@ND Baseball (Poll)

[THWG]

I know I've said it over and over, but it's about where he enters the game. 0-0 vs potentially entering with us behind (or not at all) once we start getting to better opponents who will score at a greater frequency - and potentially have better pitching that will make it harder for us to come back. (In the regular season) I want my best guys going when it's 0-0 to give me my best shot at getting a lead. You're typically bringing in a reliever either to get of a specific high stress situation or once the starter is out of bullets for the day. This whole long relief option mostly only works when you have a lead or can get a lead quick. As the competition gets better, the odds of those two things decreases.

(In the regular season) I am adamantly against using Patel after Tate unless it's in short relief. As much as I like the pitching this season, having to go into the next two days without Patel at this point is not a recipe for success. Maybe that changes as we get deeper into the season and guys gain experience and show us more, but going into Clemson that is the case.



When I say it's not sustainable, I'm specifically referring to the usage for both midweek and weekend. It's not about recovery time. There's only so many bullets in an arm. He's already about an about an appearance away from matching his career high in innings pitched in a season. That isn't to say that he can't go over that and be successful. However, the further you get away from that established max the increased odds of ability and control falling off.

Going back to what I said above, I also don't think using him after Tate in a long relief role is sustainable for success either. Unless your goal is to make sure you win 1 game a weekend. That's not to say we can't win without him, but I play the best odds, not possibilities. Tate + other relief on Friday and then having Patel (and Paden) for the next two is out best bet currently imo. We just don't have enough proven arms to rely on to keep rolling out Brady and Riley - especially if we don't have Patel to come in.



So if we play KSU, Bowling Green, and Kansas in football and we win, but look bad doing it you wouldn't change a thing? I get that it's not apples to apples, but the validity of the argument is the same. Just because something has worked vs the lesser teams on our schedule DOES NOT mean it will work (or is a good strategy) vs the better teams we have coming up. Against lesser teams we've been able to get away with the way Riley has pitched. Good teams don't let you get away with all those free baserunners. Also, the odds our offense performs the same against these better teams coming up is not good.

Terry Busse was a career reliever. He had never started a game before we tried it. That is not the same as Patel who has started 16 games and would have started more if not for injury - He started 3 times out of his first 4 out for State as a freshman before getting hurt. He has mostly been a career starter.

I like Patel. I like Taylor. I like the rest of our pitching staff. None of this is meant to take away from any of them. I've played and coached and been around the game for a long time. I'm just giving my insight. Baseball is a funny game. Things go well until they don't. They go bad until they don't. Things change quickly. When you see an issue you have to fix it BEFORE it comes back to bite you. Right now the Saturday and Sunday starts have been issues. We've been able to get away with it, but better teams aren't going to let you get away with it. The coaches seem to be addressing the Sunday issue without changing Patel's role. I think they're going to be forced to address the Saturday role sooner than later and I'm not sure there's a better answer than Patel. If it's not Patel, I still think we need to start saving those bullets and CANNOT continue throwing him in midweek games (save ugag - that's a must win to me and I expect a lot of people, so consider that a playoff game). As I said before, I also don't think pairing Tate and Patel is a good strategy (at least beyond an emergency short stint to get out of a jam after which he'd still be available later in the weekend). Therefore I'm mostly for saving him for Saturday or Sunday. If that's the case, I fully believe that there's no reason not to start him and guarantee that 0-0 start and important innings.

The one part of your argument that I really don't get is how you keep mentioning that he is only one more appearance away from reaching a career high in innings. That would be the same as a starter or reliever. If we had only been using him as a starter this whole year, he would still probably be around the same number of innings pitched as he is now. However, he has been able to impact more games as a reliever and he is so efficient with his pitches that the number of innings is less concerning. If this was the pros, I would agree with you, but the built in days off help with recovery in college.

 

[gtbeak]

Watching Jones pitch today, I thought he looked really good. Low pitch count, 5 K's the first 2 innings. I can see why the coaches like him. After the first out of the third, the downfall started with an error by Lackey. Three well placed hits with a couple of walks sprinkled in later, his day was done. None of the balls were hit hard, just well placed. Even the double down the line was really just poked the other way just inside the 1B bag. If Hernandez had been holding the runner on, it's right at him and likely a DP. I don't think today was Jones's fault, just bad baseball luck.

Jones' collapse is my fault. In chat I said WTTE of "Jones is cruising", and then like 2 minutes later the wheels fell off. Fred gets all the blame, but I'm more at fault this time.

