Man, the Angels went from must see TV to an absolute abysmal nightmare in like 3 weeks.

####.

Tyler Anderson is good now. I think the Dodgers could probably get a decent season out of Bruce Chen at this point.

Heh, as Buck Coates noted in the Mikolas thread, this is the only other game this year where a pitcher threw 120+ pitches. Pretty wild that two no-hit attempts reached the ninth with both pitchers going far beyond the usual pitch count on back to back days. Though of course, I would expect in the middle of June that pitchers are “stretched out” a lot more than earlier in the year. I guess I’m just still trying to wrap my head around what “stretched out” means anymore…

The fact that 100 pitches seems to be the wall that managers don’t want to approach is interesting. Is it because it’s a nice round number in our base-10 counting system? Or is it because of third time through the batting order numbers that it’s mostly happenstance that starters are treated like going over 100 will ruin them? Increase in reliever velocity and salary considerations are also a factor of course. Are we approaching the low point in pitches thrown or can it go lower?

Is it because it’s a nice round number in our base-10 counting system?

Yup. Had Antonio Alfonseca been a starter, he'd have had a pitch limit of 144.

Yup. Had Antonio Alfonseca been a starter, he'd have had a pitch limit of 144.

Golf clap, with twelve intertwining fingers.

#4: well done

#3: At this point, it's more strategy than fragility. It might have always been.

The horror of pitch counts is possibly over-stated. The first year for which b-r has pitch count data, the average was 96/GS. By 1990 it was down to 93. It stayed there for 25 years. Of course some other things changed. (average pit/GS, avg CG, total >= 120, IP/start

1990 93 16 484 6.1
1995 94 10 416 5.9
2000 97 8 466 5.9
2005 95 6 135 6.0
2010 97 6 131 6.0
2015 93 3 40 5.8
2016 93 3 22 5.6
2017 92 2 18 5.5
2018 88 1 12 5.4
2019 86 2 14 5.2
...
2021 83 2 5 5.0
2022 84 0 2 5.1

Not presented here is P/PA because it's in a different b-r table and it's overall, not split by SP/RP although it doesn't seem to differ much between them. Anyway, I looked at it a couple of weeks ago and the change in IP/start through 2015 or so is pretty much entirely due to more P/PA which is a function of TTO (mainly the jump in Ks)

So what we did see of course is the disappearance of CGs and high-count starts but this happened long ago ... yet it had no real impact on avg pit/GS or IP/GS (compare 2000, 2005, 2010). That means teams got rid of the high-count starts but must have also gotten rid of lower-count starts to keep the average the same -- i.e. "required" starters to go 6 each time.

What's changed the last few years has been yanking pitchers well before they get to 100 or even 90 pitches (Cubs pulled Hendricks on 78 pitches and 0 runs the other night). They're averaging about 22 batters.

All that said ... one bullpen day or opener can really screw up that average. Say you had 9 starts averaging 93 pitches then one bullpen/opener day where the "starter" might get only 15-30 pitches. One 30-pitch start brings that average down to just under 87 per start (even as low as 85 on 15 pitches). Or 9 starts averaging 24 BF plus one averaging 7 -- voila, 22 BF/start. Now I don't think teams are doing as often as once every 10 starts (but I don't know) but they are doing it sometimes and a lot more often than they were in 2015 so I wouldn't be surprised if 3-4 of the "lost" pitches are that rather than pulling starters super early. It would be nice if somebody looked at it.

Somebody should do a nerdy cartoon where everything is in base 8.

But why? Part of it is 100 is a nice number. Part of it is that's where BPro started counting "abuse points." It's hard to tell to what extent pitch limits were a (pointless?) reaction to PAP or to what extent teams had already decided it on their own (such that PAP was moot before it was developed). But pitch counts became a thing right around 2000. We freaked out in real time about Dusty's "abuse" of Prior and Wood and that was 2003.

#7 Probably can be traced back further -- to Craig Wright's article in the Diamond appraised.

What makes this interesting to me is the way general guidelines get cast as hard and fast rules. Wright's underlying point is really "be risk adverse with young pitchers". And he casually throws 100 pitches out. Basically saying something like be cautious in letting young pitchers go past 100 pitches.

In very short order this became a hard line. BP picked 100 as a bright line number in part because of Wright's article.

We have empirical evidence on the whole third time through the order thing. 100 pitches? Not so much.

Had Antonio Alfonseca been a starter, he'd have had a pitch limit of 144.

Obligatory.