Schmidt=Swift?

by oldjacket on May 7, 2006 7:11 AM PDT

Does anybody remember Bill Swift? I was young at the time but I seem to remember the man was lights out for 6 innings, but rarely went past that. It occurs to me that most of Schmidt's starts have been pretty dominating for five or six. Except for that first one in San Diego, Schmidt's bad starts have all gotten bad late in the game. Maybe it would make sense to use him in a Swifty style 6 inning pattern.

Of course the giants had a pretty good bullpen back then. These days we have a bullpen as likely to get anyone out as a sack of dead hamsters.

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: Schmidt=Swift?

I remember Swift, but I think your memory is wrong. In 1993, Swift's best year, he pitched 232.7 innings on 34 starts. He AVERAGED almost 7 innings a game (very, very good.) If you remember, that was also the breakout year a great bullpen with Rod Beck and Mike Jackson closing out games, but Swift was anything but limited to six innings in his starts. Now, Swift also had a reputation, deservedly so, for getting hurt and landing on the DL in almost every year besides 1993, but for the Giants his three years will always be defined by his one great year in which he stayed healthy, won 21 games, and was a legit Cy Young contender.

I got to say the idea that Schmidt is only a six inning pitcher is kind of funny to post right after his, and the Giants, only complete game shutout of the year. Jason has struggled at times, but I'd say the indications are that he just might be regaining some of his old dominant form. Still no 97 MPH on the radar gun, but if he can do it with less that's alright as well.

yob

by Sayhey on May 7, 2006 7:42 AM PDT reply actions

Re: Schmidt=Swift?

Obviously, in terms of stuff, they are very different pitchers

But, I think Swift is a pretty good comparison in that they are both injury prone pitchers that are misused. Note that after Swift threw 232 2/3 innings, he only went 109 the next year - partly due to injury.

Really, Alou and Baker don't seem to realize that Schmidt [or other pitchers like Wood or Prior] is injury prone and should be treated with kid gloves if you want him to remain effective and on the field.

Strikeouts are fascist.

by irwin on May 7, 2006 12:12 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Schmidt=Swift?

Those were the early days of me following the Giants (I'd forgotten about Mike Jackson), but I remember Swift being REALLY athletic for a pitcher; fielded his position like a cat and did pretty well at the plate. Schmidt looks pretty ordinary other than when he's delivering a pitch.

Join me on the Sharks bandwagon and visit my new blog: www.falloonchronicles.com

by Goofus on May 7, 2006 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Schmidt=Swift?

Swift was also pretty small for a pitcher - 6' 180, compared to Schmidt's 6'5" 220.

Swift had the best sinker I have ever seen - except maybe Kevin Brown or Darren Dreifort.

Strikeouts are fascist.

by irwin on May 7, 2006 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Schmidt=Swift?

The comparison being made was that both are, or in Schmidt's case becoming, six inning pitchers. I don't think the characterization holds for either pitcher. If one wants to look for a pitcher who could only be counted on for the first six, then Woody is the obvious choice. Don't get me wrong, I liked Woody, but he was good for six, in his prime, and then it was go to the pen.

You're right, by the way, that both Schmidtty and Swift have horrible histories with injuries. If that had been the basis for the comparison, then I'd have agreed. I don't think it's fair to lay his (Schmidt's) problems at the feet of Alou and Baker. If anything they both have been prone to baby him - extra days off, skip his turn late in the season, etc.

yob

by Sayhey on May 7, 2006 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Pitcher abu

BP came up with a way of measuring how much stress a pitcher is put under. Basically, it takes into account pitch count, IP, and pitch distribution.

Schmidt has consistently been among the leaders

#4 in 2006
#4 in 2005 [Lowry #13]
#2 in 2004
#10 in 2003
#16 in 2002

FWIW, Cubs pitchers have been up there the last few years as well

Strikeouts are fascist.

by irwin on May 7, 2006 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Pitcher abu

link? Looks like an interesting ranking, but I'd like to see what all goes into it and what emphasis it gives to each factor.

yob

by Sayhey on May 7, 2006 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Pitcher abu

For the stats

http://baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=14

As to exactly how things are balanced, you have to go through the archived articles.

