An interesting thought there by Dierker, based mostly on his own experiences, mainly the conclusion: "But if you burn out your best pitchers while trying to keep the worst ones off the mound, you may have to work the lesser pitchers even more in the end.

But then again, isn't it mostly bad mechanics from overpitching that will cause injury? I would think if you're watching for that, it's preventable to an extent.

But then again, isn't it mostly bad mechanics from overpitching that will cause injury?

I don't think anyone has any idea what causes pitcher injuries. Certainly bad mechanics and overpitching won't help, but it isn't at all clear that perfect mechanics and moderate use will keep a pitcher healthy. I'd say it is 75% genetics, 15% use from ages 10-20, and 10% use from age 20 up.

Just to throw some numbers out there.

YEAH, WASN'T MARK PRIOR GOING TO BE THE NEXT GREG MADDUX BECAUSE OF HIS MECHANICS???!!!!

Hell, next Tom Seaver.

YEAH, WASN'T MARK PRIOR GOING TO BE THE NEXT GREG MADDUX BECAUSE OF HIS MECHANICS???!!!!

should I as a Cub fan feel dumb for still thinking this is possible? Or do I need to change my glasses?

I don't think anyone has any idea what causes pitcher injuries. Certainly bad mechanics and overpitching won't help, but it isn't at all clear that perfect mechanics and moderate use will keep a pitcher healthy.

Completely agreed. Every time a pitcher gets hurt, after the fact many will say they could see it coming, it was obviously caused by this or that, but if in fact teams could see it coming, and if in fact it was obviously caused by this or that, the injuries would be a hell of a lot less frequent than they are.

The workload conundrum is simply this: while everyone agrees that a pitcher can be overworked, precisely where regular work ends and overwork begins is extraordinarily difficult to determine. And despite what you-know-who will predictably rant, an empirical link between the dramatic reduction in top pitcher workloads that has occurred in the past 15-20 years and any meaningful reduction in the occurrence of injuries has never been discovered by anyone. Injuries are diagnosed and treated far better today than ever before, but progress in preventing their occurrence in pitchers is something close to impossible to demonstrate.

I don't buy it.

It was perfectly obvious to anyone with eyes that Eric Gagne was a 82.0 innings per season pitcher, tops.

You send him out for 82.3 year after year after year, and you gotta expect this.

should I as a Cub fan feel dumb for still thinking this is possible? Or do I need to change my glasses? </I>

No, you should feel dumb for not hating pants.

Or do I need to change my glasses?

You probably miss your old glasses.

I didn't even consider going to a four-man rotation because I think it shortened my own pitching career. I lasted 12 years as it was, but I think I would have pitched quite a few more seasons if I hadn't pitched 575 innings when I was 23 and 24 years old.

Then again, if that happened now, he'd just get surgery to reattach everything, rehab for a season, and add another decade to his career. I wonder how much of today's longer pitching careers can be attributed to less heavy use, to increased salaries, and/or to advances in sports medicine.

Anyway, I think the term "four-man rotation" is a bit of a misnomer. It appears that in many cases, a team had one or two (or very rarely, three) big guns they used every four days, no matter what. Then there were two or three other guys who were plugged in where needed -- as starters, long relief, etc. A lot of teams in the 1970's, say, had five starters. You'd often end up with something like Dierker's 1970 Houston team:

<u>STARTS</u>
Dierker - 36
Don Wilson - 27
Jack Billingham - 24
Denny Lemaster - 21
Tom Griffin - 20
Wade Blasingame - 13

Six starters, and Billingham (22) and Lemaster (18) also made a number of relief appearances. So, not a textbook 4-man rotation -- more like two guys, and a bunch of swing men. A good many (I am tempted to say most) of the staffs in Dierker's time were constructed this way. It appears Dierker's problem was that he was the only big gun on his staff.

The thing he doesn't say is to go back to a 4-man rotation or something like it, you'd probably have to rethink the philosphy on the construction of your entire pitching staff. It'd be smaller (10-11 guys, instead of 12-13), and the roles would have to be much more fluid. In the Astros example he uses, Clemens and Oswalt would go every four days, no matter what -- the other guys would just get bumped. Pettitte would still get 30-35 starts, working alternately on 3 and 4 days rest, as required by the schedule. Backe might get something similar to the 1970 Billingham -- 20-25 starts, about as many appearances in relief. You'd have to have a couple of guys in the bullpen (Rodriguez? Qualls?) who could spot start 4-5 times a season when things got backed up; of course, the difference between now and 1970 is there are many, many fewer doubleheaders, scheduled and otherwise, so the need for pulling spot starts out of the pen wouldn't be as great now as back then. The other two or three guys -- Wheeler, some lefty other than Franco, Lidge -- would be able to go 1-2 innings an appearance. Since they would appear less often, the increased IPs would be offset by the increase in rest between appearances. When you have 2-3 "main" starters and another 3-4 guys who can pretty much start or relieve as needed, even with a ten-man staff you are essentially going into each game with a seven-man bullpen. No need to wear out your relievers. You have to carry 12-13 guys nowadays to have that.

