It's an oversimplification, of course, that all pitchers (indeed, all ballplayers) of yore grew up working on farms. But is a fact that a far greater proportion than today's did, and the overall observation that athletes, indeed people in general, were far more used to long hard labor and tolerance of pain in decades past is beyond plausible question.

It is a riddle, and anyone offering a simple, certain explanation is probably full of it. But the fact that endurace records continue to improve in virtually every realm of sport except one -- baseball pitching -- is curious, while in baseball pitching each decade since the 1970s has demonstrated a steady trend toward lighter and lighter workloads, for both starters and relievers, with no clear corresponding reduction in rates of injury occurrence. Whatever is going on, this is one area in which the science of baseball is making no progress, and indeed appears to be engaging in active regress.

Ah, the "Get Off My Lawn" generation strikes back!

Ah, the "Get Off My Lawn" generation strikes back!
Play on your own d***ed lawn. If I had the neighbors that my Dad in the 70s and 80s, I would have yelled "Get Off My Lawn" at them too.

########. (get it?)

Too bad Nick Swisher isn't a pithcer, his offseason workouts are old-school country.

I've always thought that the massive workloads of the past were part of a survivor effect. Work every guy hard, 90% fall apart and you the guys that can go 250-300 innings are the guys who didn't blow their elbows out. I would imagine that we could do the same today and find pitchers who could work 300 innings (Livan? Halladay?) but the cost involved in finding out is too great. Chalk it up to progress.

the overall observation that athletes, indeed people in general, were far more used to long hard labor and tolerance of pain in decades past is beyond plausible question.

No it isn't. What's the evidence? The older generation's continuous lauding of themselves?

Ah, the "Get Off My Lawn" generation strikes back!

Cute, Erik, but inasmuch as the pitchers from the "Get Off My Lawn" generation handily kick the respective asses of the pitchers from the Video Game generation in terms of durability, my sympathies have to go to the geezers.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070427/NEWS01/704270350/-1/all

Cute, Erik, but inasmuch as the pitchers from the "Get Off My Lawn" generation handily kick the respective asses of the pitchers from the Video Game generation in terms of durability, my sympathies have to go to the geezers.

Umm, what about all the Latin American pitchers? Didn't most of them grow up in poor areas where they spent their time doing manual labor and playing baseball? Hasn't helped their durability. Also, what about Japanese league pitchers? They throw more innings and more pitches than MLB pitchers, but I'd guess that most them didn't grow up on farms. So yeah, where's the link to that Onion article?

As an amateur boxing historian I nearly retch watching today's oversized, bloated heavyweights wheeze their way through 12 sluggish rounds and look back fondly on the remarkable former boilermaker Jim Jeffries going a brutal 25 rounds at a blistering pace against Sailor Tom Sharkey in 1899. Don't even get me started on lightweight Joe Gans going 42 rounds against Battling Nelson in a 1906 bout, with more than an hour of film still surviving to confirm the torrid pace.

Much as I'd like to defend the geezers, I think that the presence of power hitters up and down the lineup has a lot more to do with today's pitchers' lack of endurance than the fact that they didn't grown up on farms.

I'll bet that even in 1927 you saw a lot more complete games thrown against the St. Louis Browns than you did against the Yankees. Well, in terms of sheer firepower in the bottom half of their lineups, there are a hell of a lot of teams these days who could more than match those 1927 Yankees. When one batter can produce more home runs than every other team in his league, that's going to result in a lot of complete games against all those other teams.

Since it's an across-the-board drop in IP, I'm inclined to believe that it's more due to changes in the way pitchers have to pitch. I'd guess that:

1. Pitchers are throwing more bad-for-your-arm pitches now than in the past.

2. Pitchers are throwing more pitches at max effort than in the past.

Can someone explain the farm work muscles vs. gym muscles theory? Aren't muscles muscles? How can muscles developed through work be stronger than similar-sized or bigger muscles developed through exercise?

I've always been a firm proponent of modern pitcher monitoring, careful usage of young pitchers, etc --- but I really have to wonder if there isn't a bit of truth behind some of this.

I'm certainly no physician -- but I do know that throwing a baseball overhand in the manner and with the torque required of a pitcher is simply NOT a 'healthy' or natural action for the arm, shoulder, and elbow.

I would suppose no modern trainer is going to suggest a regimen for a pitcher that replicates some sort unnatural physiological movements. I do wonder if perhaps some of these old actions - be they jobs before baseball/during the offseason, or Rocky-style conditioning regimens, may have had a different effect on the buidling of strength, flexibility, etc on certain muscles, ligaments, etc.

Maybe I'm just nuts - but it would seem a worthy study for some team to fund --- developing some sort of series of exercises that's specifically tailored towards the action of pitching and the unusual strains it puts on various parts of the body rather than just a generic regimen that focuses on generic building of muscle and conditioning.

Since it's an across-the-board drop in IP, I'm inclined to believe that it's more due to changes in the way pitchers have to pitch. I'd guess that:

1. Pitchers are throwing more bad-for-your-arm pitches now than in the past.

2. Pitchers are throwing more pitches at max effort than in the past.

endurance records continue to improve in virtually every realm of sport except one -- baseball pitching

But isn't it more that the prevailing tactics value a "sprint" over a "middle-distance" approach? I wonder if sprinters in the year 2007 are better at middle- or long-distance endurance than they used to be. Perhaps increasing specialization has actually made today's sprinters worse at 800s or miles or more than the sprinters of yore, even if they are faster sprinters.

It is reasonable to suppose that members of some past populations were stronger in general than members if some current populations; it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the average Iowa farmer or Detroit automotive worker of the fifties was stronger than the average network administrator of the nineties. It would be shocking if that wasn't the case. Of course, such people were also stronger than office workers of their own day, too. More important is the fact that Westerners in the 19th, 18th, 17th centuries, etc.--once they reached the "injury nexus," that is (survived till around age 10)--tended to survive almost as long as they do today, if you really look at the data. Living conditions in every way were tougher back then, which is not a Grandpa Simpson observation, it's a real one. It stands to reason that today, several generations removed from the era of rickets, polio, open sewers, and unvaccinated children, sheer, overall physical durability is a less common characteristic among the Western population. People are more likely to get a chance to mate without having it than before, so it gradually gets passed down to a lesser and lesser percentage of each generation.

The moral of this story? Chris Snelling probably wouldn't have survived past his age 10 season if he'd been born in 1850 :)

Can someone explain the farm work muscles vs. gym muscles theory? Aren't muscles muscles? How can muscles developed through work be stronger than similar-sized or bigger muscles developed through exercise?

