From: cscott@csc.afit.af.mil (Carl W. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cone and Overwork?
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:34:16 GMT
Reply-To: cscott@csc.afit.af.mil
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology - WPAFB, OH, USA
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <Btwq8w.AKn@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, dwarner@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (david j warner) writes...
>In article <BtwHKz.HEn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks) writes:
>>In article <BtvMw9.EwH@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> dwarner@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (david j warner) writes:
>>>If anyone wants to know why Cone has had a tired arm lately, just look to a
>>>game earlier this summer in which Cone through a 166-pitch game for the Mets.
>>>One of my writers mentioned this to me and then told me Cone started slipping
>>>for the year right after that outing.  If you ask me, Jeff Torborg should be
>>>fired just for that.  NOBODY can go that long (aside from maybe Tim Wakefield
>>>if the knuckler is on, but that's a different story).
>>
>>But that's really the question. If the Mets had decided they weren't going to 
>>re-sign Cone, then Torborg was just gambling that the effects wouldn't be that
>>great this year, even though consistently overpitching Cone might be detri-
>>mental in the long run.  Given all the other problems the Mets have had, it
>>doesn't look like Cone getting tired cost them very much.  They'd be out of 
>>the race anyway.  If Torborg knew Cone wasn't going to be a Met in '93, it 
>>isn't clear to me that he mishandled Cone from a long-term _Mets'_ perspective
>>(From Cone's perspective he might have, but not from the Mets.)
>>
>>Harold
>>-- 
>>Harold Brooks                    hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
> 
>Okay, I understand your point about the Mets' perspective, but I'm still leary
>about Torborg, simply because he might have ruined Cone's career by overusing
>him like he did. If Cone fails to produce after signing a multi-million dollar
>free agent contract this winter, don't place the blame on Cone. Blame Torborg.
> 
>I think the only pitcher Torborg has used well this season is Anthony Young,
>the Mets' new bullpen ace, and knowing Torborg, that probably wasn't his idea.
> 
>-- 
>- David J. --------- BLUE RIDDLE PRODUCTIONS.  Bloomington, IN; Durham, NC. -
>- e-mail: dwarner@miami.ucs.indiana.edu -------------------------------------
>***************** "RAP IS AN ART/TURN UP THE MICROPHONE" ********************
>***************** BRP's debut 12" single -- coming soon  ********************

Pardon me for jumping in, but ...  By Cone's own admission, he felt part of
the "arrogant" aura of the Mets' teams of the late-80s.  IMHO Cone's use
was as much his doing as it was Torborg's.  More often than not, it was 
Cone's early mistakes in a game that cost him and his team a chance to win.
Much like Doc Gooden's early return for "the good of the team", Cone's 
desire to excel (and possibly carry the team) led to his attitude of doing
anything to win.  Although his courage and competitiveness are to be 
applauded, Cone's logic (as well as Gooden's) should be called into 
question.  Torborg does "share" the blame (not take all of it) in several
instances, but should not be hung out to dry.

On a related issue, it does seem strange to continually here broadcasters
and other media personnel describe the "overworked" phenomena of baseball
players.  An awful lot of fuss is made about young pitchers working 200+
innings or playing in 150+ games.  I seem to remember many seasons where
that was the norm--an expected threshhold for players making "the big
bucks."  According to many, today's players are better athletes than 
their predecessors and have received great benefits from sports medicine
advancements.  Yet, they seemingly don't measure up in the durability
aspect of the game.  Does anybody have any theories why this is so?