Here's a month mid-season from the Giants of the same era (1969), starting pitchers:

7/6 Marichal
7/6 Perry
7/7 Sadecki
7/8 McCormick
7/9 Bolin
7/10 Marichal
7/11 Perry
7/12 Herbel
7/13 McCormick
7/15 Marichal
7/16 Perry
7/17 Herbel
7/18 McCormick
7/19 Marichal
7/20 Perry

All-Star break

7/24 Marichal
7/25 Perry
7/26 McCormick
7/27 Bolin
7/28 Marichal
7/29 Bryant
7/30 Perry
7/31 McCormick
8/1 Bolin
8/2 Marichal
8/3 Perry
8/5 McCormick
8/5 Bolin
8/6 Marichal
8/8 Perry

In a 30-game span, Marichal and Perry (the 'main' starters') got 8 starts each, McCormick got 6. The other 8 starts went to Sadecki, 1 (LHP swing man); Bolin, 4 (swing man); Herbel, 2 ("short" reliever taking a couple of starts); and Bryant, 1 (LHP, swing man). So, it was a four-man rotation, but only in the sense that the fourth guy was four guys. This sort of thing was quite common.

One thing of note -- if you break the season down into months or something similar, you will often see one stretch ususally 1/2 to 2/3 through the schedule, where the heavy usage starters begin to feel it. They go through a stretch -- 'dead arm' period or whatever -- where they pitch like crap. Even the great starters go through this. Gaylord Perry in 1969 finished up 19-14, 2.49 (140 ERA+) in 39 starts, 325 innings. Pretty typical Perry season in a lot of ways. But for three weeks -- mid-June to early July -- he was pretty bad... 0-2, 5.46 in five starts, 42 hits allowed in 29.2 IPs. Perry righted himself, as most of the good pitchers did; but it seems one cost of running your big guy out there so much was you'd have to endure a stretch where he was much less than good. There are a lot of examples -- Ken Holtzman with the '73 A's is another example that comes to mind. But the managers seemed to let them work through it, and they mostly did. The problem is, one always hears about the guys like Gibson and Jenkins and Perry and Lolich, etc., who pitched an ungodly amount of innings. But there were many, many other guys back then who had very short careers because of heavy use, particularly at a young age, as Dierker mentions. You never hear much about those guys.

Still, I'd love to see somebody try the 'whole bullpen' or 'situational starter' philosophy again, or whatever one might call it; but my sense is it'll never happen. For better or worse, specialization is here to stay.

I know that, in this era of specialization, no one wants to think outside the very narrow box that managers have created for themselves. But I'm still surprised someone doesn't try a four-man/five-day rotation just because of how little flexibility we're beginning to see in roster construction.

It seems that every team now insists on having seven guys in the bullpen and that leaves only 4 bench players in the AL and 5 in the NL (where the bench is more likely to be used because of the need to pinch hit in the #9 spot). If you had four standard starters and then one or even two guys in your seven-man bullpen function as a spot starter, you'd be, in effect, getting back a roster spot. The schedule affords enough off days that your starters are pitching on five day's rest (not four) more than half the time in the standard five-man rotation. Simply put, that's excessive. Why not keep all starters on standard four-day rest cycles, using those swing guys to balance it out when necessary?

The one thing I truly hate about baseball these days is the lack of creativity and common sense that so many teams show in both strategy and lineup construction.

Terrific posts, #9 and #10.

I'd have no problem what-so-ever going to a man rotation.

It's not the innings, it's not the starts, its the pitches... In the end, we're talking about the stress of throwing a baseball 90 MPH and/or making it dance with the twists and turns required from the arm.

That stress has little to do with IP or starts -- it tied to the number of times the action takes place.

Using a stricter PC regimen, I think a 4 man rotation would be an excellent way to go.

There's something that Dierker mentioned in passing that would be a big factor in trying to use a four-man rotation. The agents for the players pitchers in that rotation would raise hell. They would claim that their clients were assuming a greater share of the workload, and that they should therefore be getting more money. And God forbid if one of those starters did get injured. His agent would be screaming that it was because he was overused. In no time at all, it would become the consensus among players that if you pitch in a four-man rotation, you'll end up getting injured. Given such considerations, I would think that no club would think seriously about going to a four-man rotation.

Given such considerations, I would think that no club would think seriously about going to a four-man rotation.

I could see a small market/small income team trying it, if they had the intestinal fortitude to deal with the media, player's agents and others who might raise objections. A team in this position could easily take the position that they are just renting players until they become eligible for free agency so why not get the most possible usage out of them and then let the richer teams pay the big bucks. Send your young pitchers out there every fourth game and if it shortens their careers, well they weren't likely to remain with your team anyway. Of course this is going to make it impossible to sign quality pitchers as free agents but our team probably doesn't have that kind of money anyway. Use 'em like farm animals and just replace 'em when they drop.

The problem is, one always hears about the guys like Gibson and Jenkins and Perry and Lolich, etc., who pitched an ungodly amount of innings. But there were many, many other guys back then who had very short careers because of heavy use, particularly at a young age, as Dierker mentions. You never hear much about those guys.


Exactly. All you have to do is go through baseball reference, and look at guys that their names are not all that familiar, who had high innings totals for a couple of years. Inevitably, by the 3rd or 4th year MOST of the guys who threw big innings totals the previous couple of years suddenly have a serious drop in innings pitched, and effectiveness.
The guys that did not get hurt became stars and hall of famers. Most of the other guys fell by the wayside.

And God forbid if one of those starters did get injured. His agent would be screaming that it was because he was overused. In no time at all, it would become the consensus among players that if you pitch in a four-man rotation, you'll end up getting injured. Given such considerations, I would think that no club would think seriously about going to a four-man rotation.

I agree. There is a certain amount of wag-the-dog going on given the value of contracts, and the obvious interests of both teams and players to try and prevent injuries. It's my hypothesis that the Closer model was developed primarily as an injury-prevention tool, not for its particular in-game tactical value, just as the 5-man rotation has been. That neither the Closer nor the 5-man has actually demonstrated any obvious efficacy in preventing injuries seems not to have had any power in changing their deployment.

