One suck rookie involved in the Tribe's adjustment process is Friday starter David Huff ...

One suck rookie involved in the Tribe's adjustment process is Friday starter David Huff ...

I know Huff has been a relative disappointment, but this sic from mlb.com just seems cruel.

4 months ago TheDanimal 39 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I’m sure it was a simple typo, but an amusing one all the same.

by Ryan on Sep 18, 2009 3:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Obvious typo…but, regardless of Huff’s up and downs, the fact that he has kept his cool and won ten games so far this season is all to his credit.

by MooneysRebellion on Sep 18, 2009 3:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I guess. But…

WINS!?

Captain of the SS [DO NOT TRADE] CHOO

by westbrook on Sep 18, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As a fan, I can understand how we can discredit the stat “wins”…but as a former pitcher, wins mean something. They boosted my confidence the more I had, and I have no doubt that other pitchers probably feel the same way….that’s all I’m saying.

by MooneysRebellion on Sep 18, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They boosted my confidence the more I had

That may be the case, but this has nothing to do with actual performance value.

Here Lies the Victor Martinez Era:
Sept. 10, 2002 - July 31, 2009

by USSChoo on Sep 18, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless building his confidence makes him perform better…

by still ill on Sep 18, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So all 20 game winners are valuable because they must be very confident? Talk about a stretch.

Here Lies the Victor Martinez Era:
Sept. 10, 2002 - July 31, 2009

by USSChoo on Sep 18, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They boosted your confidence because you misunderstood how much a Win, or the lack of a Win, reflected on your individual performance. Or, perhaps you understood perfectly well, but your confidence was based on feeling good about your teammates as well as yourself.

by Jay on Sep 18, 2009 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly….whether I believed the value of a win or not, the more I collected, the better I pitched. I can’t explain it better than that, except chalking it up to confidence….which does go a long way for a pitcher.

by MooneysRebellion on Sep 19, 2009 7:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would argue this makes it all the more important to educate pitchers as to how to measure their real, personal level of success.

I take it from your message that a pitcher who has pitched well but (through no fault of his own) failed to garner the win has missed out on the confidence boost, thus his performance in the future may suffer. If re-educated, perhaps he would pitch better, or continue to pitch as well for longer.

On the other hand, the mediocre pitcher may get false confidence from a W, and that probably is not going to help him as much as real confidence would help a good pitcher.

by Jay on Sep 19, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I used to get most discouraged by bad defense moreso than the team winning or losing back when I pitched. When the infield couldn’t get to a ball that I thought was gettable, it would really discourage me.

by Roger Dorn on Sep 19, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jay, we don’t have any good pitchers on our team.

by hans on Sep 20, 2009 2:11 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I don’t think it’s a case of them feeling negative if they lose 1-0. But if they battle and hang in there and win 6-5, they feel much more positive. The psychology of this is why Wedge gives his starters every possible chance to get the win, in my opinion.

I think that coaches would probably frown on your idea because while it’s not your intent, it could be considered that you are giving them a pass if they give up that tie-breaking run in the 7th.

I have the philosophy that when players or teams are surprising early in the season and appear to be getting lucky, that often they’ll feel that they are that good and start playing that way.

Scott Feldman has pitched well, but do you think he took the mound last night with more confidence because he was 16-5 than if he had gotten poor support and instead was 10-9? I’m sure he did. Now, did it help him pitch better? Maybe not. But it’s an interesting debate.

by TribeJay on Sep 20, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The psychology of this is why Wedge gives his starters every possible chance to get the win, in my opinion.

I will be shocked if anyone ever produces any hard evidence that Wedge sticks with starters longer than other managers, especially outside of garbage time. He leaves his starters in because (a) a struggling starter is more likely to give you another two good innings than the weakest relievers, and that’s who’d have to be used in those situations, (b) it’s basically impossible win 55-60% of your games without getting a lot of innings out of your starters.

by Jay on Sep 20, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just based on observation, he’s more apt to leave a guy in if it’s tied or if he’s down by one run than if he’s ahead. Usually only applies when a starter is near his pitch count range.

by TribeJay on Sep 20, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again, what inning are we talking about? This may be for good reason.

And more apt compared to whom? “Just by observation,” I can’t buy that. We don’t observe other managers in any great quantity, nor with the same informed perspective.

by Jay on Sep 20, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Late in the game, probably the 7th. I’m not saying it is the only reason, and certainly the main reason to be left in is to avoid the bullpen. He’s just more apt to do that.

I’m not comparing him to other managers. He’s more apt to leave a starter in the game when tied or down by a run than he is when they are leading. The comparison is the game situation, not to other managers.

by TribeJay on Sep 20, 2009 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said, I’ll be shocked if anyone ever backs this up with data, and until then, I’m assuming it’s simply untrue. No offense.

by Jay on Sep 20, 2009 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or, it’s because you haven’t noticed it.

by TribeJay on Sep 21, 2009 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This has been brought up at least twice weekly for months if not years. You think I haven’t been paying attention?

by Jay on Sep 21, 2009 1:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not that you aren’t paying attention, but you might not have perceived this (if it’s real). Just thought you should allow for the possibility. :)

Getting away from this debate, we’re missing a big point on why pitchers value wins. It’s fairly obvious but I thought it should be stated. The media values wins. What is the first stat that is used when introducing the starting pitcher for a particular game? Outside of papers that used expanded pitching lines, what stat shows in the pitching probables?