Not a physician, but I've learned that muscles developed over time are more effective long-term than muscles developed over a shorter amount of time, due to the overall body frame and the ligaments connected to these muscles having a chance to do a better job holding them down.

Pitchers always broke down. After being so terrifying in the early 1890's that he inspired a change in the pitching distance, Amos Rusie was pretty much worthless after his mid-20s. Bob Gibson was a paragon of durability; he's the same age as Ernie Broglio, who broke down after a promising early career. Would Gary Nolan have had more of a career had he started in the 2000's rather than the 1960's?

At the core of Steve's point is that he probably thinks the 2000's version of Gary Nolan would have lost his fastball anyway - that we haven't really learned all that much in 40 years.

"How can muscles developed through work be stronger than similar-sized or bigger muscles developed through exercise?"

He might also be implying that farmers do a lot more endurance "training" than the common gym rat, and for that reason are more durable during an endurance-type process like pitching.

Some HS coach wrote Steve a letter about this once. I thought that it was on the THT site, but I can't find it.

But the fact that endurace records continue to improve in virtually every realm of sport except one -- baseball pitching -- is curious

Horse racing?

It stands to reason that today, several generations removed from the era of rickets, polio, open sewers, and unvaccinated children, sheer, overall physical durability is a less common characteristic among the Western population. People are more likely to get a chance to mate without having it than before, so it gradually gets passed down to a lesser and lesser percentage of each generation.

Two generations is far too short a time for any significant shift in the genetic makeup of a population as large as the U.S. (I assume you're talking genetics). You'd need thousands of generations to make a difference.

Found the letter. It was here all along.

Much as I'd like to defend the geezers, I think that the presence of power hitters up and down the lineup has a lot more to do with today's pitchers' lack of endurance than the fact that they didn't grown up on farms.

That sounds reasonable, but I have one problem with it. If that's true, then shouldn't we see greater durability among NL starters over the last 30+ years since the creation of the DH?

endurance records continue to improve in virtually every realm of sport except one -- baseball pitching

Isn't there a similar problem with cricket pitchers? Or am I misremembering somthing someone once wrote. Aren't race horses more fragile? I'm reaching. In the NFL players are cycled in and out far more than they used to be 20-30 years ago.

But the fact that endurace records continue to improve in virtually every realm of sport except one -- baseball pitching -- is curious,

It would be, except that it isn't true. Endurance records continually go up in individual sports, such as track or swimming. In most team sports, the number of plays that each player participates in have gone down. Fifty to sixty years ago, football players played both offense and defense. Then, it changed such that they played one or the other. Then, it changed such that there are third down specialists, and pass rush specialists, a lots of nickel or dime packages in certain situations. Endurance, measured by the average percentage of the game played by each player has gone down more precipitously in football than it has for baseball pitchers.

Much the same is true in hockey. Your top defensemen play almost as many minutes as they used to, but teams are far more likely to roll all four lines than they used to be, leading to less ice time for many players. I'm not very familiar with basketball, so I can't say much about it. One major exception is soccer, where the number of allowed substitutions is drastically limited, forcing most players to play the whole game.

Anyone see that show on HBO about pitching injuries and the fact that more and more kids are getting tommy john surgery at younger and younger ages? One point the show makes is that a lot of kids in warmer climates, especially the good players, are playing almost year round in pretty competitive leagues. As a result, the pitchers are racking up far more innings per year than than kids did in previous generations. The show also discussed the fact that lots of kids are throwing curveballs and sliders at very young ages.

I wonder if anyone has tried to compare injury rates for pitchers from colder vs. warmer climates.

Pitchers always broke down.

Yeah. People point to the 70s generation of pitchers as being capable of handling so much more IP than today's pitchers, but it was always just a handful of guys who could hold up under that strain. For every Bob Gibson there was a Steve Busby and a Denny McLain and a Dean Chance, guys who might have been Hall of Famers at a modern 220-250 IP rate but crashed and burned under a heavier workload.

But the fact that endurace records continue to improve in virtually every realm of sport except one -- baseball pitching -- is curious,

Tennis, too. If you look back into the shamateur era plenty lasted into their 30s and even early 40s. One of the Australians (Necombe?) faced Connors in the men's final or semi-final at one Slam around his 40th birthday. Connors made it to the semis at age 39. Navaratilova beat the #1 player in the world while in her mid-to-late 30s. Now, 30 is old. Heck, Cljisters just retired due to injury-related problems. She's what - 23?

Pitchers always broke down.

Well, according to my research, pitchers have generally been aging better over the decades, espeically when you try to account for other factors like improved minor leaguer recruitment, and WWII. There's one big exception - one great backward step. Pitchers born in the 1930s/40s/50s aged worse than those that came before them. They were also harder worked at earlier ages in the majors.

I think that the problem with horseracing in the US is economics. The better horses tend to shoot for the hefty purses that they offer two and three years old. After that, they're more valuable as studs. And racing at two isn't necessarily good for their development. Worse is when they're bred for sale and the trainers and pinhookers have them running baby dashes at an early age.

Much as I'd like to defend the geezers, I think that the presence of power hitters up and down the lineup has a lot more to do with today's pitchers' lack of endurance than the fact that they didn't grown up on farms.

That sounds reasonable, but I have one problem with it. If that's true, then shouldn't we see greater durability among NL starters over the last 30+ years since the creation of the DH?

You probably should, except that at some point yanking a pitcher early it becomes a matter of received wisdom as much as a matter of specific game situations.

And besides, the difference between the AL and the NL since 1973, even today when it's at its greatest, is nothing remotely like the difference between either league today and the Majors in the time of routine complete games. Smaller ballparks, weight lifting, juicing, seismic shifts in pitch count strategies, etc., take a lot more toll on pitcher stress than simply replacing a pitcher with a DH in the lineup.

#13, #18, #20

The difference between "farm work" training and gym training has more to do with how the athlete in question trains, than the fact that weightlifting in a gym is somehow inferior.

If the athlete is dumb enough to spend too much time working on beach muscles, working out on machines, working out on machines with isolation movements, working out to look good instead of working out to become better at his sport, then gym training is obviously inferior to "farm work" training.

guys who might have been Hall of Famers at a modern 220-250 IP rate but crashed and burned under a heavier workload.

You're overestimated how many innings pitchers throw now. Especially when you say 250 IP.

Guys who have thrown 250 IP since 2000:

2003 Roy Halladay 266
2002 Randy Johnson 260
2002 Curt Schilling 259.3
2001 Curt Schilling 256.7
2004 Livian Hernandez 255
2000 Jon Lieber 251

That's it. Five guys have done it six times in the last seven years. None since 2004. There's not that many guys over 240 in fact. Only 3 in the AL in the last seven years.

