Mike Pelfrey says hi. And hi.

And Mike Pelfrey pitches for the "emotionally weak" Mets no less, according to Jenkins.

Some of it is pitch-count hysteria. But I'd say most of it is the re-invention of the bullpen. The 100 pitch thing is silly, as everyone knows some guys are more durable than others. The Lincecum example is pointless. The Giants have no reason to play ball like that this year.

A friend of mine that used to work at the Chronicle told me that after having a baseball conversation with Jenkins he concluded that everything Jenkins knew about baseball he learned in kindergarten. And has since forgotten most of it. He always seems to me to be the leader of the "played with onions in their belts' gang.

I agree there's a little too much emphasis on pitch counts, but I don't know how you can look at the dozens of promising young arms that have been shredded and destroyed due to heavy workloads early in the career.

I don't the Sabathia example is a particularly good one, either. He's a type of pitcher who can probably handle more pitches per outing than a lot of his peers. But we've already seen what throwing a lot of pitches throughout the season did to him. And while he was still throwing some heat late in that Houston game, he was pretty clearly gassed the last inning or two he was out there. This isn't the case for the Brewers, but if you've got a good pen, it's stupid to try and squeeze another 20 or 30 sub-par pitches out of your starter.

I also think it's a copout for any alleged journalist to automatically lump individuals who use any type of number to make baseball-related decisions as a "geek." It smacks of total meathead mentality.

This isn't the case for the Brewers, but if you've got a good pen, it's stupid to try and squeeze another 20 or 30 sub-par pitches out of your starter.

Exactly. Teams with bad 'pens tend to be, well, bad. There's no reason to stretch out your starter if you're not playing for anything. Teams with good 'pens probably have pitchers willing to go the distance every night, but why bother when you have what's usually a better option at that point in the game? Lester for the 9th or Papelbon K'ing 2 or 3 guys in a 12 pitch span?

The main reason those guys threw so many CG back then was because the bullpen was just a crop of failed starters, and nothing more.

Last year, in the NL, there was one complete game for every 54.04 starts. This year, it's gotten slightly more common, with one CG for every 52.25 starts.

Last year, in the AL, there was one complete game for every 35.44 starts. This year, there has been one CG for every 28.41 starts. The American League already has as many complete games this year (64) as it had all of last year.

So what this article really is trying to say is that the art of the complete game is making a comeback.

boots that doesnt take into account that NL pitchers get lifted for pinch hitters in close games where as the AL doesnt have that problem

The main reason those guys threw so many CG back then was because the bullpen was just a crop of failed starters

I think it was the other way around.

boots that doesnt take into account that NL pitchers get lifted for pinch hitters in close games where as the AL doesnt have that problem

I'm not sure what you think my point was. I am aware that CGs are more common in the AL, for obvious reasons; all I was pointing out was that CGs have gotten more common this year in both leagues.

I am in a Strat-o-matic keeper league and Doc Halladay is my AL Ace. This year I am really hopin ghe keeps up with the CGs and long outings so I can see a Starter-8. :)

ah ok, I misread it thinking that you just used the AL's rate to say league wide they were increasing... i dont see the NL's rate change as that significant to make that leap. the AL's however is.

the geeks’ pencil party

classic.

Don't worry gentlemen, Bruce will have all of the answers to this 'problem' tomorrow - when he releases this essay's "Part 2".

It is unfortunate that legitimate (if increasingly accepted) points have to be polluted with "old fart" rhetoric and the suggestion that there is some "geek" enemy out there. People like Will Carroll and others have been pointing out for quite a few years now that pitch counts in a vacuum, without consideration of mechanics, stress situations, pitcher type and so on, are foolish. So what Jenkins is saying is nothing new or heretical within the progressive stats community. But his presentation is typically hostile and narrow, cherry picking historical examples rather than analyzing factors that account for them.

Jenkins is awesome. When most people ##### about the lack of complete games, they at least primarily bring up pitchers who pitched complete games and didn't have arm problems.