Inevitably, by the 3rd or 4th year MOST of the guys who threw big innings totals the previous couple of years suddenly have a serious drop in innings pitched, and effectiveness.
The guys that did not get hurt became stars and hall of famers. Most of the other guys fell by the wayside.

Certainly true. Pitchers used to get hurt a whole lot.

However, the evidence that they get hurt any less frequently under modern usage modes is absent. Injuries are diagnosed much more accurately, and treated far more effectively today, but there is nothing suggesting that they are initially getting hurt any less often than at any time in the past.

And of course, the existence of 300+ inning iron men, however rare they ever were, is obvious evidence that handling such a workload is certainly physiologically possible for some pitchers.

You send him out for 82.3 year after year after year, and you gotta expect this.

This would be 83 innings, at least the way I always see it listed (82 1/3=82.1, 82 2/3=82.2). :)

Steve, are there pitch count estimates for earlier times before pitch counts were recorded that most sabermetricians agree are reasonably accurate?

I have to think that with far fewer K's and Walks, pitch counts were lower, and so the innings pitched were not as stressful in yesteryear. I bet the 100 pitch complete game was alot more common before the 1970's than it is now.

Once expansion hit in the early 60's, the top pitchers got an extra 2 or 3 starts a season and so there were more 300+ IP guys than any time since the deadball era.

However I think it became obvious in a pretty short period of time (10-15 years) that there were very few guys who could sustain that kind of workload and remain healthy.

Dieker talks alot about conservation of strength and energy in his article. I have read how Livan can work in early innings at 75-80% effort and get guys out, which allows him to stay around longer.

I think he also makes a great point about guys that have to use all their strength just to throw 90, vs. guys that throw 95 and can dial it down to 90 and get guys out.

Finally, I think if any organization wants to go to a 4 man rotation any time soon, they will have to start training their pitchers to do so in low A ball, and work up to it through the levels of their system. New throwing regimens need to be worked out to allow the pitcher to be ready every 4th day, if necessary. If some organization wanted to go this route, they would have to have a 5-10 year plan to implement it. You can't just take guys that have been in 5 man rotations and put them on a 4 man rotation on a whim. Conditioning methods would probably need a complete overhaul. It would also mean an organization would have to be very deep with pitching prospects, as they would not be able to bring in too many guys from the outside and plug them into their system.

The events of 100 years ago don't really shed that much light on what we should do today, and there are many reasons why we're never going back to 1905 baseball, but it's still fun to look at.

There was no real concept of "rotation" at the time, and wouldn't be for some time to come - but there was still the issue of what fraction of your pitching should come from your best pitchers.

In 1903, the Giants got 800 IP from their top two pitchers, Joe McGinnity and Christy Mathewson. McGinnity (32 years old) and Mathewson (22) were both terrifically effective. The Giants finished 2nd in the NL to the Pirates, for whom no one pitcher had 300 IP. But the Giants won the pennant in 1904 with McGinnity and Mathewson combining for 775 IP.

But there was a different trend brewing; the Pirates were part of the new way, but the team to really look at was the Cubs. The Cubs took the league by storm in 1906, with their top 6 pitchers contibuting 278, 251, 208, 218, 147, and 144 IP. The trend continued over the next several years, with the Cubs spreading the IP more evenly over more pitchers than most other teams at the time. The did have a genuine ace, in Mordecai Brown, and some other good pitchers, such as Ed Reulbach - but they were also getting great years out of the likes of Jack Pfiester, Carl Lundgren, and King Cole - pitchers who experienced little sucess elsewhere. There was nothing unusual about the number of complete games, but the more distributed pattern of starts may have increased the availabilty of their best relief pitcher: Brown.

Of course, part of the Cubs' secret was that they backed these pitchers with a genuinely outstanding defense. The Pirates of the same generation also distributed the pitching load, also had a terrific defense, and made stars out of the likes of Sam Leever, Babe Adams, and Deacon Phillippe.

The success of the Cubs and Pirates probably had its effect on pitcher utilization. In particular, John McGraw would never again ride his aces quite as hard as he did in 1903-1904.

Of course, if I'd been managing Rube Waddell, I'd have gotten every inning I could have out of him now and not planned for tomorrow.

(From the department of "stuff I never would have known before I joined the Hall of Merit group.")

One other point is the role of expanded playoffs. Prior to divisional play, you went from a 154 game schedule direct to the world series, and maybe a couple of extra starts.

In the modern era, with 3 rounds of playoffs, top starters on world series teams are getting anywhere from 4 to 7 extra starts a year. Post season innings must be a factor for some pitchers.

I'm surprised Backlasher hasn't shown up in this thread yet. He must be busy.

Steve, are there pitch count estimates for earlier times before pitch counts were recorded that most sabermetricians agree are reasonably accurate?

I don't know whether "most sabermetricians agree" that they're reasonably accurate or not. Tangotiger certainly believes they are, and he certainly impresses me as a level-headed guy. He tested his formula against actual pitch-count data he has from the Dodgers of the 1950s/60s, and it was accurate on a full-season basis within a few percentage points.