Did all those pitchers indeed grow up on farms? Or just the ones with names like "Amos"? Seriously, it's a tempting theory, but do facts back it up at all?

Heck, Cljisters just retired due to injury-related problems. She's what - 23?

Might've been a different story if she hadn't earned $14M by now. Injuries hurt worse when there's no reason to bear them.

What's the evidence? The older generation's continuous lauding of themselves?

Elementary social, economic, and industrial history. The evidence is manifest and clear, not just in the US, but in all industrialized countries.

1. Pitchers are throwing more bad-for-your-arm pitches now than in the past.

I dunno about that. The screwball is extinct (does anybody in any league anywhere throw it anymore?), to name one pitch, and a retired Carl Hubbell was famous for how his throwing arm was kind of twisted around funny.

#1

The problem is how workload is calculated and recorded. In baseball, pitch counts are used to calculate workload. The problem with this approach is that pitch counts only record volume not intensity.

I'll try to give a baseball example here. Let's say you have a pitcher, King Felix, who can throw fastballs at a max velocity of 100 mph. Now let's say he is facing the Yankees lineup. He throws 100 fastballs at 100mph. In another start, King Felix faces the A's. He also throws 100 fastballs, but only at 90 mph. The forces he is generating, the power he is generating, the work he is doing, the stresses he is putting on his body, is clearly different in both scenarios; yet, with pitch counts, they are considered the same. And, of course, there are other types of pitches like changes, curves, sliders, etc. Intensity is not accounted for.

A weightlifting example. Suppose you can squat 500 pounds for a 1 repetition max. Suppose that you can squat 250 pounds for a 20 repetition max. Now, suppose that you perform 20 sets of 1 rep squats with 500 pounds. You would have squatted a total of 10000 pounds in that workout. Now, suppose in another workout, you perform 1 set of 20 rep squats with 250 pound. You would have squatted a total of 250 pounds. If you only recorded the number of total reps (pitch counts) which is 20 in both cases, you would have mistakenly believed that the workload was the same.

Umm, what about all the Latin American pitchers? Didn't most of them grow up in poor areas where they spent their time doing manual labor and playing baseball?

To a greater extent than their US counterparts, yes, but not nearly to the extent of their fathers and grandfathers in Latin America. And the reduction in pitcher workloads in Latin American baseball over the past few decades mirrors that in the US.

#1

The problem is how workload is calculated and recorded. In baseball, pitch counts are used to calculate workload. The problem with this approach is that pitch counts only record volume not intensity.

I'll try to give a baseball example here. Let's say you have a pitcher, King Felix, who can throw fastballs at a max velocity of 100 mph. Now let's say he is facing the Yankees lineup. He throws 100 fastballs at 100mph. In another start, King Felix faces the A's. He also throws 100 fastballs, but only at 90 mph. The forces he is generating, the power he is generating, the work he is doing, the stresses he is putting on his body, is clearly different in both scenarios; yet, with pitch counts, they are considered the same. And, of course, there are other types of pitches like changes, curves, sliders, etc. Intensity is not accounted for.

A weightlifting example. Suppose you can squat 500 pounds for a 1 repetition max. Suppose that you can squat 250 pounds for a 20 repetition max. Now, suppose that you perform 20 sets of 1 rep squats with 500 pounds. You would have squatted a total of 10000 pounds in that workout. Now, suppose in another workout, you perform 1 set of 20 rep squats with 250 pound. You would have squatted a total of 6250 pounds. If you only recorded the number of total reps (pitch counts) which is 20 in both cases, you would have mistakenly believed that the workload was the same.

BAH.

Please ignore post #38.

The prime reason many pitchers today are "soft" is that they train to be soft -- the "only so many bullets in the gun" theory in action. They train in their off-days, but they don't really train to pitch off a mound for more than 90-110 pitches per outing, and they don't do it often enough to really get in pitching shape.

That's where the "farm work" theory comes in -- when you do manual labor, you build up muscle by doing different tasks again and again, you sort out the mechanics to do these tasks with the least physical strain, and you work through fatigue until you build real endurance.

You can do these things through an intense program led by a professional trainer -- most of our great athletes today train in ways to get the same effects as "work", but I don't think that pitchers do that for the most part.

As for mechanics, I'd wager that most pitchers that break down are using pitching motions that are destined to injure them -- extending beyond a natural range of motion with things like scap loading, relying upon upper-body strength to deliver velocity instead of drawing upon lower-body strength, whipping their arms in such a way that wear out elbow tendons.

I'm no expert -- these seem to me to be common-sense kind of things. As with in many other fields, too much specialization appears to lead to atrophy of elements lying outside the specialty.

Might've been a different story if she hadn't earned $14M by now. Injuries hurt worse when there's no reason to bear them.

By that argument no baseball players should be making it into their mid-30s either. Aside from Agassi, virtually no tennis players in the last 15 years have done anything beyond age 30. I think Sampras wone one of his titles after that age.

I think the rise of hardcourts and the decline of grass courts has more to do with it than money.

The problem with this approach is that pitch counts only record volume not intensity.

Of course. Our capacity to measure all of this is greatly limited.

But the assumption of how much more high-offense the game of today is as compared to the game of previous decades is generally far overstated. In the 2000s, there is only about .5 runs per game more, and .2 - .3 home runs per game more, than in the 1970s. The difference between today and the 1950s is less than that. Meanwhile, complete game rates are about one-seventh of what they were in the 1970s, and one-tenth of what they were in the 1950s. It's a fact that the reduction in pitcher workloads has occurred at a far greater rate of change than the increase in offensive conditions.

Moreover, the reduction in pitcher workloads began in the 1980s, before the offensive boom of the 1990s. Indeed the reduction in pitcher workloads has proceeded at its own pace, rather independent of fluctuations in offensive production over the 1980-2007 period.

Five guys have done it six times in the last seven years. None since 2004

Though with extended playoffs, very often an ace pitcher on a Series champion will throw a significant percentage extra in the postseason. Mark Buehrle threw 237 innings in the regular season 2005 but 260 overall. Curt Schilling threw 227 in 2004 but 250 overall (I believe some of them on a damaged ankle, or something :) And some of these guys pay for that extra work with off-years the year after ...

I think the rise of hardcourts and the decline of grass courts has more to do with it than money.

Tennis is just a sport where your performance peaks at an earlier age than baseball, just like golf peaks later.