Not Jenkins, though. In a long screed about how most starters don't need to be protected, he actually brings up players like Mike Krukow who was done immediately afterwards and had to retire because of his torn rotator cuff, John Smoltz, who almost had his career end years ago, and Fernando Valenzuela, done as a star by the time he was "24."

I don't the Sabathia example is a particularly good one, either. He's a type of pitcher who can probably handle more pitches per outing than a lot of his peers.

He is also not a good example as the Brewers do not have a long term investment in him. They might be different pressures on them if he were signed to a 6 year, 100 million contract.

I think a lot of it is the shrinking strike zone. Today's pitches requires such max effort because they require high velocity with pinpoint control, that it is extremely taxing to pitchers. That and you can't really take at-bats off anymore because even 8 and 9 hitters can take you out of the ballpark. I don't think its "babying" of pitchers - if anything, pitchers today are more conditioned to go nine.

That's my wild-assed theory anyway.

Also in the article:

It would be misguided to blame Bochy, pitching coach Dave Righetti or general manager Brian Sabean. They only reflect a cautious stance taken throughout baseball, and if they have decided to protect Lincecum's arm - the better for him to dominate when the team becomes relevant - who's to argue?

I don't know, Bruce. Are you arguing, or are you not arguing?

I actually have to give Jenkins a little credit. This isn't a true get off my lawn article - he isn't saying that today's ballplayers are pussies, he acknowledges that they would all love to pile up complete games if their managers let them.

Bruce Jenkins is dumber than ten Tommy Lasordas.

"(Part 1)"

Sadly, the art of the complete column has also been lost.

Regarding the quoted portion about not blaming Bochy and crew for babying Lincecum, I believe a recent Giants broadcast showed a graphic that Lincecum and Cain were two of the top 3 pitchers in terms of pitches per game.

I phrased that really badly, but I think it'll be good enough.

The stupidity of people like Barbieri is almost enough for me to wish Lincecum's arm would become detached from his shoulder. But these PsOS would blame the culture of baseball today for babying the kids in the minors so they couldn't manage a reasonable workload. If only they had come through the pipeline the same time as a gamer like Krukow.

With all the scientific studies done on the human body the last 50 years, are there are studies on pitching counts and on whether or not they affect durability of the pitcher?

the geeks’ pencil party

why wasn't i invited?

Jenkins was just on KNBR with Barbieri, who was fellating him as usual. The satisfaction one can hear in Jenkins's voice as he gets serviced on the radio is rather gross.

Anyway, he addressed that some people had brought up the criticism about Krukow, Smoltz, etc. He said that he guarantees they wouldn't change a thing because they wanted to compete at the highest level. I wonder if he thinks the same about guys who were toast before they made any money.

Then Barbieri interrupted the thought to say what wonderful prose the first few paragraphs were, and he read them on the air for those of us who hadn't the chance to read it ourselves. Honestly, you'd think Jenkins had just penned the defining work of a generation.

I think Jenkins is the meathead from SanFran who a few years back bashed the statheads for using acronym stats instead of caring about the game. The funny part was that he said that the true fan didn't like these acronym stats just give them good old runs batted in. You mean RBI? At least I think it was him, either that or some other meathead from SF.

McCoy, that was Jenkins. He also ran one of those fake 'conversation with the geek in the basement' type articles as well. I am pretty sure that he rarely attends games but prefers to record them and watch them at his leisure.

Justin T- Jenkins does claim that guys would rather burn out their arm going all the way. He once said that the pitchers on the A's staff under Billy Martin did not mind wasting their arms if it got them to the playoffs once rather than have long careers and not make the playoffs.

Aside from tennis he is a complete waste of time to read.

I was just going to mention the tennis angle. When the reporter wrote the idiotic acronym article I looked up his previous articles and they all seemed to be mostly about the US Open with a few baseball articles thrown in. I assumed that Jenkins was some sports writer that the SFChronicle or whomever through onto baseball because of Bonds and all of his doings.

But I'd say most of it is the re-invention of the bullpen.

Exactly. Why push a tiring starter when you can run a fresh arm out there who will, likely, be at least as good for an inning or so as the guy who is coming out?

-- MWE