were talking shit about me "surfing" a blog when they were 5 rows in front of me. Good call.
Also, weren't you the same guy breaking people's balls about buying into Grady and McGuffie? I would imagine about 75% of us were buying into those two.
I realize the Tigers are still in contention, but they've got an opportunity this trade deadline to replenish their farm system. I appreciate the last 8 years as well, but I don't want to revert back to the Higginson Era. I'd deal Price, Cespedes and Kinsler right now. This team needs a serious injection of youth. Not sure DD and Mr. Ilitch will be willing to throw in the towel on this year though.
hard to sell a guy on a 5 year plan when he probably wont be alive in 5 years
Couldn't agree more. Our farm system is one of the worst in the league, might as well use the pieces we have (especially the ones we're going to lose anyway, like Price) to start the rebuild correctly.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
"Start the rebuild correctly"
Fuck that. The Royals "rebuilt correctly" and were terrible for 20 years. The Tigers didn't become good in the mid-2000s through their amazing farm system. The only, only guy that came out of the late 90s/early 00s to be a part ofthe current resurgence is Verlander.
So, fuck this idea of selling everything now and you'll be great in 3 years. It's no guarantee (i.e. Pistons).
Stay good. And especially don't think about selling away your good players 3+ weeks before you have to make that decision.
I get your point, MGoBender. Prospects are often overvalued. But take a look at the Cubs right now. They are suddenly exciting and they did much of it through the dealing talent for prospects (ie: Addison Russell). If we don't deal Price we'll have a 3 game sweep against the O's to show for that trade.