Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

My earlier post about Ty Cobb got me to thinking about how few men have played MLB with a warrior mentality (Cobb, Bob Gibson, Pete Rose and ... ?). Which got me to thinking how, generally, MLB players compete on the field with a kind generosity toward each other not seen in other team sports. Which got me to thinking about Jon Lester. I'm a Cardinals fan. So I've gotten to see more of Jon Lester recently than ever before. And I have a question:

How in the world is this guy still playing Major League Baseball?!! As is generally known, he will NOT throw to first base. This has been the case for, what, seven years now? That means he does nothing to hold runners on base. I've learned it also means he essentially refuses to field his position -- at least if it means, once he gets the ball, he'll have to throw it to a base.

Although I've never followed the American League very closely, I'm aware that somewhere back there in his career he was a good pitcher. But how do you hang on for all those years after you've decided you won't hold runners on base or field your position? All I can figure out is that opposing players want to be kind to him and not rob him of his multi-million dollar paychecks. Otherwise if winning was really all that important in baseball, opposing teams would have run this guy out his profession years ago. But no one seems to want to run on him and no one seems to want to exploit his "phobia" for throwing to bases. Otherwise he would have been made a normal working stiff years ago.

Am I totally off my rocker about this? (Wouldn't be the first time.) Can a pitcher really last seven years in the majors AFTER making the decision to only throw the baseball when he's delivering a pitch?

His job isn't to throw to first. It's to prevent the other team from scoring more runs than his team does. If you focus on that objective, then it makes more sense. He accepted the reality of the yips and worked around it. So many ways to keep the baserunner off balance without throwing, but ultimately, it's the throw to home that matters more than the throw to first. His success sort of speaks to that. He's a winner. Multiple world series winner for clubs that weren't supposed to win, he pitched a no hitter, and he beat cancer. Who cares about throwing to first?

Reading this sounds like I'm cranky, I'm not. Just a fan. He's a great story!

As a lifelong Cubs fan, I can tell you it was maddening and yet I learned to appreciate him as a pitcher. The funny thing is that as a longtime youth baseball coach, I was able to teach 10 year olds to hold runners on and throw to a base, yet he refused to do it.

Now, the key for him was his delivery, he would change it up constantly and half the time as he was delivering the ball, the base runner was heading BACK to the base instead of away from it.

As a pitcher, he was an absolute bulldog. He would NOT back down and he would throw the same exact pitch in the same exact spot three times in a row until the ump called it a strike.

So yes, it was annoying as hell, but he really was a great pitcher in his time with the Cubs.

I appreciate both responses to my post. Maybe the problem is that I'm watching him, as a Cardinal, at the end of his career, with his pitching only a faint echo of what it used to be. And that I can't overcome my annoyance.

With runners on base, I watched him step to the side and let a ground ball up the middle become a single simply because he knew that if he fielded it (which he easily could have), it meant he'd have to throw it somewhere. I guess maybe he was once good enough to overcome crap baseball like that.

Well, like I said, maybe I just can't overcome my annoyance.

How does a guy getting paid $25 MILLION a season to play a game, not take the time to spend at least one winter out in Arizona somewhere doing nothing but throwing to first base until he overcomes the yips and thereby does even more to help his team win???

Well, like I said, maybe my annoyance is the problem here.