Zack Greinke got drilled in the pitching arm in the 4th inning the other day. They removed him from the game for precautionary reasons – but not until he pitched 5 innings to get the win. They feel he needs the win to improve his Cy Young chances. Despite the fact that Greinke’s numbers should assure him of the award, there will be voters that vote Sabathia over Greinke because of the wins.

Until all the above changes, pitchers will always overvalue individual wins.

by TribeJay on Sep 21, 2009 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let’s assume we’re talking about whether a guy pitches into the seventh inning, because that’s what has been suggested here (although if the issue is getting a guy a win, looking at the 5th or 6th inning may make more sense, but we digress). A Tribe pitcher has finished the sixth inning 84 times this year:

Score	   G	7th?	% 7th
Trail 3+   7	3	43%
Trail 2	  12	4	33%
Trail 1	  12	4	33%
Tied	  11	7	64%
Lead 1	   7	5	71%
Lead 2	   7	3	43%
Lead 3+	  28	25	89%

I don’t see any evidence at all that Wedge would leave a guy in for the 7th in the hopes that the team would come back in order to secure a win. Of those 12 ties, 8 were either scoreless or 1-1, suggesting that the pitcher was pitching well. The biggest conclusion to draw: if you want to see the seventh, don’t have a lead of 11 or more runs.

by FredOx on Sep 21, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no, he does it. i’ve seen it with my own two eyes, you cyborg.

by Brick. on Sep 21, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the research, Fred, but the above is probably too broad of brush to paint here. To be more specific, it involves situations where the pitch count would suggest the pitcher is being “pushed.” And there are a lot of variables here, including who is pitching, were they pushed in their last start, have they started on their 5th day multiple times in a row, how fresh the set-up guys are, etc. Those variables are more important to the decision than the theory I’ve suggested. If it’s Cliff Lee and he’s thrown 90 pitches and given up only a run or two, he’s coming out for that next inning unless it’s a complete blowout.

Frankly, the way this year has gone, I can’t remember the last time I observed this situation.

by TribeJay on Sep 21, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s almost impossible to draw any conclusions on this mini-debate because I think the times when it is clear cut where Wedge would leave a starter in just to get a W, are very limited. Maybe a couple times/season.

by Roger Dorn on Sep 21, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As an aside, I am confident Wedge has left starters in a bit too long a few times for the psychological benefit of getting a W, but do not think it has been a problem or happened more than few times in his entire tenure as manager.

by Roger Dorn on Sep 21, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure it’s ever happened for the reason we posit. I think two things are clear. First, Wedge sometimes leaves the starter in too long. This is the nature of the game, and is true of virtually all managers (as is the converse). Second, Wedge is loyal to a fault to his guys. This is not true of all managers, but is certainly true of Wedge. We then attempt to explain the former with the latter.

I think Wedge’s bullpen management has a less-nefarious explanation. He leaves the starter in when he thinks the tiring starter gives the team a better chance to win than do the available bullpen options. Yeah, he’s wrong sometimes, but that doesn’t make it a conspiracy to get guys wins when bullpen aces are sitting around playing dominoes.

by FredOx on Sep 21, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And to be absolutely and bluntly clear, I am confident that he basically never does this.

Wedge wants starters to get through the 6th, not the 5th, but you have to get through the 5th to get there..

by Jay on Sep 21, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I say that I am sure he has done it because I remember it happening maybe once or twice. The instance that sticks out in my mind was in 2007 with Jake Westbrook who was laboring to get through the 5th inning. We ended up losing a lead because Wedge wanted to get Jake a W, he even admitted it after the game. I wish I could remember specirfically the game, but I can’t. I don’t think this has happened more than a few times during his entire tenure as manager though.

I would agree with “basically never” which was my original point, it doesn’t happen enough to care about.

by Roger Dorn on Sep 21, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it doesn’t happen enough to care about.

a jordan brown homerun is an example of this.

by Brick. on Sep 21, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think people have been much more interested in disproving the point than I am in proving it. It is an observation, not a documented fact. All anyone had to say was that they hadn’t observed this and you think I’m full of hooey. Really, I don’t care. Seriously.

I just felt I had to tweak you because I inferred from your posts that if it can’t be proven with data then it can’t possibly be true, and/or that there isn’t a possibility that you didn’t notice something. So I tweaked you.

And if a manger, hypothetically speaking of course, were to occasionally leave someone in to get them credit for a win, it might be at the risk of losing the said game, but the purpose would be to instill confidence in the starter so that it would pay off in the long run. It’s not some conspiracy, it’s just as simple as that. And I tend to agree with that philosophy.

by TribeJay on Sep 21, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t mind the tweaking, but I think I haven’t communicated my perspective on this clearly.

My perspective is that people are constantly saying that Wedge does this all the time, without any evidence. It has become almost an accepted fact that he does this.

In the face of that, I’m saying that not only is there no evidence of it, I also believe inspite of everyone that it’s really not true in the least.

As for you and me, the status quo seems to be that you have your observations and I have mine, and neither one of us is presenting any hard evidence.

by Jay on Sep 21, 2009 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s fair. I hadn’t observed that many others that have that theory. Seriously, I thought I was one of the few. OK, your other comments make more sense now.

by TribeJay on Sep 21, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs