In 1912, the American League team from Washington had a
24-year old stud pitcher on their hands. He was arguably the best pitcher in
the AL, or even in all of baseball. He had pitched 1350 innings for them
already in his five years with the team. That included an incredible 370 in
1910 as a 22-year old. Did Washington coddle their young pitcher in 1912?
Doesn’t look that way. Walter Johnson pitched 369 innings for them that year,
winning 33 games. Did it ruin the rest of his career? Well, he pitched another
15 seasons after 1912, winning an additional 302 games. Sounds pretty good to
me. Looks like there wasn’t any need to limit his innings, or rest him for next
year.
But, people could say, Johnson was a rare pitcher. One of
the few who could handle that sort of workload. You can’t assume that everyone
could thrive under those conditions. And, that’s a true statement. So, let’s
look at another extreme. In 1912, the Red Sox had a stud 22-year old pitcher
who might have been the best pitcher in the AL, if Johnson wasn’t. He had
pitched 650 innings for the Sox the previous four years. That year, he pitched
an amazing 344 innings. He promptly blew out his shoulder. (Probably tore his
rotator cuff, but they didn’t know about such things back then.) Never reached
150 innings again in his career after 1912. But, in 1912? He went 34-5 with a
1.91 ERA. One of the best seasons ever. He had three of the four Boston wins in
the World Series. The Sox walked away with the championship over a NY Giants
team that won 103 games in 1912. What if the Sox had rested Smoky Joe Wood
during the 1912 season? What if they had shut him down? What if they scaled him
back to 75% when he started showing signs of shoulder trouble? What if they
saved him for 1913? No way do the Sox win the World Series that year.
Was it worth it? I think so. Ask Dodgers fans if it was
worth it to them to get only a short burst of Sandy Koufax, along with his
three World Series rings, as opposed to ten yeas of 75%. Is it even a question?
What does any of
this matter in 2012? Well, the obvious correlation is to Washington’s current
young stud, Stephen Strasburg. The Nationals plan to limit his innings, for the
future. But, I have to wonder. How would a worst case of Smoky Joe Wood sound?
Let it fly, see the greatest pitching year you’re likely to see, win a
championship. Sounds pretty good to me. Maybe you luck out, and he can do it
again. Maybe you don’t.
A more relevant
example for this blog, though, is Carl Crawford. He was recently shut down by
the Red Sox so he could be ready for next season and beyond. It’s not a perfect
example, since Crawford has an injury. But, it’s a similar problem. They need
to sacrifice the present for the future. Right now, the Sox are 7 games out of
the playoffs. With Crawford, the Sox have a much better chance of closing the
gap. He’s going to miss a month of a season either way. The choice is having
him miss September of 2012, or April of 2013. Why not take the chance this year
with a healthy Ortiz, Lester coming around, Gonzalez remembering how to play,
and Beckett showing good signs? Why save Crawford for the unknown?
Since it’s an actual
injury, I do have to give the Sox a little slack. They say his injury is
getting worse by playing. I’m not sure what the problem is. Getting worse to
the point that he may need Tommy John? He’s getting that anyway. Getting worse
to the point that his recovery time is longer? That’s could be a factor.
Getting worse to the point where it may cause other issues with other body
parts? That’s problematic. So, it’s possible that shutting down Crawford is, in
fact, the right move. I just can’t be sure.
What I can be sure
of is that teams, especially the Sox, spend way too much time worrying about
next year.
If we assume that
every player has a fixed number of bullets in his gun, whether it’s pitches, or
at-bats, or whatever, why are we saving them? Don’t we want as many of those
used up when the player is young? In his prime? Why are we sacrificing 25-year
old games in exchange for 35-year old games?
Why did the Sox
protect Pedro so he’d be able to pitch for the Mets?
Good post.
ReplyDeleteI gotta believe pitching approaches must have been very different 100 years ago because the human body certainly hasn't gotten more frail over time.
But you are right about one thing. What good are bullets if you are just surrendering them because you lost the war.
It is an excellent post. If anything, the human body is stronger now than 100 years ago.
ReplyDeleteI have a concern with pitchers nowadays, where they don't are fully developed when they start throwing breaking balls during their pre-teens and teenage years. That is permanent damage to the elbow, and we wonder why they can't pitch over a certain amount of innings, or worse, they need Tommy John surgery in their 20's.
If you are in contention, you have to use all your bullets now. That's what the fans want when they buy the tickets.