there will always be the freak who violates those rules and pitches 20 years in MLB. Unfortunately, most coaches (I definitely include college, high school and other amateurs here) will believe their guy is a freak.

This is true, and is expressed earlier by:

I believe that Lincecum is a freak of nature and his mechanics are pretty damn sound. He might break down eventually but that happens to all pitchers. I don't think he should be compared with Prior.

I mean, there's no reason to think that Lincecum is a freak of nature, is there? What's the evidence?

I believe that Lincecum is a freak of nature and his mechanics are pretty damn sound. He might break down eventually but that happens to all pitchers. I don't think he should be compared with Prior.

One more thing about this. When did people start talking about Prior's mechanics being bad? Was it after the fact? Because I never heard anything other than that Prior had perfect mechanics. He had the big, strong legs and a perfect pitching body. Then he broke down.

The only time I've heard that Prior had poor mechanics is on this site, starting about a year ago, IIRC.

The only time I've heard that Prior had poor mechanics is on this site, starting about a year ago, IIRC.

IIRC, the quote was similar to "Prior sprang from the head of Zeus, fully formed". he was the perfect pitcher or somesuch. Pardon me if I view the people making htose comments with a skeptical eye the next time they tell me the sky is falling.

The evidence is pretty well-documented that heavy workloads, particularly at a young age, are correlated with pitching injury.

Pitch counts are a very inexact method to determine workload, with a basic fundamental flaw. Using pitch counts alone to determine and regulate workload is similar to saying someone is "overweight" or "obese" based on Body Mass Index.

I think it's safe to say that in general limiting pitch counts and innings and consecutive days in young pitchers is a very good idea

If all you care about is the guy not getting injured, then yes, being (very) conservative with workload is obviously a very good idea. It is s a good idea if you are just a weekend warrior, or a casual athlete. Don't push too hard, have fun, be (very)conservative on volume and intensity. There is little point for a casual athlete in risking herniating a spinal disc, blowing out an ACL or UCL, etc; and risking having to undergo surgery.

Serious competitive athletes do need to consider other factors other than the risk of injuries when planning their training and competition. If the athlete doesn't push hard enough, in intensity and volume, not only might the athlete not improve, he might regress, go backwards. Stress isn't bad. Too much stress, too soon, is bad. For athletes, it's usually push as hard as you can, as often as you can, without overtraining.

Also, by consecutive days, do you mean consecutive days of pitching in a game? Or just consecutive days pitching, ie throwing on the side / pen?

Pitch counts are a very inexact method to determine workload, with a basic fundamental flaw. Using pitch counts alone to determine and regulate workload is similar to saying someone is "overweight" or "obese" based on Body Mass Index.

Sure, but do you deny the observation that BMI correlates with, say, heart disease or diabetes? The clinical utility of that observation has its limitations, but it is far from useless. In the case of pitch counts, we don't have a whole heck of a lot else to work with at this point.

Serious competitive athletes do need to consider other factors other than the risk of injuries when planning their training and competition. If the athlete doesn't push hard enough, in intensity and volume, not only might the athlete not improve, he might regress, go backwards. Stress isn't bad. Too much stress, too soon, is bad. For athletes, it's usually push as hard as you can, as often as you can, without overtraining.

No doubt. I'm not advocating a very conservative regimen, just conservative.



Also, by consecutive days, do you mean consecutive days of pitching in a game? Or just consecutive days pitching, ie throwing on the side / pen?

In games. Kids should throw a lot and every day. But it should be catch and at less than max effort. No breaking stuff, no tweaking delivery etc.. If I had a kid and had to just make up some regimen off the top of my head, they'd throw everyday, working on accuracy at maybe 75-80% of max velocity with some long toss mixed in. Then they'd run for a good long while - never run first. Under age 16 or 17, I wouldn't let them work on breaking stuff more than once a week. As I say, that is completely arbitrary but it feels about right to me.

Of course, I'd be much more interested in what CBW or someone like him has to say about such a thing. But I did just mean no pitching competively in consecutive days. And no amateur league with rules regarding workload should have any sort of proviso to "relax the rule". If your team can't find enough pitchers to make it through the tournament, tough.

Sept 11, 1995

Pedro Martinez, 23 years 11 months, throws 132 pitches in a meaningless 5-0 shutout win over the Mets. He goes on to be the suckiest pitcher that ever did suck...

September 13, 2008

Tim Lincecum, 24 years 3 months, throws 138 pitches in a meaningless 7-0 shutout win over the Padres. Tim, hearing the lack of fame and riches Mr. Martinez experienced, immediately quits the game and starts his quest to battle Michael Phelps in the 2012 Olympics.

Sept 11, 1995

Pedro Martinez, 23 years 11 months, throws 132 pitches in a meaningless 5-0 shutout win over the Mets. He goes on to be the suckiest pitcher that ever did suck...

September 13, 2008

Tim Lincecum, 24 years 3 months, throws 138 pitches in a meaningless 7-0 shutout win over the Padres. Tim, hearing the lack of fame and riches Mr. Martinez experienced, immediately quits the game and starts his quest to battle Michael Phelps in the 2012 Olympics.

LMAO! That was hilarious!

IIRC, the quote was similar to "Prior sprang from the head of Zeus, fully formed". he was the perfect pitcher or somesuch. Pardon me if I view the people making htose comments with a skeptical eye the next time they tell me the sky is falling.

