NFBC Zone - Interview With Wayne Edwards

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Tue May 31, 2011 3:10 am

Here's this week's interview, courtesy of Todd Zola:

http://www.mastersball.com/index.php?op ... le&id=1282

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Tue May 31, 2011 5:51 am

THAT GUY! No way...you just can't shut him up! What a media ho!

Thanks Todd! I enjoyed it.

rockitsauce · Post by **rockitsauce** » Tue May 31, 2011 12:27 pm

another great article Mr. Zola.

This was one of first times I felt someone said something that constitutes as good advice for competing here in nfbc.

The following are Wayne's words, (party on, excellent

):

"Without a doubt the single greatest factor in success I have noted in these guys is getting good, accurate, and timely information. Just about every site has “projections” and truly most are variations of the same theme. And you cannot project baseball outcomes with anything more than marginal accuracy. The information I need and what I think the winners get is who is going to play, who is going to platoon, and who is in the wings that can truly make an impact. In high stakes fantasy baseball without the option to trade you generally win or at least improve your chances of winning by getting the at-bats, the starts, and the save opportunities. Major league managers have this nasty habit of saying one thing and doing another. The first with the best and most accurate information are the guys who win regularly".

BINGO! We have a winner.

I disagree about players being promoted to "the show" too early. If a guy is talented enough he's coming up. Why does he need extra instruction in the minors, KJ knew how to catch at 12 How old was Doc Gooden when he was striking out everyone in baseball? I started watching baseball in the late 70's, esp the Phils, Schmitty was the 3B when he was 23. We used to beat ATL like they stole something ON THE REGULAR, w/ Bob Horner & Dale Murphy, Glenn Hobbit Hubbard at 2B.....then Bobby Cox arrived

But I digress (the ATL stuff just for you Wayne

) young players (early 20's by your own definition) get promoted ALL the time. And I don't care, if you wanna see human bodies colliding, go watch football, hockey, porn

that's not baseball.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Tue May 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Originally posted by rockitsauce:

another great article Mr. Zola.

This was one of first times I felt someone said something that constitutes as good advice for competing here in nfbc.

The following are Wayne's words, (party on, excellent

):

"Without a doubt the single greatest factor in success I have noted in these guys is getting good, accurate, and timely information. Just about every site has “projections” and truly most are variations of the same theme. And you cannot project baseball outcomes with anything more than marginal accuracy. The information I need and what I think the winners get is who is going to play, who is going to platoon, and who is in the wings that can truly make an impact. In high stakes fantasy baseball without the option to trade you generally win or at least improve your chances of winning by getting the at-bats, the starts, and the save opportunities. Major league managers have this nasty habit of saying one thing and doing another. The first with the best and most accurate information are the guys who win regularly".

BINGO! We have a winner.

I disagree about players being promoted to "the show" too early. If a guy is talented enough he's coming up. Why does he need extra instruction in the minors, KJ knew how to catch at 12 How old was Doc Gooden when he was striking out everyone in baseball? I started watching baseball in the late 70's, esp the Phils, Schmitty was the 3B when he was 23. We used to beat ATL like they stole something ON THE REGULAR, w/ Bob Horner & Dale Murphy, Glenn Hobbit Hubbard at 2B.....then Bobby Cox arrived

But I digress (the ATL stuff just for you Wayne

) young players (early 20's by your own definition) get promoted ALL the time. And I don't care, if you wanna see human bodies colliding, go watch football, hockey, porn

that's not baseball. Thanks for the kind words, my friend, and we can talk "vintage" Braves anytime!

And you bring up a good point. Guys like Greg Maddux was a full time contributor at 21 and dominant at 22.

And you kind of prove mine. Doc was awesome when he came up at 19 in 1984. By 1989 he had his first serious injury. He came back fine in 1990 (he was 25) but after that year, he never struck out more than 150 ever again. After 1993 (28), he never threw 200+ innings again and all hints of that dominance was gone. He burned out very early, really dominate for only about six out of seven years from 1984 to 1990.

You wonder how many more years he could have had if he matured a bit more (i.e. away from Davey Johnson) and learned a bit more technique to save his arm for the long haul, especially given he was a "thrower" rather than a "pitcher" like Maddux.

Dub · Post by **Dub** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:18 am

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

quote:Originally posted by rockitsauce:

another great article Mr. Zola.

This was one of first times I felt someone said something that constitutes as good advice for competing here in nfbc.