FWIW, here's what the pitch count estimator yields as a ML average pitches per team/game, by year:

1901 137
1902 135
1903 135
1904 132
1905 135
1906 133
1907 133
1908 133
1909 135
1910 138
1911 141
1912 140
1913 139
1914 137
1915 138
1916 138
1917 137
1918 137
1919 137
1920 140
1921 141
1922 141
1923 142
1924 141
1925 143
1926 141
1927 141
1928 142
1929 143
1930 144
1931 142
1932 143
1933 140
1934 143
1935 143
1936 145
1937 143
1938 144
1939 143
1940 143
1941 143
1942 141
1943 142
1944 141
1945 141
1946 142
1947 143
1948 144
1949 145
1950 146
1951 144
1952 143
1953 143
1954 144
1955 144
1956 144
1957 144
1958 143
1959 143
1960 144
1961 144
1962 144
1963 142
1964 142
1965 142
1966 141
1967 142
1968 139
1969 144
1970 145
1971 142
1972 142
1973 144
1974 144
1975 144
1976 143
1977 144
1978 142
1979 143
1980 143
1981 142
1982 143
1983 143
1984 143
1985 144
1986 145
1987 146
1988 143
1989 143
1990 144
1991 144
1992 144
1993 145
1994 147
1995 148
1996 149
1997 148
1998 147
1999 149
2000 149
2001 146
2002 146
2003 146
2004 147

I have to think that with far fewer K's and Walks, pitch counts were lower, and so the innings pitched were not as stressful in yesteryear.

Sure. But I think we often overestimate just how many more walks and K's there are nowdays.

Strikeouts are at an all-time high. There have been between 6.30 and 6.67 K's per team/game every year since 1995. But this represents fewer than 2 strikeouts per game more than at any point since 1954; fewer than 2 more strikeouts don't add all that many pitches.

And there are fewer walks today than there were in the late 40s/early 50s. Moreover, the walk rate has rarely varied as much as .5 walks per game between any era; a half a walk per game more or less doesn't have much impact on pitch counts.

The only way you can conclude that pitch counts today are significantly higher than at any time over the past 80 years is if you believe that there are significantly more foul balls today than ever before. I don't know what evidence would support such an assertion.

Does anyone know of a convienient list of runs per game for each year, to accompany the estimated pitch count list?

Does anyone know of a convienient list of runs per game for each year, to accompany the estimated pitch count list?

Here you go:

1901 4.99
4.43
4.44
3.73
1905 3.90
3.62
3.53
3.39
3.55
1910 3.84
4.51
4.53
4.04
3.75
1915 3.79
3.56
3.59
3.63
3.87
1920 4.36
4.86
4.87
4.82
4.76
1925 5.13
4.64
4.75
4.73
5.19
1930 5.55
4.81
4.91
4.48
4.91
1935 4.90
5.19
4.87
4.89
4.82
1940 4.68
4.49
4.08
3.92
4.17
1945 4.18
4.01
4.36
4.58
4.61
1950 4.85
4.55
4.18
4.61
4.38
1955 4.49
4.45
4.31
4.28
4.38
1960 4.31
4.53
4.46
3.95
4.04
1965 3.99
3.99
3.77
3.42
4.07
1970 4.34
3.89
3.69
4.21
4.12
1975 4.21
3.99
4.47
4.10
4.46
1980 4.29
4.00
4.30
4.31
4.26
1985 4.33
4.41
4.72
4.14
4.13
1990 4.26
4.31
4.12
4.60
4.92
1995 4.85
5.04
4.77
4.79
5.08
2000 5.14
4.78
4.62
4.73
2004 4.81

are there pitch count estimates for earlier times before pitch counts were recorded that most sabermetricians agree are reasonably accurate?

Tangotiger created one. It's PC = (3.3*TBF) + (1.5*K) + (2.2*BB). He tested it against modern pitch counts and it works OK. He also tested it against Koufax's career and it worked OK. Not perfect - usually off by a few pitches per game each season, but gives one a ballpark estimate.

Using it and the gamelogs at retrosheet. I've figured estimated pitch counts for all pitchers who started at least 20 games in 1967, 1969, and 1974. You can compare the chart against baseball prosecuts's pitch count chart fo 2004. Based on this, it wasn't just the occasional Lolich or Gibson that was asked to pitch more than modern day hurlers. Dang near all of them (especially in 1974) were asked to pitch more. For the estimator's evidence to be meaningless, it would have to be shown that not only does it overestimate pitches thrown, but that it wildly overestimates pitches thrown. The differences between then and now are very stark.

1967 (especially the AL) also provides good evidence for an idea Treder's tossed around before -- starters were also pulled quicker more often. I don't know if I see it in the '69 or '74 charts, but it's definately there in '67.

Tangotiger created one. It's PC = (3.3*TBF) + (1.5*K) + (2.2*BB). He tested it against modern pitch counts and it works OK. He also tested it against Koufax's career and it worked OK. Not perfect - usually off by a few pitches per game each season, but gives one a ballpark estimate.

That's the formula I used to generate the numbers above.

One thing I'll add -- my guess it that the PCE does overestimate by a tad. Tangotiger based it on modern conditions. He figured that all non-K & BB atbats have, on average, the same number of pitches per PA, so just figure what extra pitches are thrown for walks and K's. But since K's are higher now, there's a good chance that there's more strikes per non-K at bat now than there was then. But how big an impact would that have? Baseball's seen a K-increase of 1.5-2 more per 9 ininings? Is that really going to explain why so games from 1967, '69, and '74 end up Category V? Heck, in '67, the year these pitchers were estimated to be used the most moderately, 12.1% of the starts on the list made it to Cat-V. Last year it was about 0.2%.

They're not being asked to pitch the same workloads as pitchers were a generation before. I wouldn't mind if I saw a decrease in injuries, but I don't. I just see pitchers being used less, and the back ends of the bullpen and rotation asked to pick up the slack (and fewer roster slots given to hitters as a result). Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

They're not being asked to pitch the same workloads as pitchers were a generation before. I wouldn't mind if I saw a decrease in injuries, but I don't. I just see pitchers being used less, and the back ends of the bullpen and rotation asked to pick up the slack (and fewer roster slots given to hitters as a result). Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

My sentiments prezactfully.