 

[CINCYMETJACKET]

Jones' collapse is my fault. In chat I said WTTE of "Jones is cruising", and then like 2 minutes later the wheels fell off. Fred gets all the blame, but I'm more at fault this time.

Well, I was looking at his pitch count in the 20's after 2 IP and we had put up a 5-spot. I was thinking if he keeps rolling like this, he could finish this in 7 when we put up 5 more. Oops...

 

[DecaturJacket]

The one part of your argument that I really don't get is how you keep mentioning that he is only one more appearance away from reaching a career high in innings. That would be the same as a starter or reliever. If we had only been using him as a starter this whole year, he would still probably be around the same number of innings pitched as he is now. However, he has been able to impact more games as a reliever and he is so efficient with his pitches that the number of innings is less concerning. If this was the pros, I would agree with you, but the built in days off help with recovery in college.

That is only an argument for limiting his usage to crucial appearances. Any start would obviously qualify as that. Using him twice in a week should mostly be off the table imo.

I can tell you that throwing twice in a week in games (no matter the innings pitched or pitches thrown) is SIGNIFICANTLY harder on your arm than throwing once. Yes, starters are throwing during the week anyway, but a bullpen and a game appearance are not the same. Even in non-stress game situations. Throw in that he's got injury history - two of four seasons have ended in injury.

No matter what, I think between the level of competition going significantly up and him getting more innings than he's even gotten, I think some kind of drop off should be expected. Obviously even with whatever drop off there is, I still believe he's the best answer on the team to the obvious problem.

 

[DecaturJacket]

Jones' collapse is my fault. In chat I said WTTE of "Jones is cruising", and then like 2 minutes later the wheels fell off. Fred gets all the blame, but I'm more at fault this time.

Well, I was looking at his pitch count in the 20's after 2 IP and we had put up a 5-spot. I was thinking if he keeps rolling like this, he could finish this in 7 when we put up 5 more. Oops...

I think this goes back to what myself and others have said about Brady (and Riley). They both seem like perfect bullpen guys. They have amazing stuff, but lack the consistency inning to inning that you need to be a starting pitcher imo. I think it'd be interesting to stack them if we want to get really creative. Give one of them two innings to start and the other 2 innings after. I think they'd thrive in shorter stints and potentially even knowing how many outs they need to get. That'd still leave us with 5 innings to fill, but I think it puts us in a better situation than either of them being a traditional starter.

I think if they get moved to the pen they immediately become two of our top guys to come in and get out of certain spots.

 

[FredJacket]

You guys digging in. I love it.

The team is 19-4 & we're complaining about pitching. (Or management of pitching)

If & when we do begin to lose to better teams will it be because the teams are better or malpractice regarding how Patel is used?

God forbid... Patel gets inserted as a weekend starter AND we stop winning every weekend series.

I'm entertained.

 

[Techcaster572]

I think this goes back to what myself and others have said about Brady (and Riley). They both seem like perfect bullpen guys. They have amazing stuff, but lack the consistency inning to inning that you need to be a starting pitcher imo. I think it'd be interesting to stack them if we want to get really creative. Give one of them two innings to start and the other 2 innings after. I think they'd thrive in shorter stints and potentially even knowing how many outs they need to get. That'd still leave us with 5 innings to fill, but I think it puts us in a better situation than either of them being a traditional starter.

I think if they get moved to the pen they immediately become two of our top guys to come in and get out of certain spots.

^^^^This right here

 

[Techcaster572]

You guys digging in. I love it.

The team is 19-4 & we're complaining about pitching. (Or management of pitching)

If & when we do begin to lose to better teams will it be because the teams are better or malpractice regarding how Patel is used?

God forbid... Patel gets inserted as a weekend starter AND we stop winning every weekend series.

I'm entertained.

Fred,

I hear what you are saying but I'd say the same thing if we were 4-19.

Riley and Brady seem much better suited for the pen till they can get their control issues under control.

Regarding Mason, could he falter as a starter. You bet he could but that still wouldn't change my mind for how he has performed this year.

And who knows when Paden will return if at all, so is Mason the only bull pen solution.

To me, the most leverage he offers the team is as a starter unless you're telling me that all these highly ranked arms and transfers through the portal are not reliable to close a game without Patel.

Look, these complaints are certainly first world problems.
We are talented and playing very well right now but I'm tired of getting to the tournament and bowing out in every regional since 2006 so 19-4 and 5-2 (acc) is great but the talent is there to host and win a regional.