As players age, they lose speed and gain power, the skill changes balance for a while in baseball, but hurt you in tennis. Its unfortunate but true. When I played tennis in high school, nobody ever gave me credit for the "homeruns" I hit.

#44

I'm not making any arguments regarding high-octane offenses in different eras. I leave that to experts like you.

My point was that measuring pitcher workloads with pitch counts results in misleading data, data that is incorrectly used.

Elementary social, economic, and industrial history. The evidence is manifest and clear, not just in the US, but in all industrialized countries.

Oh, I didn't remember my elementary textbooks using 'pain tolerated' as a social statistic.

To a greater extent than their US counterparts, yes, but not nearly to the extent of their fathers and grandfathers in Latin America. And the reduction in pitcher workloads in Latin American baseball over the past few decades mirrors that in the US.

If this theory you are endorsing is correct then shouldn't they be pitching more innings or pitching them more healthily than their US counterparts?

I think it's the survivor theory. In the 1930-1950 era there were approximately 10,000 minor league teams (a slight exaggeration) and 16 MLB teams. The survivors of the huge minor league pitching pool moved on and still broke down pretty often.

The point about more pitches at maximum effort is also true.

Curt Schilling threw 227 in 2004 but 250 overall

Even better, look at 2001:

Schilling threw 305 innings (349 K) and Randy threw 291 with 419! strikeouts. They were just fine the next year too, before breaking down in 2003.

Has there ever been a study using pitch counts that show a conclusive link between number of pitches thrown and actual injury?

Sabermetrics just doesn't have the necessary information to be able to make an intelligent assessment of pitcher usage.

The point about more pitches at maximum effort is also true.

Is there evidence for this claim?

I have read most of the PAP stuff, and I've read a lot of various claims like the one above, but most of it seems to draw conclusions first and ask questions later. The assumptions seem to be that pitching by nature is injurious, so the more its done, the greater the likelihood of injury. Probably a true statement on one level, like the more I drive my car, the more likely I am to be in a car accident, but not really very informative.

I admit my speculations in #42 have very little data that can back them, either.

Has there ever been a study using pitch counts that show a conclusive link between number of pitches thrown and actual injury?

Not on any kind of a macro basis that I'm aware of, no. Yet the direct causal link between pitchcounts and susceptibility to injury, if not actual injury occurrence, appears as an unshakable assumption, not just of many analysts, but of the modern MLB management orthodoxy as well.

I have read most of the PAP stuff, and I've read a lot of various claims like the one above, but most of it seems to draw conclusions first and ask questions later.

That's been my perception as well.

I'm not making any arguments regarding high-octane offenses in different eras.

Well, fine, but if there isn't an enormous difference between offensive conditions between eras, then there is no reason to assume an enormous difference between the per-pitch effort expended by pitchers. Without the first, the second has no basis for being suspected.

My point was that measuring pitcher workloads with pitch counts results in misleading data

The data might be misleading, but there is no basis to assume or conclude it as such. The greater-effort theory is just that, a theory.

If the "farm boy/people are weak now" theory has any legs, I would think football linemen would be both smaller and a lower ptg of the populous. Any idea if this has happened?

If the "farm boy/people are weak now" theory has any legs, I would think football linemen would be both smaller and a lower ptg of the populous. Any idea if this has happened?

I suspect they'd be smaller if they were sixty minute men and football ditched the two platoon system.

Well, fine, but if there isn't an enormous difference between offensive conditions between eras, then there is no reason to assume an enormous difference between the per-pitch effort expended by pitchers. Without the first, the second has no basis for being suspected.

I theorize that the offensive conditions haven't changed much specifically because of max effort now given on every pitch. Otherwise, it would have gone up markedly.

Sorry if this point has been made already but ...

it's also extremely likely that, from a RA perspective, teams of the past would have been better off if they had replaced their tiring starters with a couple guys who could come in and throw 95 for one inning each.

I would be interested in seeing a retrosheet study that looked at things like ERA+ or ERC of old-school starters in innings 7-9 vs today's bullpens; looked at how often starters/teams gave up 1 and 2 run leads vs. today's bullpens; etc.

Moreover, the reduction in pitcher workloads began in the 1980s, before the offensive boom of the 1990s. Indeed the reduction in pitcher workloads has proceeded at its own pace, rather independent of fluctuations in offensive production over the 1980-2007 period.


There is no doubt that there has been a reduction in seasonal workload over the last 20 years (and more generally over the course of baseball history with a few bumps in the road here and there). But it also seems that career workload has been gradually increasing over the last 20 years. The data presented by the link listed in #29, as well as other places at other times, seems to indicate that the reduction in IP has a benefit that a focus on annual performance misses.

I just made a long post that got eaten ... this site is shaky these days ...

I theorize that the offensive conditions haven't changed much specifically because of max effort now given on every pitch.

It's a great theory. It might be true. However:

- It must reconciled that the reduction in top-end workloads began in the early 1980s, and has since proceeded at a rather constant pace, through the trough in scoring from 1988-92, through the boom in scoring from 1993-2000, and through the cooling off from 2001-2006. There has been precious little correlation between workload reduction and scoring since 1980.

- By definition, reducing top-end workloads has reduced the IP contribution of each team's/league's best pitchers, and replaced it with greater contributions from its worst, even increasing the average staff size from 10 to 11 to 12.

Again, it might be true, but it's just a theory, based on precious little in the way of empirical data.

But it also seems that career workload has been gradually increasing over the last 20 years. The data presented by the link listed in #29, as well as other places at other times, seems to indicate that the reduction in IP has a benefit that a focus on annual performance misses.

The issue with that is that great improvements in sports medicine, including Tommy John and arthroscopic surgeries, have had huge benefit in saving and lengthening careers. There is no indication of any sort of change in the rate of pitcher injury occurrence.

The issue with that is that great improvements in sports medicine, including Tommy John and arthroscopic surgeries, have had huge benefit in saving and lengthening careers. There is no indication of any sort of change in the rate of pitcher injury occurrence.

Certainly there is more to pitcher durability than just workload. Types of pitches, quantity of rest, medical advances, video study of mechanics, and the like make it a hurculean task to figure out why pitchers burn out of succeed. Of course in the article linked at the top of the thread, the suggestion is that modern training methods when contrasted with bailing hay and pitching manure have harmed pitcher durability while you posit that sports medicine - which to me includes training techniques - has helped pitcher durability. Seems at least partially contradictory to me.

