RealGM

Now, this is somewhat unlikely to happen, but we need something to occupy our time. With his home run in the second inning tonight against Josh Beckett, Aaron Hill moved within 11 of tying Davey Johnson and Rogers Hornsby for the most ever by a second baseman in a single season (Johnson had 43 on the year, but one was as a pinch-hitter). Excluding tonight, Hill will potentially play another 36 games...at his current pace he'll finish the season with 40, rare company but not record-setting.

Swing for the fences, you midget! We demand dingers!

Yup, unlikely it'll happen but in an otherwise dismall last month or so of baseball in TO this is something to hang your hat on and hope. Even if he doesn't do it Aaron, Lind and a few others have given us a reason to tune into next season and watch them grow as players. As a fan I desperately want to see a winner, but if I can't have that I want to see up and coming players with a chance to be a star(s).

How's Halladay's quest for 30 wins going?

Actually Hill has a much better look at 42 than Doc ever did at 30.This is definitely one of the positive storylines, and there arent' many left.

Yeah, it's doubtful that he hits 40 HR a year, but I'm a tentative subcriber to the "it's the heavier bat" school of Hillology. Also explains why he swings at a few more bad pitches now...he has to start the bigger bat a little earlier, but when he makes contact they scrape into the bullpen rather than ending up in gaps or gloves.

To even discuss the idea is a testament of what kind a player we have on our hands. Even 30 a year for multiple seasons would be amazing, heck 25+. And we have him locked for another 4 years at least. Woooo.

I do question whether Hill should be hitting #2 long-term, though. Take his size and position out of the equation and consider only his OBP (.326) and SLG (.505) and you have a prototypical #5 hitter (do the same with Overbay and you have a pretty sexy #2 hitter, for that matter). But as we only run four-deep in the lineup with decent hitters against righties, I'm okay with Hill getting as many plate appearances as possible for the moment.

im pretty sure roy halladay is getting shut down after 2 starts, 3 starts max.
man, aaron hill has been the story of the year. hes kinda like the Josh Hamilton of this year, coming back from problems and missing a season and then just making a splash and putting up 30+ homers. not to forget hes become a great defensive player too. him and adam lind are the future of this team. but if he does get all the way to 42, i wouldnt be surprised. 31 so far so hes gotta hit one like every 3 or 4 games.

youngLion wrote:How's Halladay's quest for 30 wins going?

Actually Hill has a much better look at 42 than Doc ever did at 30.This is definitely one of the positive storylines, and there arent' many left.

No pitcher will ever win 30 games again. In fact, I'd call it next impossible.

It's only been done once since 1935 (Denny McClain), and that was back in an era where starters pitched every 4th day and would routinely log several complete games and 300-350 innings a season.

The_Hater wrote:

youngLion wrote:How's Halladay's quest for 30 wins going?

Actually Hill has a much better look at 42 than Doc ever did at 30.This is definitely one of the positive storylines, and there arent' many left.

No pitcher will ever win 30 games again. In fact, I'd call it next impossible.

It's only been done once since 1935 (Denny McClain), and that was back in an era where starters pitched every 4th day and would routinely log several complete games and 300-350 innings a season.

Yeah, 30 wins is utterly impossible in the 35 start era. Oddly, a reliever might have a better shot (by which I mean 2-in-a-million, as opposed to 1-in-a-million) at getting 30 wins...of course, it would require a tonne of luck and a concerted effort to get them wins by bringing them in during any tie game after the fifth inning. And even then it wouldn't work.

Schadenfreude wrote:

The_Hater wrote:

youngLion wrote:How's Halladay's quest for 30 wins going?

Actually Hill has a much better look at 42 than Doc ever did at 30.This is definitely one of the positive storylines, and there arent' many left.

No pitcher will ever win 30 games again. In fact, I'd call it next impossible.

It's only been done once since 1935 (Denny McClain), and that was back in an era where starters pitched every 4th day and would routinely log several complete games and 300-350 innings a season.

Yeah, 30 wins is utterly impossible in the 35 start era. Oddly, a reliever might have a better shot (by which I mean 2-in-a-million, as opposed to 1-in-a-million) at getting 30 wins...of course, it would require a tonne of luck and a concerted effort to get them wins by bringing them in during any tie game after the fifth inning. And even then it wouldn't work.

And no SP has had more than 35 starts in a season since 2003. So let's say one of them actually gets 36 starts, he'd still have to get decisions in about 90% of his starts and then go 30-3 in those games. Roy Face went 18-1 in 1959 for the best winning percentage of all-time. Other than him the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best modern day winning percentages are Greg Maddux (19-2), Ron Guidry (25-3) and Randy Johnson (18-2). That would obviously be a better winning percentage than all 3.

So basically you'd have to have 3 extremely rare things happen all at once.