The following are Wayne's words, (party on, excellent

):

"Without a doubt the single greatest factor in success I have noted in these guys is getting good, accurate, and timely information. Just about every site has “projections” and truly most are variations of the same theme. And you cannot project baseball outcomes with anything more than marginal accuracy. The information I need and what I think the winners get is who is going to play, who is going to platoon, and who is in the wings that can truly make an impact. In high stakes fantasy baseball without the option to trade you generally win or at least improve your chances of winning by getting the at-bats, the starts, and the save opportunities. Major league managers have this nasty habit of saying one thing and doing another. The first with the best and most accurate information are the guys who win regularly".

BINGO! We have a winner.

I disagree about players being promoted to "the show" too early. If a guy is talented enough he's coming up. Why does he need extra instruction in the minors, KJ knew how to catch at 12 How old was Doc Gooden when he was striking out everyone in baseball? I started watching baseball in the late 70's, esp the Phils, Schmitty was the 3B when he was 23. We used to beat ATL like they stole something ON THE REGULAR, w/ Bob Horner & Dale Murphy, Glenn Hobbit Hubbard at 2B.....then Bobby Cox arrived

But I digress (the ATL stuff just for you Wayne

) young players (early 20's by your own definition) get promoted ALL the time. And I don't care, if you wanna see human bodies colliding, go watch football, hockey, porn

that's not baseball. Thanks for the kind words, my friend, and we can talk "vintage" Braves anytime!

And you bring up a good point. Guys like Greg Maddux was a full time contributor at 21 and dominant at 22.

And you kind of prove mine. Doc was awesome when he came up at 19 in 1984. By 1989 he had his first serious injury. He came back fine in 1990 (he was 25) but after that year, he never struck out more than 150 ever again. After 1993 (28), he never threw 200+ innings again and all hints of that dominance was gone. He burned out very early, really dominate for only about six out of seven years from 1984 to 1990.

You wonder how many more years he could have had if he matured a bit more (i.e. away from Davey Johnson) and learned a bit more technique to save his arm for the long haul, especially given he was a "thrower" rather than a "pitcher" like Maddux. [/QUOTE]Gooden is a bad example- Drugs ruined his career.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:08 am

The drugs probably helped his decline for sure.

"I started drinking beer and mixed drinks in the 11th grade. Just hanging out with friends, being part of the crowd. I would say the drinking didn't get heavy until the 1986 season. That's also when I got involved in drugs. I started using cocaine."

He began the 1987 season not with the Mets in spring training, but in a Manhattan substance abuse center trying to beat his drug and alcohol addiction. Gooden came off the disabled list in June and won his first game back before a sellout crowd at Shea Stadium. Though Gooden seemed fine and stopped using drugs, he continued to drink. He finished the year with a 15-7 record and a 3.21 ERA though he pitched less than his standard 200 innings.

However, in 1989 Gooden missed two months of the season with a torn muscle in his right shoulder. During that year he became the third youngest player to win 100 games. In 1990 Gooden bounced back posting a 19-7 record in 232 innings, but Dr. K's injury problems continued in 1991. He had arthroscopic surgery on September 7th and again went on the disabled

Though drug abuse is commonly blamed for Gooden's pitching troubles, some analysts point to his early workload. It has been estimated that Gooden threw over 10,800 pitches from 1983–85, a period in which he was just 18 to 20 years old. Gooden hurled 276 innings in his historic 1985 season; in the 20+ years since, only two pitchers have reached that amount (Charlie Hough a knuckleballer and Roger Clemens, both in 1987).

Had he been given more time to mature, mentally and physically, outside of the glare of the Big Apple one wonders if he would have been able to withstand the wear and tear on his arm and his psyche.

[ June 01, 2011, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

Dub · Post by **Dub** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:55 am

why 20 years since? The game has changed in that regard.

Nolan Ryan

1972- 284 inning

1973- 326

1974- 332

1975- 198

1976- 284

1977- 299

1978- 234

In 82 he pitched 250

1n 89 he pitched 239

And Ryan threw north of 150 pitches in many games.

In the past these guy were used to the larger work load. They were on 4 day work schedules and pitched until they were ineffective- not 100 pitches. Just sayin.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:09 am

Nolan Ryan was able to throw the old number one at the letters, which is a lot less stressful than the curves and sliders these guys now need to throw over with a postage stamp sized strike zone.

Not to mention lineups did not go as deep, even in the AL so there were a few more easy outs.

[ June 01, 2011, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

DiamondKing · Post by **DiamondKing** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:42 pm

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Nolan Ryan was able to throw the old number one at the letters, which is a lot less stressful than the curves and sliders these guys now need to throw over with a postage stamp sized strike zone.

