Hernandez: Early hook?
If you're going to say Dave Trembley just took out David Hernandez too soon, I suggest you do it right now, because I'm not accepting any second-guesses after Jim Johnson finishes the inning (or doesn't). You don't get the benefit of hindsight this time.
Hernandez was right at about 100 pitches and he walked Chone Figgins with two outs and Bobby Abreu coming up. The change was automatic, but we'll see how it turns out.
Instant update: That was quick. I'm wondering why Mike Scioscia went to the hit and run in that situation, if that was what it was, because Matt Wieters' great throw cost the Angels a chance for their hottest hitter to put a big dent in the three-run lead against a setup guy who might be little tentative after Wednesday's ninth-inning collapse.






Comments
JJ needs a good 8th inning tonight, get the confidence back quickly.
Posted by: Joe | July 4, 2009 12:35 AM
I think he needs to go to Sherrill with the tying run up, JJ does not have it tonight. I hope I'm wrong though.
Posted by: Joe | July 4, 2009 12:43 AM
I dont think Johnson will get an "early hook"! Not tonight.....
Posted by: jongermany | July 4, 2009 12:49 AM
I think Dave handled Hernandez perfectly tonight. Let him face the bottom of the order in the 7th, if someone gets on, go to JJ.
Posted by: Jon | July 4, 2009 12:55 AM
johnson wasnt very smooth, a walk, two wild pitches, a run, 28 pitches to get four outs. Sherill let up the hit but then shut them down.
Was a bit shaky at the end and our bats shut down again in the last 5 innings, but overall a good win. quality starting pitching and a 3 run homer.
Posted by: ssmd | July 4, 2009 1:03 AM
I meant, that the way JJ is pitching tonight, it will not be an "early" hook...but a lets get through this inning, get him out and get to sherrill!
Great overall game by Hernandez!
Another save by our All-Star closer....
Posted by: jongermany | July 4, 2009 1:08 AM
Pete, The hit and run or not was kind of weird. That was the absolute perfect throw by MW. Nice execution to take the bat out of Bobby's hand w/a man on after he killed us last night. I know I was pumped!
The pitching moves worked well because everyone did their jobs and we won. I also did not notice any base running issues...
Posted by: Austin | July 4, 2009 1:30 AM
Who came up with this 100 pitch limit? Was there a study accomplished which determined this was the maximum number of pitches a starter could throw the ball before increasing his chances of sustaining injury? Or was this, as I suspect, an arbitrary number picked out of the air? Wakefield throws 100 knuckleballs at 60mph, while Guthrie tosses 100 90mph fastballs. Both are on the same pitch count. Does this make sense? Can't these managers tell when the starter is running out of gas? It seems like a cop out for some of these guys (managers) to fall back on when questioned about their handling of the starters.
.............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I think it's somewhat arbitrary, though it's basically the number the average pitcher needs to get through seven innings.
Posted by: Jay Peterson | July 4, 2009 1:52 AM
Come on -- comparing Hernandez to Bergesen is a joke -- BB has the physical and mental makeup to become the ace of the staff -- gotta let him attempt to complete a game in which he had a 4-run lead , was just over 100 pitches thru 8, and was not struggling at all.
Posted by: brucedog12 | July 4, 2009 6:50 AM
Interesting question " Can't these managers tell when a stater is running out of gas"? Sometimes it is not a loss of velocity, sometimes it is leaving the ball up in the strike zone. Yes a knuckle ball pitcher has less stress, in fact Wilbur Wood pitched both games of a double header once, but even he had arm trouble by the time he was 33.
Funny how this world is wanting to make judgment on people minute by minute. Trembley is doing his job, he is working with what is given to him, and he has a responsibility of managing possibly the youngest starting pitching staff in baseball.
Posted by: cb coach | July 4, 2009 7:51 AM
If the Orioles want to make the jump from perennial last place finishers to pennant contenders, they will need to get over the stupid idea of a 100-pitch limit. There simply is no scientific evidence that a pitcher goes from dominant to ineffective at 100 pitches, or that shoulder/arm injuries occur after 100 pitches. Anyone who has played baseball for any significant time can tell when a pitcher is laboring. There is no excuse for lifting a pitcher who is not gassed and who is still being effective, whether they have thrown 100 pitches or 130 pitches. "Going by the book" is a time-honored policy, but one that substitues dogma for rational thinking. The Orioles organization is stocked with young 20-something pitchers in the best physical condition they will ever be. They are fully capable of throwing 130 pitches and even an occasional 150-pitch outing. It makes NO sense to lift a still-effective pitcher for a reliever who may or may not be effective, especially in the 8th or 9th inning.
Posted by: Jim | July 4, 2009 9:00 AM
"perennial last place team?" The Orioles have only finished in last in the AL East once since 2001. All their other losing seasons resulted in them finishing fourth. Last year, they finished last in the AL East, but Seattle had the worst record in the AL.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 4, 2009 9:32 AM
What's wrong with comparing Bergesen and Hernandez? BTW Bergesen is not an "ace" he's a solid 4/5 starter with a little upside. Hernandez is a little better as a prospect, better velocity and an out pitch in his slider. He's got a ceiling as a 3/4 starter and possibly a back end bullpen guy. If there's an "ace" in this system it's probably Tillman, who we may be lucky to see soon.
Posted by: JD | July 4, 2009 10:00 AM
Hit and Run?
How is this any strategy.
I've been watching baseball since 1969, and I have yet to see an effective "strategy" for the sport.
Baseball is based on three premises:
1. Good Pitching
2. Talented hitters
3. Balls falling to the ground, not in outfielders' gloves.
Football has strategy, baseball . . .
Posted by: logiopath | July 4, 2009 11:20 AM
At this stage of their careers, how can anyone say who will be the ace? Bergesen makes a good case, so far, and who says an ace has to throw 100 of strike out 9-10 per game? Remember Mike Boddicker and McGregor? 88-89 mph but great pitchers, both.
I do think pitch count is something to forget about. Ask Nolan Ryan. Texas pitchers are thriving, so far, on his lifting of the pitch count. A much better sign of tiring is laboring and slowing down the game, also not getting the ball down in the strike zone when it has been all game. That, to me is when you think of a pitching change. Sometimes, I believe 125-135 would be in order. Guys of the 60's and 70's threw till they said they were tired, as long as they were not hit hard.And there were not nearly as many arm injuries back then.
Posted by: woodieman | July 4, 2009 11:50 AM
I can remember a couple of outstanding aces who didn't throw even in the 90s and didn't strike out too many guys. Have we forgotten Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine so soon?
"Ace" is reserved for the top starting pitcher on a team and is based on effectiveness, not velocity or strikeouts.
Posted by: Jim | July 4, 2009 3:06 PM
cb coach, I wasn't criticizing Tremblay in particular, just generalizing regarding current MLB managers' mindset. Sometimes, to be successful, you have to be a hero and think outside the box. If Rangers' President Nolan Ryan is successful in demanding his pitchers attempt to complete games and blow past the 100 "limit", then it's entirely predictable that others will follow suit.
Posted by: Jay Peterson | July 5, 2009 12:21 AM