While I would not argue that correlation is causation, it is undisputable that pitching career lengths have increased at the same time in season use has decreased. Clearly the reasons for reduced short-term workload must have included maximizing long-term effectiveness. It is all but certainly not the *sole* cause of that long-term increase, but I think it chutzpa to suggest it doesn't play a (possibly large) role.

It is all but certainly not the *sole* cause of that long-term increase, but I think it chutzpa to suggest it doesn't play a (possibly large) role.

Of course it might play a role, possibly even a large role. But I'd find the case a whole lot more convincing if there were any evidence that reduced workload has shown reduced occurrence of injury in the first place, or indeed even that reduced workload has not been associated with increased occurrence of injury.

I'll repeat what I said way back up in #1: the cause-and-effect relationship between workloads and injury rates "... is a riddle, and anyone offering a simple, certain explanation is probably full of it." What we don't know on this issue vastly outweighs what we do.

Of course it might play a role, possibly even a large role. But I'd find the case a whole lot more convincing if there were any evidence that reduced workload has shown reduced occurrence of injury in the first place, or indeed even that reduced workload has not been associated with increased occurrence of injury.

Yes but these all exclusively use MLB workload data. I must admit that this is suggestive of MLB teams having less of an effect over injuries by controlling workload than many believe but they're also being given pitchers who just might have dealt with a significantly larger workload in their younger days. There is no evidence for this, but I don't consider it a stretch to believe that the pitchers of today have more wear, tear and scar tissue but are more effective on a per-pitch basis as a result of this.

But it is hard to say that smaller workloads are correlated with this increased fragility, as you say. It does appear to be a suspect claim that pitchers as a whole are only able to handle the workload they are being given because there is no apparent connection between changes in usage and any sort of trend in durability. I do think, however, that it is bordering on impossible to ever come up with a quantifiable measure of injury rate. Medical science has not stood still.

they're also being given pitchers who just might have dealt with a significantly larger workload in their younger days

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this means. Minor league workloads have declined significantly over the past couple of decades as well, indeed probably much more dramatically than major league workloads. (We'll have the data once I get finished with my "Minor League Workhorses" THT series.)

I don't consider it a stretch to believe that the pitchers of today have more wear, tear and scar tissue

I don't know what the evidence for this is. Today's average major league top-of-the-rotation/bullpen pitcher of, say, age 26 has thrown significantly fewer professional innings than his age-26 counterpart from several decades ago.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this means.

Little league through adolescence. The increased emphasis our society has placed on sports would not be unlikely (IMO) to result in increased rigor & repetitions in practice & in amount of games played: i.e. many more pitches thrown from 10 to 18 years old or thereabouts.

Old Hoss Radbourn says post-19th century pitchers are all wusses.

The increased emphasis our society has placed on sports would not be unlikely (IMO) to result in increased rigor & repetitions in practice & in amount of games played: i.e. many more pitches thrown from 10 to 18 years old or thereabouts.

While it's impossible to know, there is scant evidence that today's major league pitcher threw more innings as an amateur/kid than his old-school counterpart. I interviewed Jim Bouton, for example, and asked him about whether they paid attention to pitchcounts when he was in high school; he said they had never heard of pitchcounts, and "we just threw until we fell over."

All the reading I've done, bios of pitchers throughout history, strongly indicates that in the pre-Little League era, kids played baseball all the time, under hotly competitive conditions. Walter Johnson had thrown hundreds of innings, for multiple teams, before he was 17, and it's a certainty that his modern counterpart, in heavily adult-organized, adult-supervised, liability-conscious modern youth baseball, wouldn't be allowed to work nearly as hard.

Old Hoss Radbourn says post-19th century pitchers are all wusses.

Ditto Wild Bill Hutchison who also mourns the demise of pitching from 50' away.

Walter Johnson had thrown hundreds of innings, for multiple teams, before he was 17, and it's a certainty that his modern counterpart, in heavily adult-organized, adult-supervised, liability-conscious modern youth baseball, wouldn't be allowed to work nearly as hard.

And what happened to him? That's right, he died.

it's a certainty that his modern counterpart, in heavily adult-organized, adult-supervised, liability-conscious modern youth baseball, wouldn't be allowed to work nearly as hard

I think that the growth of all-star and travel teams has increased the number of games in which an elite player participates. It also tends to reduce the talent disparity when you herd players into competition more approximate to their skill level. This would also tend to make their games more difficult and higher effort than Walter mowing down the pride of some neighboring farm town. Again, this is all speculation.

Elementary social, economic, and industrial history. The evidence is manifest and clear, not just in the US, but in all industrialized countries.

Oh, I didn't remember my elementary textbooks using 'pain tolerated' as a social statistic.


That's just what Treder states when he doesn't have any evidence for a proposition. There is no pain tolerated measure, he is gradually making more stuff up as he goes along.

The average work week in agriculture is actually increasing in the Northeast; I don't know about the entire US. It wouldn't matter much because most of the farm labor isn't going to be making professional sports anyway because most of the professional sports people are spending those labor months developing specialized talents in camps or in playing the game.

The converse is if you make a point supported by data, Steve will then tell you that:

Again, it might be true, but it's just a theory, based on precious little in the way of empirical data.

While I would not argue that correlation is causation, it is undisputable that pitching career lengths have increased at the same time in season use has decreased.

Yep, Steve has been shown a million times that careers are longer, people are more effective in late career, etc. He's also been shown all the careers that were ruined by slagging pitching.
He has also been shown that reliever ERA compared to starter ERA has also improved over the period of specialization, and that the worse role ERA wise in history has been that of the "swingman". He just isn't going to listen to anything reasonable at all. He'll just wait for a new thread; Make the same unsupportable conclusions; Say the data is evident, and then go back, back back off his original point by saying "You haven't proved x." (like you have the burden) or making a distinction with no meaning.

For instance,

There is no indication of any sort of change in the rate of pitcher injury occurrence.


Huh? You think its a step back for somebody to make two trips to the DL in their career rather than having one injury that causes retirement? If careers are lasting longer then its a net positive. But if you had rather have had all these modern pitchers gone at a younger age, that's just strange.

And you may as well tell the new folks the reason. Because you want to carry fewer pitchers, so you can carry around a 50 OPS+ extra catcher or 34 OPS+ middle infielder.

I do think, however, that it is bordering on impossible to ever come up with a quantifiable measure of injury rate. Medical science has not stood still.


As Steve knows, MLB does have their insurance company audit this information. They will not disclose it to the public, but Pappas got ahold of it once. American Specialty indicates that some number over 70% of the present injuries are still preventable.

So at the end of the day you've got:

MLB best baseball minds, Insurance adjusters, pitchers themselves, and common sense supporting one conclusion. The other conclusion is steeped in horse manure.