Not sure if a subscription is required

Strikeouts are fascist.

by irwin on May 7, 2006 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Pitcher abu

Thank you, I will check it out.

yob

by Sayhey on May 8, 2006 12:35 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Pitcher abu

Dusty Baker = Death to Throwing Things

by zenbitz on May 8, 2006 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Pitcher abu

That's what they used to say about Roger as well. With him it made sense because he taught so many pitchers the split-finger fastball that placed so much stress on pitchers' arms, but with both Alou's and Baker's tenure with the Giants I'm inclined to question the bias. Why? Partly because people need to make up their minds whether it is the starters who are being overworked (like Billy Martin of old) or it is a tendency to go to the bullpen too early and therefore there is an overuse of the relievers. Can't have it both ways because someone has to pitch those innings - unless the criticism is that the Giants aren't carrying enough pitchers on the roster. Maybe I'm wrong, but my recollection is they have almost always had 12 or even 13 pitchers to share the load. I'm willing to go with the idea that the Giants haven't spent the money to have enough quality starters to eat up innings and therefore have overused the bullpen. I'm not sure how that's the manager's fault; it seems to me that it is the fault of the General Manager and the guys who set the salary budget.

yob

by Sayhey on May 8, 2006 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Pitcher abu

Maybe they just need better pitchers.
Bakers' starters are always at the top of pitches/game. Now, if this was only true at the Giants, you could blame it on the pitchers, but now with the Cubs, same thing, right?

by zenbitz on May 8, 2006 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Pitcher abu

My recollection is that when Baker was here it wasn't the starters who were overworked. Now, some pitchers are going to have higher pitch counts based on the style of pitcher they are (strikeout vs. groundball,) and that sounds like what is going on in Chicago. Better quality starters who both are going to go longer and rely on the strikeout (aside from Maddox) and are therefore going to have higher pitch counts. That's not a bad thing except when those pitchers also have a history of injury - which predates Baker's tenure. I'm not saying Dusty is the best guy handling a pitching staff; only that it starts with who the management is willing to spend money on to throw the innings. In the Giants case, I don't think Alou, or Baker when he was here, has had much choice in whether to overuse his bullpen. We haven't had a solid 5-man rotation for quite some time.

yob

by Sayhey on May 8, 2006 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Pitcher abu

Well, I think I can describe how you can both overwork your starters and your bullpen.

Schmidt has thrown 109 pitches through 7, leading 2-0. Alou brings him in to start the eighth, and he walks the first guys on 8 pitches. Now he is in the danger zone of 120 pitches. He gives up a hit on the 4th pitch, bringing his total to 121 - a stressfull outing.

Alou has just overworked his starter - and that was the best case scenario. It's pretty hard to imagine him getting out of the inning under 120 pitches, so he probably shouldn't have started it in the first place. Now a lefty and righty reliever have to get ready in a hurry. A righty is up, so Munter is brought in to get a ground-ball. The righty bunts, and now the tying run is on second.

On deck is a lefty, in the hole is a righty. Kline is brought and gets the out. Now Worrell is brought in to get the righty, and the inning is over. Benitez pitches the ninth, and Giants win.

Alou just used five pitchers, when three would have done at most. It's simply not thinking ahead into the game [or the season for that matter].

Strikeouts are fascist.

by irwin on May 8, 2006 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Pitcher abu

So, are we now using number of games as the indication of being overworked? I realize the warming up for a game does stress a pitcher's arm, but to what degree? Or are we going to use innings pitched or pitch count or a combination of all the above? You see, the scenario you describe doesn't sound like a bad use of pitchers to me. It all depends on the health of the pitchers involved and how much rest they have had between use. A starting pitcher like Schmidt should be able to throw 120+ pitches on a regular rest schedule - at least until late into the season. As to the use of the bullpen I'd rather use it the way you describe and get the win than stick with matchups that will likely lose. If I'm having to go to the pen early and often over the course of a season, that makes a difference. The use of five pitchers in one game, in and of itself, doesn't sound like pitcher abuse to me.

yob

by Sayhey on May 8, 2006 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Pitcher abu

# of games? For relievers? Yes. Throwing 100 IP in 45 games is probably a lot less stressful that 75 IP in 80 Games.

But you make a good point - it is the conduct over the course of the season that matters. And Alou consistently shows poor planning, IMHO.

1.) He consistently lets starters start innings when they should be removed.
2.) He seldom lets relievers throw a second inning, even if they look great in their first inning.

Strikeouts are fascist.

by irwin on May 8, 2006 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Schmidt=Swift?

Maybe the reason so many people have lost hope with the Giants now is because Billy was during the early days of their Giants-fandom.

I'm not prehistoric (pre-Roger Craig), but I do remember the late-mid 80s and I became a fan because of Thompson and Uribe and Maldando, players who always played much better than the stats seemed to indicate.

I still think that from a fan's perspective it's better to endure a couple of losing seasons. It helps you put life and the game into perspective. Afterall we are just watching other people work.

Speaking of Billy Swift, after what we endured during the '93 season I feel like I can take anything the Giants throw at me.

Losing 7 of our last 9? A season ending walk off grand-slam by Finley? Losing the series in 7 games? Please, watching Lasorda bring out Mike Piazza to cath the warm-up throws in the 8th (or was it the 9th) inning just so he would get another standing ovation was the far worse punishment.

Munter or Bust

by noahthek on May 8, 2006 1:54 PM PDT reply actions