The Official 2020 Cincinnati Reds Thread

Red14

Well-known member
Things have changed a bit from when Tom Browning was a rookie. I'm sure there's reasoning why they don't "push" guys. Also, Michael Lorenzen does a ton of work on flexibility and core strength. but hasn't thrown more than 83.1 innings in a year except for the year he started.
Yes, they have changed, but can we say it's for the better? From a baseball "union" stand point yes, there are more pitching "jobs" now than ever. Back in the day, there was 4-5 starters, a couple of set ups and a closer. The rest was mop up guys. Today, the starters rarely even get 200 innings, and bullpen guys are used more than ever. Some rosters are half pitchers.
 

brianwr112

Well-known member
Yes, they have changed, but can we say it's for the better? From a baseball "union" stand point yes, there are more pitching "jobs" now than ever. Back in the day, there was 4-5 starters, a couple of set ups and a closer. The rest was mop up guys. Today, the starters rarely even get 200 innings, and bullpen guys are used more than ever. Some rosters are half pitchers.
I've never agreed with you more. I hate that sports keep moving towards player safety. They even let kids have water breaks now. SMDH
 

wolves82

Well-known member
Yes, they have changed, but can we say it's for the better? From a baseball "union" stand point yes, there are more pitching "jobs" now than ever. Back in the day, there was 4-5 starters, a couple of set ups and a closer. The rest was mop up guys. Today, the starters rarely even get 200 innings, and bullpen guys are used more than ever. Some rosters are half pitchers.
Why do we think that is? I can tell you first hand, albeit with a little bias. It is because today's teams/scouts want one thing from a pitcher: velocity. If you aren't approaching 94-95, you don't really get much of a look, unless you won a bunch of games for a major college team. So young pitchers are throwing every pitch with max effort to get max velocity/spin. And arms go kaboom. So teams need to be really careful with their expensive assets.

Forgive the personal story, but it illustrates my point. My son was a 6'4", 240 lb righty pitcher, in college from 2011-2015, division II. Topped out at 89-90 on the gun, with an arm slot that made his 2-seamer move in on righty hitters like a frisbee on good days. Decent but not great slider, pretty good change. Never threw with max effort - it negated his movement. Never had a ton of success on his college team, the metal bats did not help a pitcher like him either. His game was inducing weak contact, and the metal negated some of his effectiveness. 3 straight summers he played in the Ohio Collegiate wood bat league, and just dominated. Broke a ton of bat handles with the 2-seamer at 89. After one 9 inning 3-hit shutout, the umpire asked him who drafted him, and my son just shrugged. I told him, if it ain't 95, they ain't interested. The ump said "that's how it is now. It used to be about just getting guys out."

</endrant>
 

Arrogate

Well-known member
Why do we think that is? I can tell you first hand, albeit with a little bias. It is because today's teams/scouts want one thing from a pitcher: velocity. If you aren't approaching 94-95, you don't really get much of a look, unless you won a bunch of games for a major college team. So young pitchers are throwing every pitch with max effort to get max velocity/spin. And arms go kaboom. So teams need to be really careful with their expensive assets.

Forgive the personal story, but it illustrates my point. My son was a 6'4", 240 lb righty pitcher, in college from 2011-2015, division II. Topped out at 89-90 on the gun, with an arm slot that made his 2-seamer move in on righty hitters like a frisbee on good days. Decent but not great slider, pretty good change. Never threw with max effort - it negated his movement. Never had a ton of success on his college team, the metal bats did not help a pitcher like him either. His game was inducing weak contact, and the metal negated some of his effectiveness. 3 straight summers he played in the Ohio Collegiate wood bat league, and just dominated. Broke a ton of bat handles with the 2-seamer at 89. After one 9 inning 3-hit shutout, the umpire asked him who drafted him, and my son just shrugged. I told him, if it ain't 95, they ain't interested. The ump said "that's how it is now. It used to be about just getting guys out."

</endrant>
Your point is 100% spot on.

The analytics guys want someone to throw max velocity for fewer innings (2 times through the lineup). As opposed to a Greg Maddux type who can manufacture outs and eat a lot of innings.
 

Sig Hansen

Well-known member
Your point is 100% spot on.

The analytics guys want someone to throw max velocity for fewer innings (2 times through the lineup). As opposed to a Greg Maddux type who can manufacture outs and eat a lot of innings.
I've watched 5 or so of the Korean games and have really enjoyed it because a lot of the starting pitchers rely primarily on breaking balls. It's nice to watch a guy throw nothing over 85 mph but still manage to get guys out. MLB needs more of that
 

Red14

Well-known member
I've watched 5 or so of the Korean games and have really enjoyed it because a lot of the starting pitchers rely primarily on breaking balls. It's nice to watch a guy throw nothing over 85 mph but still manage to get guys out. MLB needs more of that
There's more than one way to skin a cat. I'd say if you can't consistently throw 95-100, you need to be able to spot fastballs and change speeds. It's called pitching.
 

Red14

Well-known member
View attachment 7172

The point is that MLB scouts do not even look at prospects that spot fastballs and locate at 90.
I think the mindset is that no one can teach someone to throw 95 plus. Unfortunately that's the way it works in sports. Like in basketball, you can't teach 7 foot tall and athletic, so those guys get the nod over a 6'6" well rounded basketball player.
 