I'm surprised Backlasher hasn't shown up in this thread yet. He must be busy.


And what would backlasher do, JRE. I could point out once again that career pitching lenght is longer. I could point out that bullpen effectiveness has increased. I could point out that 71% of all ML injuries have been found to be preventable due in part to overuse. I could again link the ASMI studies. I could show Glen Fleisig's own public statements regarding overuse. I could point out that Steve Treder will distort information, present false and misleading information, and have no cooberation on any conclusion for any one of his claims. I could again explain what RSIs are and how they are caused. I could discuss the hubris of Treder in thinking he knows more than baseball people and medical professionals. We could talk about attrition right of pitchers. We could talk about the ethics of creating unwarranted harm. We could talk about the comparitive production of roster spots. We could talk about performance under role definition. We could show that Treder can't even begin to have a repeatable mechanism. We could again show ruined careers. We could show how Treder's number one hero has walked away from this claptrap theory. We can show how his number two hero burned out so many arms. There is nothing that Steve isn't going to bring to this discussion that HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN THOROUGHLY AND SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

But what good would it do. Steve is going to keep misrepresenting, engaging in faulty analysis, posting numbers with absolutely no meaning, etc. Other people aren't going to spend 5 seconds to even try to find easy answers to questions that are intuitive on their face without jumping in to say This is what I think. I mean if you buy into his "no prevention of injury rates" bs, without even realizing that he cannot even begin to support this, most documentary evidence is counter to this conclusion, and unwarranted increases in risk are never utilitarian--then what good is it going to do to present real evidence. You are already willing to jump to a counterintuitive conclusion with no evidence just because it fits some weird world view.

Its better for me to let Steve diseminate his propoganda and well said recruitment. I have posted all the evidence at least five times. If there is a new wrinkle to this, Emeigh, Tango, Dial, etc. will arrive and it can get explored. But why go through the same thing over and over again. I mean Dierker's own statement explains why you are unlikely to see a four man rotation.

JRE, you have already read all the evidence, do you want me to post it again and again and again. Should I have to do this just because Treder starts his dishonest ways. And anybody who hasn't read it and is too lazy to google it, they can ask dear uncle Steve. He knows it all too, he's just not honest enough to post it.

My sentiments prezactfully.

Well Said
Goldman Rocks

Using it and the gamelogs at retrosheet. I've figured estimated pitch counts for all pitchers who started at least 20 games in 1967, 1969, and 1974.

Chris, I love your site, but is there any way you can make those numbers easier to read, or easier to copy, paste and parse in Excel?

Well Said
Goldman Rocks

And so my nefarious Jedi mind tricks continue to work as perfectly as ever ... fooling the gullible saberist zombies into believing ridiculous nonsense I know full well to be false ... everything is proceeding exactly according to my plan!

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

And what would backlasher do, JRE.

He'd probably get really, really upset about someone having a different interpretation of things than he does.

The pitch count estimator (PCE) being discussed here should only be used as a rough estimate. When looking at historical data, the xPCE should be used. Note as well that I will modify the xPCE (eventually, but probably within the next few months).

As was mentioned, the higher Ks means that there are more 2-strike walks than earlier. The other important thing to remember is that you have a natural boundary to number of pitches (excluding 2-strike fouls). It is that law that forces any PCE to work.

A K is accompanied with 0,1,2,3 balls. That distribution can be inferred based on the number of walks a pitcher gives up, and how often a pitcher allows a ball to be put in play. Same thing for the walk, accompanied with 0,1,2 strikes, which again can be inferred by the number of walks, and balls in play. For a non-BB or non-K PA, the percentage of times the balls is put in play is a good way to figure out how many pitches it took.

The two-strike fouls are the bothersome part. I haven't figured out, yet, the relationship of two-strike fouls and the profile of pitcher (or hitter). Were there alot more or alot less 2-strike fouls in the olden days? My guess is that since there's probably a strong relationship to # of Ks, then we probably have more 2-strike fouls today. So, the (current) xPCE probably overestimates this. The new xPCE will have a separate function for this.

***

You will also note, somewhere on my site, I have the almost complete Koufax log, game by game. The number of under-70 pitch games by Koufax is enormous, as is the over-130 pitch games. (Managers I presume did not understand small sample size, and figured that gettign pounded after 4 innings means that the pitcher didn't have "it" that day.) The standard deviation of pitches thrown per game, by Dodger starters in 1957-64 is much larger than those pitchers of today. The overall average number of pitches thrown by the Dodger starters was right around 100. Koufax and Drysdale were somewhere between 105-110 (a little higher in their better years). I think Koufax was as high as around 115 on average. Certainly not some "stamina machine" his 350+ innings are trying to convey. (BFP and not IP should be looked at.) Podres was near 100, IIRC. A few others were below that. On average, those pitches are indistinguishable from today's pitchers, but much less than those in the 70s. But, in terms of quick hooks and slow hooks, they were definitely treated differently.

***

BTF Challenge: Write the lyrics to a song in the style of South Park with the title:
What would backlasher do?

He'd probably get really, really upset about someone having a different interpretation of things than he does.


Different interpretations are fine, as long as they are reasonable, and argued honestly. Adolescent logic, dishonesty and failure to disclose material facts, promoting information that you know to be false, providing evidence that knowingly doesn't support a conclusion, those tend to make most people, including myself exasperated.

Can you explain why Steve is lying to promote an agenda? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Were there alot more or alot less 2-strike fouls in the olden days? My guess is that since there's probably a strong relationship to # of Ks, then we probably have more 2-strike fouls today.