Those are my expectations and I don't see that happening with Mason in the pen. Just my opinion.

We shall see.

Either way. Go Jackets as I'll be in Marietta on Tuesday to see us spank KSU hopefully

I'm currently unemployed and still attend every tech baseball game I can. I put my $ where my mouth is.

I love tech baseball. Always have. Always will!
I look at the #4 team in the country in the mutts of ugag and I truly believe we are a better overall team then they are.

This team certainly has the talent and team to make it to Omaha.
I won't apologize for having high expectations

We are a better team than ND. My expectations after taking the first two games is to sweep the Irish. Felt the same about Pitt.
It seems like Sunday we are just rolling the dice and hoping our offense can light up the scoreboard.
Teams that make it to Omaha typically have 2-4 starters

 

[DecaturJacket]

You guys digging in. I love it.

The team is 19-4 & we're complaining about pitching. (Or management of pitching)

If & when we do begin to lose to better teams will it be because the teams are better or malpractice regarding how Patel is used?

God forbid... Patel gets inserted as a weekend starter AND we stop winning every weekend series.

I'm entertained.

I'm still VERY high on this team despite what I perceive as two large holes in the starting rotation. Hopefully that comes across. Lol.

After all, I was the one reassuring everybody about the pitching actually being better this year early on. I still believe that. I just think guys are in the wrong roles.

I'm more confident in the coaching and their ability to figure this out than I think I would have been previously. I think we have great coaches across the board right now. I still think it's ok to criticize and question though.

 

[FredJacket]

@Techcaster572 & @DecaturJacket

You guys are great. I appreciate what you're saying. Very reasonable perspectives.

Repeating myself... but I've resigned myself to Patel's current role is pretty firm until there are a series of lost games (or series) where either: 1) He never is used (ie. a wasted opportunity to have him contribute) or 2) The way he's been (successfully) used so far doesn't work.

I think both of those is your concern & by extension... you're whole point.

I think it's pretty fair to say.. we wouldn't be 19-4 if Patel was a weekend starter. So... the REAL question is.... will the team or can the team win keep winning "more" going forward using him this way. I don't know. Glad I don't have to be the decision maker.

 

[Buzz_404]

Woah, woah, woah. What happened to Jaylen Paden?? I hadn’t heard anything about an injury

 

[DecaturJacket]

@Techcaster572 & @DecaturJacket

You guys are great. I appreciate what you're saying. Very reasonable perspectives.

Repeating myself... but I've resigned myself to Patel's current role is pretty firm until there are a series of lost games (or series) where either: 1) He never is used (ie. a wasted opportunity to have him contribute) or 2) The way he's been (successfully) used so far doesn't work.

I think both of those is your concern & by extension... you're whole point.

I think it's pretty fair to say.. we wouldn't be 19-4 if Patel was a weekend starter. So... the REAL question is.... will the team or can the team win keep winning "more" going forward using him this way. I don't know. Glad I don't have to be the decision maker.

Having played and coached a lot of competitive baseball, I think that if you use your arguably second best pitcher this way (not as a starter) and it doesn't end up working you're going to open yourself for A LOT of criticism.

Yeah, we'd obviously be 23-0 if he was a weekend starter. Glad you agree

In all seriousness though, I'm not sure that I agree that we'd be worse off (I assume that's what you're insinuating). It depends on where and how and who else is in the rotation. It's hard to say. I think we'd know more about some of the younger guys (which honestly may be more valuable than the 1-2 extra wins RP - relief patel - has gotten us).

 

[DecaturJacket]

Woah, woah, woah. What happened to Jaylen Paden?? I hadn’t heard anything about an injury

I don't think anybody knows anything. At least on here. I think it has to be sickness or injury though based on his lack of usage in spots where he would've been very helpful.

For all we know he could be starting tomorrow.

 

[FredJacket]

Woah, woah, woah. What happened to Jaylen Paden?? I hadn’t heard anything about an injury

I don't think anybody knows anything. At least on here. I think it has to be sickness or injury though based on his lack of usage in spots where he would've been very helpful.

For all we know he could be starting tomorrow.

It's been at least 6 games he's not thrown. If he were healthy or otherwise available... he would have seen some in-game work.

 

[gtbeak]

Trying to reply to statements made in 3 or 4 different posts, hopefully this doesn't read as a jumbled mess. And, of course, all of the below is typed with the upmost respect for both of you guys. You help make this board the best one on all of the interwebs for Tech baseball.