Red14

Well-known member
Great to see FSO put on the 1976 world series. That team was just so good. With free agency today, the difficulty of keeping guys on teams for long stretches, it's really hard to imagine a team being as good as that one. Johnny Bench hit 7th for the Reds in that world series. That team had 7 pitchers win 11 games or more that season! The Big Red Machine was really labeled for the offensive part of the team and largely today we equate baseball success with pitching. That team had adequate but not great pitching, and the offense really overshadowed the pitching. Rawley Eastwick and Pedro Borbon appeared in 71 and 69 games that season, truly phenominal. As a realief pitcher that season Borbon threw 121 innings, 69 appearances so it wasn't these one out exhanges. He threw one inning, sometimes two or more.
 

zeeman

Well-known member
How are the Reds doing this year? I haven’t checked the box scores. Baseball should be cancelled until next season, or wait, maybe they shouldn’t have cancelled any of it. Effing idiots in charge
 

brianwr112

Well-known member
How are the Reds doing this year? I haven’t checked the box scores. Baseball should be cancelled until next season, or wait, maybe they shouldn’t have cancelled any of it. Effing idiots in charge
Are you insinuating there should not have been any stoppage at all?
 

Indiandad

Well-known member
I think the mindset is that no one can teach someone to throw 95 plus. Unfortunately that's the way it works in sports. Like in basketball, you can't teach 7 foot tall and athletic, so those guys get the nod over a 6'6" well rounded basketball player.
Of course you can teach to throw 95.

A high school kid with natural arm strength throwing 90+ can be expected to add 5-8 mph with proper mechanics and maturity as their strength improves into their 20's and 30's.
 

zeeman

Well-known member
The absolute very best conclusion from all the stoppages (of sports, of restaurants, of life) is that morons could look back in hindsight and say "wow that was a big overreaction!". That means that the distancing measures largely worked and you were lucky enough to not feel the impact personally.
Unless you were one of the few voices of reason who knew it was an overreaction in March. Distancing measures have not done a thing, 80% of people who have had it have had mild to no symptoms and it will end up killing less than 1% with most being the elderly which we knew very early on was happening in Italy. The whole shutdown was first propositioned to not overwhelm our hospitals, we also knew in April this was not happening. If not for Cuomo killing tens of thousands in New York by ordering nursing homes to take Covid infected there would be much less death. 70% of deaths in Ohio are in nursing homes, try to enlighten yourself just a little, baseball players can very easily social distance during a game. This will change our lives forever if we are so easily manipulated by fear
 
The absolute very best conclusion from all the stoppages (of sports, of restaurants, of life) is that morons could look back in hindsight and say "wow that was a big overreaction!". That means that the distancing measures largely worked and you were lucky enough to not feel the impact personally.
Well, zeeman’s a moron, so....
 

wolves82

Well-known member
Unless you were one of the few voices of reason who knew it was an overreaction in March. Distancing measures have not done a thing, 80% of people who have had it have had mild to no symptoms and it will end up killing less than 1% with most being the elderly which we knew very early on was happening in Italy. The whole shutdown was first propositioned to not overwhelm our hospitals, we also knew in April this was not happening. If not for Cuomo killing tens of thousands in New York by ordering nursing homes to take Covid infected there would be much less death. 70% of deaths in Ohio are in nursing homes, try to enlighten yourself just a little, baseball players can very easily social distance during a game. This will change our lives forever if we are so easily manipulated by fear
The "voices of reason". LOL. You do realize that 1% of Americans is 3.5 million? And right now we are sitting at 100K dead, unfortunately? And yet you claim the distancing has done nothing. Not a real math guy I guess?
 

zeeman

Well-known member
The "voices of reason". LOL. You do realize that 1% of Americans is 3.5 million? And right now we are sitting at 100K dead, unfortunately? And yet you claim the distancing has done nothing. Not a real math guy I guess?
Stay inside then I really don’t give a rats
 

wolves82

Well-known member
Zeeman "troll" formula:
1) make ridiculous statement with no basis in fact or reality
2) gets simple, fact-based responses showing errors in his statement
3) ignore facts in the response and make an lame attempt at an insult
 

Red14

Well-known member
Of course you can teach to throw 95.

A high school kid with natural arm strength throwing 90+ can be expected to add 5-8 mph with proper mechanics and maturity as their strength improves into their 20's and 30's.
Bingo, "natural arm strength throwing 90+" You're in select company with that statement alone.
 

MickeyMantle

Well-known member
Unless you were one of the few voices of reason who knew it was an overreaction in March. Distancing measures have not done a thing, 80% of people who have had it have had mild to no symptoms and it will end up killing less than 1% with most being the elderly which we knew very early on was happening in Italy. The whole shutdown was first propositioned to not overwhelm our hospitals, we also knew in April this was not happening. If not for Cuomo killing tens of thousands in New York by ordering nursing homes to take Covid infected there would be much less death. 70% of deaths in Ohio are in nursing homes, try to enlighten yourself just a little, baseball players can very easily social distance during a game. This will change our lives forever if we are so easily manipulated by fear
Jesus, you people prove on a daily basis how amazingly stupid you are.
 

Red14

Well-known member
The absolute very best conclusion from all the stoppages (of sports, of restaurants, of life) is that morons could look back in hindsight and say "wow that was a big overreaction!". That means that the distancing measures largely worked and you were lucky enough to not feel the impact personally.
Yes, but like selling a house or car on the first bid and wondering if you got taken?? Did the ends justify the means. To think that the shut down only saved us from disaster is very short sided. I'd say more people were affected by school's closing, business closing, jobs lost, lives turned upside down, youth sports seasons being cancelled. We'll never know if the social distancing measures actually worked or not. You take out the deaths from nursing homes from the total number and the number shrinks dramatically.
 

brianwr112

Well-known member
I'd personally rather take a cautious approach and hopefully save some lives. Especially since it was a new virus that basically the entire world was just learning about. And I'd predict the 100,000 number to rise. And a lot more cases showing up now that everyone's just going back to normal. Hard to put a number on how many people didn't catch it or didn't die from it.
 
.
Top