I actually agree with you, it's probably more likely for a RP with 70-75 appearances to completely fluke into 30 wins. But at the end of the day, I think we can both agree that neither is going to happen.

Heh, as I'm bored and at work with nothing to do, I'm going to go through the game log and see whether a mythical relief pitcher and perfect hindsight could have produced 30 games for the Jays last year (without playing "remove the starter after 4.7 IP" or "give up eight runs so that the meaningless run they scored the next inning would win it" games).

Results:

- Fifteen games that were in reality won by relievers:

Apr 13
May 12(2)
May 15
May 18
Jul 8
Jul 10
Jul 20
Jul 22
Jul 25
Aug 5
Aug 30
Sept 2
Sept 3
Sept 6
Sept 17

- Ten vulturing opportunities (games that were tied after the fifth that the starter ended up winning):

May 5 (entering in the 7th)
May 7 (entering in the 7th)
May 22 (entering in the 6th)
May 28 (entering in the 8th)
June 8 (entering in the 6th)
Aug 7 (entering in the 6th)
Aug 12 (entering in the 6th)
Aug 19 (entering in the 7th)
Sept 11 (entering in the 7th)
Sept 18 (entering in the 6th)

So even by having the reliever come in at the perfect time with each and every opportunity (which involved lifting pitchers throwing shutouts on multiple occasions) I could only get to 25 wins.

Interesting little piece here.

But we're also assuming that this mythical reliever would actually pitch 3 or 4 innings. I wonder how many times we had a reliever pitch than many innings coming in from even the 4th inning or later?

The usage of relievers is a little ridiculous these days. 2-out saves, guys brought in for literally one out before the inning ends or a lefty specialist or whatever comes in... those same guys who throw 10 or fewer pitches not being "available" to pitch the day after...

Nolan Ryan's right; pitchers are babied hardcore, and then are more vulnerable to injury when they're pushed later on. I get it from the standpoint of the extra money involved in the game via salaries now, but WOW, you know?

Anyway, that's a neat little study.

I disagree with the 'babied' thesis, especially as it pertains to starters; pitchers have always broken down at a high rate. The difference in the modern game is that they can catch small tears in the labrum or UCL and perform preemptive surgery, rather than simply running the pitcher into the ground. That creates the illusion that more pitchers are getting hurt, when in reality it's just more obvious because the decline isn't dragged out over several years. For every Marichal there's a McLain, for every Jenkins a Chance, guys whose arms were effectively wrecked by age 30 or earlier (partially because the ethos of the day was to load your shoulder full of cortisone and get back out there in three days). The guys like Ryan that survived it understandably think every pitcher should be able to follow suit, but they were the outliers.

And with my wasted hour above, theoretically the pitcher could do that without exceeding 25 innings, if brought in at the right time. Impossible without a time machine and a 0.00 ERA, but whatever.

Schadenfreude wrote:I disagree with the 'babied' thesis, especially as it pertains to starters; pitchers have always broken down at a high rate. The difference in the modern game is that they can catch small tears in the labrum or UCL and perform preemptive surgery, rather than simply running the pitcher into the ground. That creates the illusion that more pitchers are getting hurt, when in reality it's just more obvious because the decline isn't dragged out over several years. For every Marichal there's a McLain, for every Jenkins a Chance, guys whose arms were effectively wrecked by age 30 or earlier (partially because the ethos of the day was to load your shoulder full of cortisone and get back out there in three days). The guys like Ryan that survived it understandably think every pitcher should be able to follow suit, but they were the outliers.

And with my wasted hour above, theoretically the pitcher could do that without exceeding 25 innings, if brought in at the right time. Impossible without a time machine and a 0.00 ERA, but whatever.

I think that each pitcher has a different physical tolerance and that must be accounted for. Joba's been babied as much as it gets, but he's still been injured periodically through his career, and not just for preemptive surgery. A guy like that, sure, be careful with. Other guys have the ability to throw long-toss at longer distances, go longer innings, etc. I think people get too wrapped up in raw innings and pitch counts instead of stress-pitches and such.

There are many examples of older pitchers who threw more innings per year for a long time and stayed healthy; teams just need to be conscious that some pitchers have the physical facility to be treated differently.

EDIT: I'm not saying pitch every young guy 160-200 innings, right, I'm saying that in the training, teams need to see how a player holds up and treat him intelligently, but also according to the varying physical tolerances of each player. Nolan Ryan had a rubber arm; he'd have been wasted as a guy who was treated like some of the guys today.

I mean look at Halladay; he doesn't need to start everything 4th day or anything, but this is a guy who goes 7, 8 innings and frequently tops 100 pitches. The Rangers aren't any more injured than league average, but their pitchers tend to throw more under certain circumstances (the type of pitches they are throwing, the kinds of outs their getting, observed fatigued, etc).