DecaturJacket wrote, "I know I've said it over and over, but it's about where he enters the game. 0-0 vs potentially entering with us behind". - Maybe I've just not had good reading comprehension (definitely possible) but this is the first time I've understood your concern to be about the difference b/w entering the game with a small lead vs entering the game with a small deficit. Previously I thought you were saying that starting a game with a 0-0 score is better than trying to protect a small lead. I can understand your concern about starting a game with a small deficit, although a team that is mentally strong should be able to continue grinding and not change their approach just because they trail by a run or 2. But I will grant you that always falling behind early is likely to be a bad recipe for success.

"This whole long relief option mostly only works when you have a lead or can get a lead quick." I don't agree with this, although see my reply above where I do grant you that consistently falling behind early isn't good.

"When I say it's not sustainable, I'm specifically referring to the usage for both midweek and weekend. - Mostly agree with you here, although there may be specific mid-week games where having Patel available for 20 - 30 pitches could be a legitimate usage of him, and one where I would defer to the coaches to know how he is responding to the frequency of usage.

"I am adamantly against using Patel after Tate unless it's in short relief." - Note that they've only used him after McKee once, and that resulted in a series win, so really a non-issue so far.

"So if we play KSU, Bowling Green, and Kansas in football and we win, but look bad doing it you wouldn't change a thing? I get that it's not apples to apples, but the validity of the argument is the same." - I don't agree that the validity of the argument is the same, not even close. So far we have played 8 league games and have run ruled the opponent twice and had another 9 run victory. That is the equivalent of playing a tougher schedule than the one you list above and winning almost half of the games by 40 to 50 points. IOW, we haven't "looked bad doing it" at all.

"Terry Busse was a career reliever. He had never started a game before we tried it." - That's why I said "yes, I know that moving Terry Busse from a 1 or 2 inning "closer" to a starting pitcher is quite a bit different than the move Mason Patel would be asked to make."

Techcaster572 wrote "I would argue that if Mason started, he could easily be 5-1 or 6-0 as a weekend starter. - That's an odd statement. So IOW, we might have just as good a record as we do now, but not better?

"People seem to think I'm being critical on Brady or Riley." - You and Decatur both write things like this a good bit...speaking only for myself, I don't think you're being overly critical of anyone, but, more importantly, I don't care if you are. This is a message board, criticism of performance on the field is part of the deal. These aren't little boys playing a game and then going to Dairy Queen afterwards.

"I absolutely think our BEST pitcher should be a starter." - I understand the thought, and I would note that our best pitcher (McKee) is a starter, but in general that is old school philosophy that is being challenged, and I suspect Taylor is leaning a little towards the new line of thought that says maximize the high leverage innings that you best pitchers throw, and if you have one of your top pitchers who is able to handle a flexible role and come in "as needed" versus a defined role, then by all means take advantage of that.

DecaturJacket wrote "I think it'd be interesting to stack them [Jones & Stanford] if we want to get really creative." - Agree on this. I made this exact proposal the week leading up to the Virginia Tech series.

"I think if they get moved to the pen they immediately become two of our top guys to come in and get out of certain spots." - I could get behind this concept, certainly not a crazy idea. I will note that Stanford, if you limit him to just 3 innings, has an ERA of 3.60 (and he has gone at least 3 innings in all 5 of his starts...I'm not sure where the idea that he averages less than 3 innings a start comes from, his minimum is not even less than 3).

 

[FredJacket]

In all seriousness though, I'm not sure that I agree that we'd be worse off (I assume that's what you're insinuating).

That's not what I'm insinuating. I find this whole discussion fascinating.

You're making a GREAT case for what could be (we don't know yet) a way to manage pitching to maximize wins over the course of the season.

We all are thrilled with a 19-4 (6-2) record. We also acknowledge the difficult/challenging part of the schedule is in the future.

So... is the "future value" re Patel's usage greater in his current role or as a starter? If everything was equal & linear... it's a no brainer. Don't change a thing and we end up in an area like 45-10 (21-9).

But we all know the warts & the competition will manage to field routine pop flies & turn routine double plays & not swing at lots of balls out of the zone.

It's a million dollar question. How do we get the most wins? Use Patel like we have or let him start against the tougher [upcoming] competition. My guess is the coaching staff isn't going to mess with "success" ... until success turns into 1-2 series results.