I suspect so, too. But there is an element that perhaps mitigates against it, at least to some degree. Modern batters rarely choke up or otherwise modify their swing with 2 strikes; the modern wisdom is "don't get cheated," go ahead and risk the strikeout but take your full regular rip.

This wasn't at all the case for many if not most batters 40-50 years ago. It was SOP to choke up or otherwise "protect the plate" with 2 strikes, because the prevailing wisdom was (well-founded or not) that it was smart to sacrifice power in order to avoid the dreaded strikeout.

What effect might choking up and "protecting the plate" with 2 strikes have? Well, obviously it reduced strikeouts to some degree (while obviously also reducing power). And shortened 2-strike "protect the plate" swings may possibly also have had an effect of producing a lot of 2-strike foul tips and choppers, as "getting a piece of the ball" and "hanging in there" was highly prized.

The number of under-70 pitch games by Koufax is enormous, as is the over-130 pitch games. (Managers I presume did not understand small sample size, and figured that gettign pounded after 4 innings means that the pitcher didn't have "it" that day.) The standard deviation of pitches thrown per game, by Dodger starters in 1957-64 is much larger than those pitchers of today.

That's consistent with how I remember things from the 60s, and consistent with much of what I've read from earlier eras. There was a prevalent belief that a starter either "had it" today or he didn't; if he did, the manager would let him work his way out of jams and go deep into the game (and obviously often to completion), but if he didn't -- if he was in trouble in the first couple of innings -- there was far less hesitation than today about yanking him out of there. (Obviously having genuine "long relievers" on hand who were quite capable of throwing 5+ innings in relief made such a practice possible.)

This is pretty easily visible in just comparing starting pitchers' innings/game from earlier eras to today. Earlier pitchers threw far more complete games than today's -- yet their innings-per-start weren't significantly different. By definition, this means that the standard deviation of innings/start was greater in the old days than today.

My admittedly inexpert take is that I do not believe that broad actuarial approaches to risk are appropriate in these circumstances. There's no need to say "Pitchers generally tire after 100 (or 90, or 110, or whatever) pitches so I'm going to pull this specific pitcher after 100 pitches." A team has far more information than that. It has (or ought to have) a wealth of medical and physiological expertise, who can liaise with the baseball experts to produce a personally tailored usage pattern for each individual pitcher, designed to maximise utility. These individual usage patterns then get melded together to get an overall starter rotation. I have no intrinsic objection to giving a starter huge pitch counts and 300+ innings. But only if it is scientifically appropriate. I would also be willing to start a pitcher only every 6 days if that was necessary.

As each starter is now on a different pattern, we'll need a swingman (or two). It will require thought and careful consideration, but I think it has several benefits. Firstly, it provides a clear heirarchy of pitchers. The 1 and 2 pitchers are started exactly as suits them. The 3 and 4 pitchers have to fit in around that, but basically get a good pattern. The 5 (and possibly 6) pitchers have no fixed role. This creates healthy competition as everyone seeks to move up. Secondly, the swingman roles are good for auditioning players. Third, it minimises the damage from the back end of the rotation. Fourth, it encourages roster flexibility. And fifth, I think it makes the demands of a regular season roster closer to the demands of a playoff roster.

I think it's inappropriate to start from the position of what you want out of your pitchers - you start with what they can give you, and work with that. Although you can (to an extent) control the development of your own prospects, 29/30 pitchers will not be coming through your system. The key is individuality. What I dislike about the current system is that it seems to try and force all pitchers into the same usage model. That can't be right.

Different interpretations are fine, as long as they are reasonable, and argued honestly. Adolescent logic, dishonesty and failure to disclose material facts, promoting information that you know to be false, providing evidence that knowingly doesn't support a conclusion, those tend to make most people, including myself exasperated.

Interesting. Wordplay with people's names to be disparaging, massive appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, assaults upon the English language and beating of equines so dead that PETA doesn't mind, are the things that I would list that have a tendency to exasperate most people, including me.

Pehaps the lesson learned by the 19-oughts Cubs was that a pitcher didn't have to have the talent of a Christy Mathewson or Three-Finger Brown to contribute to the success of a pennant-winning team. Indeed, history is littered with King Coles and John Stupers who were briefly successful with good teams. Much of that is just sample size, but there are pitchers who can succeed given favorable circumstances. I think that does mesh with what TwoAlous is trying to say.

The 1 and 2 pitchers are started exactly as suits them. The 3 and 4 pitchers have to fit in around that, but basically get a good pattern. The 5 (and possibly 6) pitchers have no fixed role.

This is, of course, a fairly accurate description of the standard starting staff deployment model from about 1930 to about 1970.

What I dislike about the current system is that it seems to try and force all pitchers into the same usage model.

That's one of its flaws, I agree.

Can you explain why Steve is lying to promote an agenda? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

You will have to ask Steve, why. I only know that he is being dishonest, because he knows information regarding injury rate wrt career rate, he knows information regarding performance rate of individual RPs and entire bullpens, he knows information regarding the repeatability of bench's compared to repeatability of bullpens.

These aren't conclusions, hypothesis, or interpretations. These are facts. He ignores them and refuses to rebut them in any way. In fact, he lacks any real reasonable argument. He has been faced with expert opinion information from Fleisig, ASMI, and American Speciality. He does not seek to rebut it in any way. Instead he falsely implies that the experts are wrong. He emphatically states things about injury rate to which he has no support. He misdirects with numbers that aren't probative to the issue. And more often than not, he will state something is "undeniable, or irrefutable" when in fact its true.

But the biggest problem is his utter dishonesty in when and how he makes the argument.