Sorry for being obtuse, but are you referring to the quotes about his perfect mechanics from around draft time, or the latest statements that his mechanics were poor? I would assume the first, but you excerpted my comment about the second.

From 2000 to 2008, as Starter, requiring Age?24 and Pitches?131, sorted by greatest pitches in a game

For single seasons, From 2000 to 2008, Younger than 24, From 1st season to 2nd season, (requiring pitchesPgs?102, At least 60% games started, and At least 20 Games), sorted by greatest pitchesPgs

What are we looking for there, shoe?

That Cubs pitchers flame out and the rest of them all succeed?

Fair enough, Al (#108); but note that when Pedro threw his 132-pitch game in 1995, it was the 75th-highest pitch count of the season, tied with eleven others for that honor.

Lincecum's 138 was the heaviest pitch count of the year, and he had thrown the second-heaviest (132) just two weeks before.

Of course, it's not all relative – some guys can probably absolutely throw 130-pitch outings with or without harm – but nobody batted an eye at 132-pitch starts in 1995, either in dugouts or in mothers' basements.

Sure, but do you deny the observation that BMI correlates with, say, heart disease or diabetes? The clinical utility of that observation has its limitations, but it is far from useless. In the case of pitch counts, we don't have a whole heck of a lot else to work with at this point.

Taking off the damn shirt and looking in the damn mirror also provides a pretty good correlation with heart disease and diabetes. Better yet, take off that damn shirt, take a picture, and show it to friends / family. That should provide a better correlation, in case the person lacks the ability to be self critical about how s/he looks, and should provide motivation for the person to get in shape, if s/he needs to.

Why the need to use a fundamentally flawed stat? Just because it is a number?

I'm not even arguing that teams should completely disregard pitch counts. I'm arguing against the idea that pitch counts == workload; how about also using things like pitch velocity, and yes observation.

when Pedro threw his 132-pitch game in 1995, it was the 75th-highest pitch count of the season, tied with eleven others for that honor.

Lincecum's 138 was the heaviest pitch count of the year, and he had thrown the second-heaviest (132) just two weeks before.

Of course, it's not all relative – some guys can probably absolutely throw 130-pitch outings with or without harm – but nobody batted an eye at 132-pitch starts in 1995, either in dugouts or in mothers' basements.

I can't imagine how anyone's feelings about a number of pitches, or how any other pitcher's pitch count, will have any impact on Lincecum's arm. Unless all the negative vibes floating through the ether will harm him?

I can't imagine how anyone's feelings about a number of pitches [...] will have any impact on Lincecum's arm

No, which is why I said it's not all relative. But when a practice (130-pitch games) goes from being common to being remarkable in a few years' time, either managers are reacting reasonably to risks or they are suffering from a mass delusion. Opinions on the pitch-count issue tend to fall into either extreme. I think it's probably somewhere in the middle: managers have reacted wisely to Wood and Prior throwing bunches of 120+ -pitch games in 2003, and they may be reacting over-cautiously in some cases.

In any event, I'd sure rather let Jamie Moyer throw 138 pitches in a game than Tim Lincecum, which seems to be the reasonable middle ground on this thread.

Actually when I saw 100+ posts I had hoped more of them were about Carol Channing.

No doubt. I'm not advocating a very conservative regimen, just conservative.

I could see the argument for that, for a pitcher like Lincecum, who's already pitching at a phenomenal level; or a very good prospect. For most other "normal" pitching prospects, I'm not convinced that the reduced risk of overtraining, is worth the reduced change of having a decent MLB career. A guy like Lincecum is already at a very high level. He doesn't need to improve as much as a typical young MLB pitcher to have a decent career.

I mostly agree with you about the pitching competitively on consecutive days stuff; especially so on the running. In fact, I'd separate the running and pitching sessions, if possible.

What are we looking for there, shoe?

I was just trying to add a little more context without trying to reach a definitive conclusion. After all, I'm not conducting a study here. But, for me, it's helpful to put 138 pitches and 132 in a modern context, and see in the first list which other pitchers that young have done something similar. There is the soft tosser Davis, who basically doesn't count, the two horses, Zambrano and Vasquez, and every other guy on the list has had some sort of serious injury at a young age.

When you look at the second list, and the AVERAGE pitches he is throwing, to me it's even more damning than the 2 or 3 games of ultra high. There is a big jump between averaging 102 and 109, IMO. So while there is gong to be a response...."But it's a mixed bag...look at CC & Buehrle on the list, they're durable"......Timmer has no business being in that top 3 alongside Prior and Wolf.

And the only other guy that young that had a season that averaged over 105 is his teammate Cain, who's seen his K/9 drop since then.

Like I said, there is nothing "definitive" here.....it just doesn't look good to be where he is on those lists. As I said in my previous post, to what end? To impress the Cy Young voters? If he were pitching to try to secure a playoff spot for his team, I would be much more forgiving. But not for this reason. For me, thats where the rubber meets the road, and I say....it's simply not worth the risk, even if we don't know for certain this will lead to injury. At the very please it's certainly taking some extra tread off the tires that might not be there in a few years when the Giants are good enough to contend again.

shoe, the 2 guys who show up tied for 2nd in appearances on your first list, Wolf and Durbin, have certainly had checkered careers. Wolf has either struggled or been injured since Aug. 2003. I'm having trouble find Durbin's injury history but at least 2002/3 hint at injury:


Not sayin' that this is definitive proof, just interesting.