Comments on: Morrow Feeling Tightness

By: jamesllegade

jamesllegade — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:53:44 +0000

Someone teach him the knuckle curve…! and get those ball in the humidor! STAT!

We demand this kid hurry development of his spinners to be worthy of a starting role and then he hurts himself in the mad rush.

He SHOULD have been working on it in Tacoma last year as a starter! One more piece of fallout from the dark era known as the ‘Bavasi Years’.

Thank god they wont get the same chance on PhiPhi La Phew!

By: joser

joser — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:04:24 +0000

Drayer mentioned in her blog that Bedard was a little frustrated that the high, dry air in AZ made his stuff break less. It’s possible Morrow is having the same problem and pressing. I seem to recall him having a short forearm issue last ST also. They seem to be pretty common early in the year (Felix had his early in the regular season a couple of years ago).

By: jjracoon

jjracoon — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:44:59 +0000

The description of the tightness is in the forearm and probably caused from pressing too hard with his fingers to make his breaking stuff break. I like the idea of four starters with fill ins for the 5th one but based on how many pitchers are fighting for a spot that is not very likely.

By: Coolalvin206

Coolalvin206 — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 01:43:37 +0000

Any other teams have to watch thier fragile pitchers that have already picthed at this level?

[shut up about Lincecum already]

By: John D.

John D. — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:57:56 +0000

how many of the 2003 “never missed a start” rotation are still fulltime major league starters?

What’s the point? Many of the pitchers who started games five years ago are (for a multitude of reasons) no longer starting, whether they’d missed starts in 2003 or not.

By: Wells

Wells — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:56:58 +0000

[no]

By: coasty141

coasty141 — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:31:27 +0000

I’m not trying to argue anything. Just pointing out that Dave’s 120-140 projection (while realistic) is still somewhat optimistic. It seems like some people want to pencil Brandon in for 200 innings just because he’s a starter.

By: joser

joser — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:30:58 +0000

I'm pretty sure I read about or otherwise vaguely remember a rotation that had four regular starters plus two "swingman" long relievers (one LH, one RH) who more or less alternated as the 5th starter depending on usage or stacked lineups. Obviously if a couple of your other starters have meltdowns in the same week and you use both your long relievers you end up short a starter, but that kind of thing plays havoc with a pitching staff no matter how it is composed (remember that game in 2004 in which Moyer was forced to come in as a reliever?) Maybe someone has a more concrete memory of this, or maybe I've got a LaRussa of blood to the head and am just hallucinating.

By: TranquilPsychosis

TranquilPsychosis — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:18:09 +0000

As coastly points out, 120-140 innings pitched is a career high. That’s not something to be ignored.

Those numbers would also be career highs for RRS.
Not sure it supports your argument much coasty, but it does add a certain intrigue to your idea.

By: gwangung

gwangung — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:51:08 +0000

I don’t agree with the premise. He was a college starter,

Which says nothing, given the markedly different usage patterns of college vs. major league pitchers.

The history has the same post hoc reasoning behind it that most of the things this blog exists to debunk do.

Well, no, there’s a mechanism behind it. There’s some prima facie reasons there. Right now, you’re going to have to bring up some other mechanism that makes more sense than that.

As coastly points out, 120-140 innings pitched is a career high. That’s not something to be ignored.