He will jump on a thread like this one and just state a conclusion in an early post. Usually its something that is incorrect, like yesterday, "Nobody knows what causes pitcher injuries" Well Steve himself knows that MLB commissioned American Specialty was commissioned and determined that 71% of all injuries are preventable.

But instead of trying to discuss a real issue, he will do this, throw Bill James name in somewhere, and depend on somebody thinking that his rather low intellect is an expert. None of the fanboys and not even you will challenge him on one conclusion. Instead he'll just "well said" everyone that posts some musing or some garbage in an attempt to build a coalition.

Then someone can post real information that they have repeated so many times its indeliably stamped in their brain like American Specialty.

All of a sudden, its now a term paper, so the person really trying to advance the discussion is asked to link information over and over and over again. Which usually means looking it up over and over and over again.

Then once you have made the affirmative case and have shown that he's really loony, he'll retreat to a sophist position. "Well Fleisig doesn't know" or "American Specialty doesn't know" and try to change a burden, so you'll present all manner of cooberating evidence, and then he'll disappear.

He has nothing. He has a list of pitchers, many of whom had their careers or effectiveness end prematurely. He has about 10 teams from 40 years worth of baseball that had good benchs and short staffs. None of those teams could repeat from year to year, and you can find just as good a benchs with long staffs.

He tries to intimate that because "worse pitchers are pitching" you get "worse pitching performance", but bullpen's have improved relative to starters, and the best bullpen arms have improved way over Steve's exemplars. And he knows this.

Now, I can give you one good reasons as to why he might be dishonest. First, its really the only research he's ever done, so he can't bare to face the fact that he is so totally wrong.

Let me put it to you this way Werr. If I've got a car to sell you and I know the transmission is bad. You start it up and hear a noise, and I say "that goes away when you warm her up. You ought to be able to get another 50,000 miles out of her" do you think I'm doing the right thing by not telling you about the transmission problem. Is that just good salesman ship. Do you want to know the worth of the car, or do you want to see how well I can argue the point?

I mean, I can rhetorically kick Steve's asss at will. He lacks any rational ability, or any ability to analyze. He doesn't even know how to calculate the numbers, he has to con somebody else into doing it for him. All he can do in an argument is retreat to a sophist position. I could make him look bad even if I agreed with what he wrote, because he pretty much sucks as a researcher and an advocate. But I don't do that, I just show him up when he posts that nonsense and nincompoopery. Do you really want to see that dynamic play out over and over and over again, or do you want Treder to disclose to you what he knows.

BL, this reflects very poorly on you, in my opinion. There is nothing less convincing than a repeated insistence that someone is arguing in bad faith. If you want to convince me Steve is wrong, do it, and don't tell me about his motives and what he does and doesn't know, because it does absolutely nothing for your point.

Interesting. Wordplay with people's names to be disparaging, massive appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, assaults upon the English language and beating of equines so dead that PETA doesn't mind, are the things that I would list that have a tendency to exasperate most people, including me.

Your very appearance bores me if doesn't exasperate me. But yes I play with words. I doubt you know what ad hominem means, but I doubt you find much of that. But, absolutely, I don't trust anything that Treder or Danny says. Treder will "remember" things to suit his argument. Its very frequent that he is proven wrong. Danny will just google something up, so I feel the need to check it.

As for appeals to authority, this is why you guys make me laugh. First, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you mean that I trust Fleisig, JAMA, ASMI, or Amercian Specialty about medical matters more than Steve Treder particularly when he presents no evidence, then you are absolutely right. If you do not, then you have just shown a priori why its just a waste of time to even talk to you.

And maybe you are missing something. I know it sounds good to make an indictment, but its your hero Treder that pronounces himself an expert. Not me. Its your hero Treder that keeps bringing back up the same refuted argument over and over. I just rebut. And maybe you haven't noticed, I've been right.

But if you are exasperated, maybe you should stay in the confines of the lounge, because I haven't seen where you have added anything out here.

BL:
Do you use some kind of MS Word Template for your posts?
They pretty much all read the same after a while.
(including the obligatory "go back to the lounge" ending)

Don't stop though, they're usually very funny.

Were there alot more or alot less 2-strike fouls in the olden days? My guess is that since there's probably a strong relationship to # of Ks, then we probably have more 2-strike fouls today.

Interesting. I'd guess the opposite, mostly for the reasons Steve suggested in 40.

I agree with TwoAlous in 41.

Couple of takes on the discussion to date

First, a bit of charlatanry.
a) Pitch count to Injuries : Low Correlation
More important IMO is the stress per pitch. I wish I had a week or so totally free that I could research this, but heuristically, people should be trying to estimate stress per outing...
some factors which jump to mind
1) Type of pitches thrown : Anecdotally, Stress caused by slider,high heat > Breaking ball > stock fastball

2) Number of pitches thrown with baserunners : Pitching from the stretch obviously being more stressful.

3) % of maximum effort on stock ball : Say if a pitcher can reach back and throw at 95, but his stock ball is 86, then the number of pitches thrown around the 90 mark is more stressful to the pitcher ( the high heat part in the above point )

I could go on in this vein, but the essence of the argument being that the conditions under which you pitch are more relevant than just an actual bland pitch count.

b) Pitch Counts : People throw this word around totally arbitrarily. The sense they are using it in is the number of pitches thrown in the game! They don't count pick off attempts, the warm up pitches before each inning. Even more, every pitcher has different routine between starts regarding throwing sessions and number of pitches per session. Why are these not taken into account? Even if a pitcher has a wierd throwing program between starts, and breaks down because of it, chances are the manager is going to be accused of being a butcher.

c) Better medical technology not leading to improvement in injury : Once again, I am in office so need more time for this. The gist of the argument is that the increased medical knowledge is being matched by the increased stress on the pitchers, so while they are able to diagnose injuries better and treat them, the increased chance of injury is hiding the gains there. A personal opinion based on the following facts.