Not to mention lineups did not go as deep, even in the AL so there were a few more easy outs. Nolan had a pretty nice uncle charlie also.While the brutal line ups have something to do with the lack of innings.I also think the free agent period where you invest in say a Wayne Garland and then the guy can not comb his hair let alone pitch..also has something to do with it.

Dub · Post by **Dub** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:13 am

every Mets fan remembers that Gooden was never "great" after the 1985 season. NOT great in 1986- Bobby O was better in 86.

Slocumb · Post by **Slocumb** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:40 am

Originally posted by Dub:

why 20 years since? The game has changed in that regard.

Nolan Ryan

1972- 284 inning

1973- 326

1974- 332

1975- 198

1976- 284

1977- 299

1978- 234

In 82 he pitched 250

1n 89 he pitched 239

And Ryan threw north of 150 pitches in many games.

In the past these guy were used to the larger work load. They were on 4 day work schedules and pitched until they were ineffective- not 100 pitches. Just sayin. Comparing all pitchers to Nolan Ryan's durability is like comparing position players to Cal Ripken's durability. Those two were physical freaks.

Sure there were more pitchers who threw more innings back in the 50's, 60's and 70's but how many of them burned out early because of that? For every Ryan, Seaver and Gibson there are probably a dozen guys whose names we don't know or barely remember who flamed out due some part of their bodies - a tendon, a ligament - not being able to handle that workload

Choosing Ryan as the pitching durability standard to which everyone should be judged is wrong, IMO.

Dub · Post by **Dub** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:38 pm

Originally posted by Slocumb:

quote:Originally posted by Dub:

why 20 years since? The game has changed in that regard.

Nolan Ryan

1972- 284 inning

1973- 326

1974- 332

1975- 198

1976- 284

1977- 299

1978- 234

In 82 he pitched 250

1n 89 he pitched 239

And Ryan threw north of 150 pitches in many games.

In the past these guy were used to the larger work load. They were on 4 day work schedules and pitched until they were ineffective- not 100 pitches. Just sayin. Comparing all pitchers to Nolan Ryan's durability is like comparing position players to Cal Ripken's durability. Those two were physical freaks.

Sure there were more pitchers who threw more innings back in the 50's, 60's and 70's but how many of them burned out early because of that? For every Ryan, Seaver and Gibson there are probably a dozen guys whose names we don't know or barely remember who flamed out due some part of their bodies - a tendon, a ligament - not being able to handle that workload

Choosing Ryan as the pitching durability standard to which everyone should be judged is wrong, IMO. [/QUOTE]Jerry Koosman

73- 263

74-265

75-240

76- 247...79 - 263

Jim Kaat

1966- 304

1967- 263

1974- 277

1975-303

Ken Holtzman

1970-287

1972-265

1973-297

1974- 255

Greg Maddux

1991- 263

1992- 268

1993-267

1996- 245

1998- 251

2000- 249

Randy Johnson

1999- 271

2000-248

2001 249

2002 - 260

Are these fair?

whipsaw · Post by **whipsaw** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:30 pm

there were more than a handful of guys who pitched 500+ innings per year back in the 1880's... guys in the 50's-70's are just plain pussies by comparison.

Dub · Post by **Dub** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:15 am

Originally posted by whipsaw:

there were more than a handful of guys who pitched 500+ innings per year back in the 1880's... guys in the 50's-70's are just plain pussies by comparison.

Dub · Post by **Dub** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:18 am

My point was that innings pitched did not affect Gooden's career. It was common place to pitch the amount he did. It was poor living that did him-

Nobody rooted harder for Gooden than me.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:03 am

Originally posted by Dub:

My point was that innings pitched did not affect Gooden's career. It was common place to pitch the amount he did. It was poor living that did him-

Nobody rooted harder for Gooden than me. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, my friend!

Gooden chunked all those innings and pitches beginning at age 19 and began having serious injury problems by the time he was 25.

Holtzman, whom you list above, also had some bountiful innings pitched early, but was effectively done by 30 (never more than 150 IP after that and he was not what you would call a strike-out pitcher).

Those years you mention with Randy Johnson started when he was 36!

Jim Kaat was at least 24 before his first big inning year (269), then only was able to pitch 178 the next, before he started wracking up the IP and after he was 30, he effectively had to change his style and never threw 150 K's again.

Koosman was 26 when he pitched big innings for the first time (263.2), had some big innings years and some not so big innings years until he took off (with regards to IP) at 31.

Just my point of view, but even a few more years of minor league workloads I think could have given us a few more years of the Doc.

[ June 03, 2011, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]