I think that the growth of all-star and travel teams has increased the number of games in which an elite player participates.

Maybe, but not definitely, by any means. An elite player in the 1900-1940 era (basically pre-Little League) would very likely be recruited to the best town/semi-pro teams in his region, and those teams traveled plenty, playing everywhere they went. The best young players would play against players older than themselves. Walter's days of mowing down the pride of the neighboring town were few (and it wasn't necessarily a farm town; Johnson mostly grew up in the Los Angeles area), and his days of being recruited onto ever-better teams to face ever-tougher competition were many.

I think that the growth of all-star and travel teams has increased the number of games in which an elite player participates. It also tends to reduce the talent disparity when you herd players into competition more approximate to their skill level. This would also tend to make their games more difficult and higher effort than Walter mowing down the pride of some neighboring farm town. Again, this is all speculation.

No speculation about it. Its true. The prolification of travel teams and select teams are exploding. Select teams can make their own rules regarding utilization too.

Moreover, With the last two posts, we have:

(1) People working on the farm all the time; and
(2) People playing baseball all the time.

One of these has got to give. We also have people playing "hotly contested contests" yet not centralizing talent and traveling to different regions. That just doesn't make sense.


I guess the Big Train managed to hobo his way across the country in the winter (after all the farm work was done) meet up with the best barnstroming team, and take on the local AAA affiliate all while he was a teenager. That must have been one he11 of a book.

As Steve knows, MLB does have their insurance company audit this information. They will not disclose it to the public, but Pappas got ahold of it once. American Specialty indicates that some number over 70% of the present injuries are still preventable.

Its been a long time since I looked at that issue, but if I recall correctly, that information classified as "preventable" any injury resulting from non-catestrophic event. That is Ray Fosse getting knocked on his arse at home is "not preventable" and Derek Lee having his wrist broken in a collision at first is "not preventable" but Mike Hampton tearing an elbow tendon is "preventable" and Dave Dravecky throwing his arm to the backstop is "preventable." Am I misremembering that insurance study? If not, I don't think the preventable / non-preventable dichotomy really tells us much about pitcher wear and tear and its minimization through lessened workloads or bailing hay.

Walter Johnson had thrown hundreds of innings, for multiple teams, before he was 17, and it's a certainty that his modern counterpart, in heavily adult-organized, adult-supervised, liability-conscious modern youth baseball, wouldn't be allowed to work nearly as hard

And to some extent, just because that was SOP, the pitchers who survived and had long pro careers were selected for. It was a real Darwinian experiment. Walter Johnson pitched forever, and Joe McGinnity pitched forever and then some, but Joe Wood was done at the age of 26.

People will say that pitchers in the early 20th century paced themselves and thereby amassed long careers with high IP totals, and to some extent I'm sure that's true. The low-scoring environment also helped. But it was also the case that the environment simply selected for guys who could throw huge numbers of powerful innings when young and later keep throwing forever (though often with a mid-career adjustment a la Grover Alexander into a more pitcherly mode).

Such superhuman figures always exist in the gene pool to be selected for. Look at Nolan Ryan. The guy never exactly paced himself. He could have thrown 200 pitches in a game under 2007 conditions --under any conditions -- and kept on pitching for years afterwards. He threw 150 a couple of times for Texas at the age of 40 and kept leading the league in strikeouts for several seasons thereafter. But 2007 conditions do not allow such pitchers to come to the fore -- and just as well for all those others whose arms are not trashed by pervasive overwork.

would very likely be recruited to the best town/semi-pro teams in his region, and those teams traveled plenty, playing everywhere they went.

Then when is he shoveling all the manure?

Moreover, the concept of year round baseball is now a reality in many parts of the country. You just aren't pulling off winter baseball in most areas in the earlier time periods.

An elite player in the 1900-1940 era

So which time zone are we working with. Are you wanting workloads of the 1900-1940 era. Is that what you think the manure is going to bring?

You seem to talk about those 70's pitchers a lot. They are hitting little league age a little later than 1940.

But here is the big question, are you going back to your old thesis that we need to have teenagers (with developing physiologies) throw more pitches per game. Or are you just timely replacing that with wanting them to shovel more manure.

and it wasn't necessarily a farm town; Johnson mostly grew up in the Los Angeles area

So the Big Train is not one of those manure strong boys? He got his endurace the way modern pitchers do, but playing a lot of baseball?

But 2007 conditions do not allow such pitchers to come to the fore

Certainly true. But of course the salient issue isn't really the one-in-a-million Johnsons and Ryans, but the dozens of their contemporaries who would be limited to 180-200 innings a year today (or to 70-80 as relievers) who would be able to contribute 20-40% more in an earlier era.

and just as well for all those others whose arms are not trashed by pervasive overwork.

Sure, but it's only "just as well" to the extent that we know that those others arms would indeed actually be "trashed by pervasive overwork." Would they? What constitutes "overwork?" What has been demonstrated to be a workload that minimizes injuries?

Its been a long time since I looked at that issue, but if I recall correctly, that information classified as "preventable" any injury resulting from non-catestrophic event.

If you can actually look at the full study, let me know, because I'd love to get a copy. I can't find the old link I had to the thumbnail, but here is a thread where we discuss it and AS correlation to overwork.

Aside from syntax, I presume "preventable injury" has its customary meaning in that injury --- an injury that would be prevented based on the safety and health program of the employer.

If the study does not believe they can be prevented, it would do little good to make such a classification.

Here is Stan Conte's use of the term from a chat:

"Blake (Chicago): Stan, thanks for chatting. In your opinion what is the most preventable injury? The easiest to rehab?

Stan Conte: Probably the most preventable injury is the lower leg strain such as hamstring, quad and calf pulls. I say this because through proper conditioning and flexibility, the muscle should be protected. That is not to say that all of these can be prevented because there will always be strains and pulls.

In 1997, the Giants decided to try and new conditioning program that was designed to prevent injuries. We relooked at the physical requirements of the game and designed the conditioning program accordingly. Along with other things, we were able to reduce our DL 65% in the first year and keep it down there for the subsequent six years. So we know that injuries are preventable.

Probably the most simple and predictable to rehab is a fracture of the hamate bone in the wrist. This is caused when a batter swings and the knob hits the bone at the outside of the wrist. It requires surgery to remove the broken piece but the player should be able to be competitive in 4-6 weeks. "

You can use all the old links in their for the Fleisig info, and Nielssen info. You can read all the data about the dangers of the overwork on developing systems etc., but I love how in every one of the new threads, Treder reverts back to "work them more when they are teenagers" and then later claims he never said that.

it's only "just as well" to the extent that we know that those others arms would indeed actually be "trashed by pervasive overwork." Would they? What constitutes "overwork?" What has been demonstrated to be a workload that minimizes injuries?