 

[GT33]

We've played 3 "real" series against what is being called the weakest competition we'll see all season.

Patel is averaging 13-14 pitches per inning, averaging 4.2 innings per game. He seems to have an effective limit of about 60 pitches and if he sustains this pace he's on he'll remain effective a bit over 4 innings.

We have McKee, he's averaging about 5 innings. He's a 19 pitch per inning guy, stays pretty effective thru about 85 pitches but has averaged 95+ the last 3 games.

Basically we have 2 guys you can count on for 9-10 innings combined. You still have to manage those other 17-18 innings, be it 4 innings on Fri plus another 4+ on Sat if that's Patel's day & then you have Sun. The other 17-18 innings need to come from somewhere.

Jones has given us 2.2 thru the first 3, averaging giving up 2 runs. Stanford's given us 3 thru 2 games and allow 3.5 earned. Spivey's a 30-35 pitch guy and averages 20 pitches per inning, so he's good for about an inning and a half as is Campbell. Not sure what to make of McMullen. Gaudette's another 1 inning arm. Barfield had the game Fri where he gave us 3. Swygart's another 1 inning guy. Chicoli gave us an inning yesterday.

Who knows what's going on with Paden, but he should be able to provide 2-3 innings per week.Hernandez can probably go 1-2.

All the above maybe barely gets us out of the weekend if Pden's there. Then you have 9 innings for a weekday game- Royer, Johnson, Ballard, Buursema, Lankie, Evans, Musci, McKelvay need to wrap up the other 9.

That's our staff. You can pitch someone innings 1-4 or 5 and hang on for 4-5 innings or squeeze the rock for 4 innings and hope you're either ahead, tied or within reach.

I do know 1 thing in all my life playing, coaching, watching- do not monkey with something that's working well trying to get 10-20% more out of it. Do not take any of your stars and change their roles. I don't care if it's pitching, hitting or fielding. If they're on a roll, keep them in that groove. You start playing with kids heads (and even professionals) and if you screw them up you may never get it back.

Second thing. There's no way of ever knowing what the outcome would have been doing it a different way. You get 1 shot in the moment & this isn't like a video game where you get to keep hitting replay over & over again. Your bullpen ace may never be able to start and pitch effectively. And you may not even be able to put him back in relief once he starts getting shelled as a starter. Your starter that's struggling may never be able to handle comig in with runners in scoring position and may completely implode. On the other hand, maybe that starter becomes an ace reliever & the reliever becomes a 7 inning ace that never lets you get behind and you end up in a much better spot. You can find out by changing, but if you change & it blows up you get second guessed to death.

 

[78pike]

Though it was good that Mason got us out of the bases loaded jam but Brady only lasted 2 and 2/3 inning forcing Mason in. Why not move Brady or Riley to pen and let Mason start.

Based on his performance so far, we'd be up 9-0 and have Brady available in relief (He has very good stuff imo but just lacks control).

With the innings he's pitched today, he's likely not available tomorrow so why not let him start???

Now, if Paden is out for an extended period of time, I can certainly understand keeping Mason in the pen but when/if he gets back, Mason should start

Help me understand what the difference is between Patel starting and going 6 2/3 innings vs relieving and going 6 2/3 innings if we win the game in both cases? Either way he won't start on Sunday. By using him in relief instead of starting we have the option of saving his innings for Sunday if we happened to win in a blowout today. Had he started we lose that option.

 

[78pike]

Sorry, I thought you'd have been following long enough to understand the point I was making without me having to spell it out again.

My point is that him getting 3 midweek wins (and adding to his innings - of which he's already only 6 year shy of his career high - and he's in his 5th year) in relief is not sustainable moving forward if we want to use him against the meat of our schedule which we have coming up. It's a great stat and I'm happy for him, but we have bigger goals (and tougher teams ahead). Hopefully we get smarter with his use moving forward. He's a big part of our success and we're going to need him.

But do we reach those goals if we ended up losing those 3 midweek games because we help Patel for one weekend game? We will never know that. What I do know is how frustrating it has been the past few years losing midweek games that we should have won.

 

[78pike]

It's been at least 6 games he's not thrown. If he were healthy or otherwise available... he would have seen some in-game work.

I came down with pneumonia and it kicked my arse for about three weeks. I'm not saying Paden has that just like I'm not saying he's injured. What I am saying is that there could be a variety of reasons that Paden hasn't pitched the past six games that don't include him being injured.