Well, but the converse is more probable: that pitching 180-200 innings a year never hurt anyone who would be capable of throwing 371-1/3. So all the Ryans and Johnsons and McGinnitys and Fellers still have their careers, and any guys who would break down at that rate also get careers. To the extent that we want a nice game of catch and not a gladiatorial ordeal, I don't mind that tradeoff.

What constitutes "overwork?" What has been demonstrated to be a workload that minimizes injuries?


In developing arms, about 89 pitches per week is the current recommendation. I don't know how many shovels of manure that equals, but I'm sure you can talk someone into working the math for you.

but the dozens of their contemporaries who would be limited to 180-200 innings a year today (or to 70-80 as relievers) who would be able to contribute 20-40% more in an earlier era.


See, dlf, he's creeping toward his point. He is now employing the

"One inning of Pedro is always better than one inning of Timlin" fallacy.

He won't respond to me, but he'll give you FUD on it if you post it, then you'll corner him on his real point. He wants to limit pitchers on the roster so he can carry more third and fourth string catchers. Even though for him cherry picking through forty years of data, he can only find about 10 teams where there was any advantage, never was any such advantage replicable, and you can usually find the same bench strength scanning any year's modern roster.

but the dozens of their contemporaries who would be limited to 180-200 innings a year today (or to 70-80 as relievers) who would be able to contribute 20-40% more in an earlier era.


Dozens? You want to slag arms, create crippling injuries and end careers, for dozens. Since you are making this up, I thought you would at least go for hundreds.

Well, but the converse is more probable: that pitching 180-200 innings a year never hurt anyone who would be capable of throwing 371-1/3.

Sure, but again, that's not the crux of the issue. Hell, almost no one threw 371 in any era, even the deadball era.

The issue is whether conditioning pitchers from a young age to work themselves up to a theoretical maximum of 180-200 serves to render them not only incapable of ever working more than that, but also renders them less capable of even handling the 180-200 than pitchers were in prior eras. If the issue is injury prevention, then one would expect to have seen a noticeable drop in injury occurrence in the current era, and the empirical fact is that we haven't.

Has anyone considered that it may be poor strategy to leave a starting pitcher in for 9 innings?
Gary Cohen and Keith Hernandez were decrying the lack of complete games pitched these days in the major leagues. The two of them aren't very bright so I'm not suprised it never occurred to them that leaving in the same pitcher after he has thrown 100 pitches may not be the best way for a manager to maximize the chance of winning the game.
Certainly there are more competent relief pitchers in the game today than there were 30 years ago. Population growth has more than exceeded the rate of expansion. Why leave a tiring pitcher in a game when you have some fresh flame-thrower ready to come in and blow people away for an inning and another behind him to do the same. Perhaps there are plenty of guys capable of throwing 250 innings if only they were asked to. If a starting pitcher falters in the first five innings he is usually left in the game to get out of the inning even if he has given up a few runs. In the sixth inning sometimes he will be left in. In the 7th and later almost never. This is because it is stupid to do so. He may be tiring and he may not be (teams mount threats in all parts of the game so you can't assume that the hits or walks allowed are due to fatigue) but why take the chance when you have a pitcher that you know is fresh and who has proven that he can get major league hitters out warmed up and waiting to come into the game?

...Joe Wood was done at the age of 26.

Joe Wood broke his thumb fielding a ground ball on wet grass. It wasn't an overuse issue in his case.

This is one of those issues that I flip flop on. I think that part of the problem is that pitchers went away from the free flowing deliveries. Don't tell mgl, but I'd rather hear Carlos Gomez's opinion on this than Treder's or Backlasher's. In any case, people always worry about starters when it is the ace reliver that normally has a brief career at the top. Mo, Trevor, and Goose are the exceptions.

Has anyone considered that it may be poor strategy to leave a starting pitcher in for 9 innings?

Yes, that has been brought up, and its one of the reasons why you see that reliever ERA is better as a function of ERA than starting pitching.

That "empiracle" data removes the Pedro-Timlin fallacy.

If the issue is injury prevention, then one would expect to have seen a noticeable drop in injury occurrence in the current era, and the empirical fact is that we haven't.


And as has been shown, the empiracle fact is we have. Impact of injury is much less these days then in the past as evidenced by career length. You can't make the circular argument that this because of medical science, then decry the same medical science for establishing usage rate maximums.

Its the same line you have been spouting for years; its just now there are less people willing to sniff the manure.

In fact, you like the "prove it" line so much. Why not do it yourself.

I don't think you can show an increase in catastrophic injury rate occurence, much less per capita by player. I don't think you can show increase in injury rate as a function of a time of service. In fact, according to Silver and Carroll, injury potential should increase at later ages from fatigue injuries, and we have more of those players that are playing longer.

All you can show is trips to the DL and DL days per team as having an increase, and this doesn't even measure injury rate in a meaningful function nor is it even close to a suitable proxy. (As previously discussed thoroughly 60 day trips were previously retirements, DL is used as a roster tool, DL is necessary for rehab starts, DL is an insurance precautionary measure, etc.)

And here is one that should grab Stevie by the testacles,

Furthermore, although the number of pitchers on the disabled list is increasing, it is doing so at a rate similar to the total
number of players on the disabled list, so the increase is not disproportionate for that one position.

Stan Conte, PT, ATC, Ralph K. Requa, MSPH and James G. Garrick, MD, Disability Days in Major League Baseball, The American Journal of Sports Medicine 29:431-436 (2001)

So whatever the "problem" is that causes so much utilization of the DL, it is systematic and not related to pitchers. You have tons of viable theories beyond manure (roster tool, effort per session, age increases, PED abuse), and that "empirical data" is not working in your favor.

Come on guys. Even if this were true, there is no way to measure it based on the data we have. At any rate, it's all cirular logic. The fact of the matter is that even if the correlation were somehow discovered to be true (based on whatever variables - injury rate, injury severity, etc. etc. etc.), it would say nothing about causation. A better inference would be that THEY ARE THE TYPE OF PERSON who can do strenuous farm work for long periods of time without getting hurt, and thus THEY ARE ALSO MORE LIKELY TO BE THE TYPE OF PERSON who can pitch for long periods of time without getting hurt.

Old farmhands who ruined their arms as kids working on the farm generally don't go and try to become professional athletes.

tell mgl, but I'd rather hear Carlos Gomez's opinion on this than Treder's or Backlasher's.

Then go ask him if his reduced endurance compared to THE GOOSE was because he didn't shovel enough manure. As near as I can remember, CBW has posted on the issue before.

And I'm very rarely providing you my opinion (except as it relates to the motives of Treder). I am giving you the opinions of medical professionals, and the data obtained by medical professionals. In some cases in former threads, I am providing you data myself.

Steve is offering his opinions. And like I've said before, you don't need me in the equation, its

Fleisig, S. Conte, James Andrews, and the medical community v. Treder and his manure theory. If you want to treat it like a fan exercise where you just pick a side, at least know what the rosters are.

All:

As a farmer, and former farm "boy", as well as someone who played baseball AND grew up when a rural background was still incredibly common allow me to clarify some of the common misconceptions being stated as fact in this thread and elsewhere.

Not all farms were/are alike.

A working dairy farm in Wisconsin was different from a working hog farm in Iowa which was different from a working beef steer ranch in Kansas which was different from a cotton farm in Georgia which was different from a tobacco farm in North Carolina. Was the labor primarily performed in a manual fashion? Yes. But the types of labor performed, the movements associated with said labor, and the related muscles/sinews/cardiovascular development (if any) were different.

If you were working on cattle ranch circa the early 20th century you spent a good portion of your time on a horse. (Large animal, four legs, smarter than most people--you can find out more watching "Bonaza" reruns on TVLAND). You roped, tied, and castrated calves. You shot varmints. You spent a lot of time outdoors all year round. You raced your brothers via horseback. You chewed tobacco. You put up barbed wire fence and cursed your father and the inventor of said product. You dug post holes for said fence and bet your brothers about who could dig the right hole the fastest. And when you had a spare moment you played baseball deep into the summer night after chores were done.

If you were on a hog farm in Iowa you had fixed chore assignments in the morning and evening as hogs were fed twice a day. (Unless you had mostly dairy animals and then the few hogs you had were allowed to eat cow manure as cows have inefficients digestive systems leaving plenty of grain matter behind for a few hungry hogs--meat didn't taste like much though. Surprised?) You caught little pigs and castrated them with the help of your brothers. In wintertime you pitched manure out of the enclosure. You plowed fields to raise corn used to feed the hogs. You picked rocks off the field turned up while plowing. You raked the fields after plowing to prep for planting. You planted the fields. You did this in your spare time when not caring for the hogs. You put up barbed wire fence and cursed the hogs, your father, and the inventor of barbed wire fence. You baled hay used both for bedding and medicinal purposes as fresh alfalfa is filled with nutrients that aid in the health of pregnant sows. Your very being reeked of the smell of hog manure, city kids mocked you, and flies adored you. And you played baseball deep into the summer night after chores were done.

If you were on a dairy farm in Wisconsin you got up pretty godd*mn early every day to milk the cows. You fed and watered the milk cows followed by said milking with no fancy Dan milking machine helping you along. You milked by hand and lugged the milk from buckets to larger containers. You had breakfast already tired and still bleary-eyed. You also did field work but had to bale a LOT MORE hay than those d*mn sissy nancypants Iowa hog farmers because cows eat hay all the d*mn time come winter. You watched over the birthing process of calves and sometimes were told to lather up and "go in after it". (Being the kid you had the small hands perfect for playing bovine OB-GYN) You put up barbed wire fence and cursed the cows, the hay, your father (twice), and the inventor of aforementioned barbed wire product. Exactly 12 hours after morning milking you milked again. You mucked stalls. You spread manure. And you played baseball deep into the summer night after chores were done.

Miscellaneous chores of note include working on a threshing crew which was the process of harvesting grains such as wheat or oats. A miserable, dirty noisty contraption sat in a field surrounded by men pitching cut grain into this device of Satan which proceeded to separate the kernel from the stalk. It was typically mid-August so it was hotter than Hades no matter where you were located in the U.S. And you began to work as soon as the morning dew had burned off which meant you sometimes were at by 7 a.m. in a dry summer. And you kept at until "The Boss" told you could stop. Most likely your father whom, all together now, you cursed under your breath.

You worked hard. You ate as well as your mother could cook combined with how industrious your father was with respect to generating meat products be they domesticated farm animals or wild animals. Store bought products were far and few between. If you were raised on a poor working farm, or "dirt farm", you ate poorly. You ate some kind of soup or stew. A lot.

Your parents were constantly stressed. Your father likely drank. The family was obssessed about the weather. And as a child you constantly heard about "The Bank" and knew that this mysterious place had an influence on your life. (Farmers took out loans to buy supplies to plant crops to earn money to pay off the note on the farm itself. Ugly cycle once you had a bad year because you were catching up the next twenty.)

I could continue but perhaps this gives sufficient background. If anyone has questions I will do my best to oblige.

If anyone has questions I will do my best to oblige.

Yeah. How drunk are you going to get after the Brewers finish off the AL Champ in the 2007 World Series?

And you played baseball deep into the summer night after chores were done.


Did you travel from region to region and state to state playing the best the region and state had to offer?

Did you play baseball deep into the winter nights after the chores were done?

Was the amount of pitches you threw related to how much manure you shoveled?

While we didn't do much castrating and varmint shooting, we did grow up on tobacco farms. Funny thing is the three people roughly my age from my county that made the show --- all city folk.

...

I want to revisit this one more time:

"Furthermore, although the number of pitchers on the disabled list is increasing, it is doing so at a rate similar to the total number of players on the disabled list, so the increase is not disproportionate for that one position." S. conte, et. al.

and place it with Treder's "more tommy john surgery dismissal."

Let's assume Treder is right. If Tommy John surgery is causing more players to play longer AND THE INJURY RATE OF PITCHERS IS CONSTANT RELATIVE TO OTHER POSITIONS, then the per capita injury occurence rate of pitchers would be decreasing.

All those players that are now getting Tommy John have a DL trip, and DL days. That is a DL trip that in the past would have been retirement. (At least one, in modern times its at least 1 15 day, with a move to 60 day on diagnosis, which should count as two as near as I can see the data. In the past, its maybe 1 15 day followed by retirement. It certainly is going to increase the DL days. FOr a good example, see how many DL trips you have for Mike Hampton over the last couple of years.)

So that is part of the extra DL visits. If you remove those (and they are substantial enough to make Steve's assertion true) then the injury rate of pitchers compared to other positions would be declining.

I think that part of the problem is that pitchers went away from the free flowing deliveries.

OTOH I think many more starting pitchers throw 90+ mph these days than they did 30 years ago.