1) Baserunners! : I just looked up data for 1960-64 and 2000-04. In 2000-04, average number of stolen bases, 2787, number of CS, 1249.
In 1960-64, average number of sb, 1146. Average number of cs, 691.
More than double the number of baserunners! Which equates to more stress on the pitcher, so one "can" argue that the increased medical technology is being matched by the increased stress on the pitcher.

2) Pitchers are throwing in much smaller parks to much more bigger, powerful sluggers. There is more money in the game and less room for mistakes, as there is always someone breathing down your neck. Under these circumstances, there is no room to coast for a while.

3) More media coverage so each mistake is analysed. The effort to be perfect creates a lot of stress

***********************

I need to get back to some real work for now :-)
Oh by the way, good call by whoever claimed agents are the main obstacle to the 4 man rotation!

I think Steve was responding to bunyon (who is a reasonable guy, IMO), but you seem to say that you have numbers to refute bunyon's hypothesis:

I don't think anyone has any idea what causes pitcher injuries. Certainly bad mechanics and overpitching won't help, but it isn't at all clear that perfect mechanics and moderate use will keep a pitcher healthy. I'd say it is 75% genetics, 15% use from ages 10-20, and 10% use from age 20 up.

Just to throw some numbers out there.

BL, you mentioned this study by ASMI and linked to an ESPN article about it, but I couldn't open it. Was it in ESPN the Magazine? We have some back issues lying around at work.

I may have the opportunity to speak to a 70's era pitcher soon. I think I'll ask him some stuff about these topics.

Pitch Counts : People throw this word around totally arbitrarily. The sense they are using it in is the number of pitches thrown in the game! They don't count pick off attempts, the warm up pitches before each inning. Even more, every pitcher has different routine between starts regarding throwing sessions and number of pitches per session. Why are these not taken into account? Even if a pitcher has a wierd throwing program between starts, and breaks down because of it, chances are the manager is going to be accused of being a butcher.

I've heard some suggestions that the length of the game has something to do with how long a pitcher can stay out there. But I'm no Mike Marshall, so I have no idea how long a pitcher can stay effective time-wise (not pitch-wise).

Baserunners! : I just looked up data for 1960-64 and 2000-04. In 2000-04, average number of stolen bases, 2787, number of CS, 1249.
In 1960-64, average number of sb, 1146. Average number of cs, 691.
More than double the number of baserunners! Which equates to more stress on the pitcher, so one "can" argue that the increased medical technology is being matched by the increased stress on the pitcher.

Is that taking into account the number of teams? OBP is higher, at least in the AL, but I have no idea what effect that has. Once it reaches, say, .330, is that the straw that breaks the camel's rotator cuff?

If you want to convince me Steve is wrong, do it, and don't tell me about his motives and what he does and doesn't know, because it does absolutely nothing for your point.


Jesus Christ Dan, don't you get it. I have done this over and over and over again. Now, you demand proof from me and not your hero, and the loungers will claim its a dead horse.

I mean what do you want. I've given you the information, are you going to make me calculate it all one more time and site it. To spend another 8 hours on this subject.

(1) Injury rates

(a) Pitchers have longer careers on any selection criteria in the past. As the pitchers get better, the more the increase in the career length.
(b) Steve's only basis for alleging injuries are occuring just as frequently is because he read somebody say that in fukking USA Today. He can't even quantify a domain where this is occuring or at what rate. In the last thread, he lied and said the information didn't exist, but he knows American Specialy has it. I haven't seen it and I doubt Steve can bring it forward, but he might be able to show more use of the DL. And its pretty intuitive to know the use of the DL is because of better diagnosis and risk prevention as well as a roster management tool. I guess if you try to make me, I can list several then and now examples as to how the DL is used to counter a point that Steve can't even present affimitive evidence on, much less show on a per capita basis.
(c) ASMI states that 71% of all injuries are preventable and one of the major causes is overwork. That is linked in a thread from just a few days ago.
(d) Glen Fleisig states that the vast majority if not all the injuries he's seen is from overwork.
(e) Your Pals Jayzerleski and Carroll have posited the same thing.
(f) Marshall posits the same thing.
(g) Many of the injuries you know see are from repetitive stress. RSI's are caused when the body's natural healing processes aren't allowed to work. Not enough rest leads to calcification. I can publish the abstracts again if you insist.
(h) Younger arms are more prone to injury. I can post these links again if necessary.

Steve's take from this evidence, and no other evidence other than what the Goose did, is that pitchers should throw more, and that you should increase all pitchers workload, including the teenagers by 10%. Is that enough on that point or do I need to go further. Should I remind you that Steve knows all these things.

(2) Effectiveness.
(a) Bullpen's effectiveness have increased with specialization. I emailed you the fukking spreadsheet on this one.
(b) Steve has no evidence other than "worse pitchers get more innings" which requires you to make the false assumption that an inning of Pedro Martinez is always better than an inning of Mike Timlin.
(c) An isolated study of the Braves shows their bullpen is more effective when innings are dispersed. Nobody has shown any study that suggests overall effectiveness is increased by concentrating innings. IOW, you have to ensure people are getting worked.
(d) LI is maximized in the closer model.
(e) Availability should be conserved in the closer model. I can present that argument again in its very long form, but Steve has not rebutted in any way, and its pretty intuitive that you are likely to be able to use someone who went a less amount in the previous day.
(f) Steve's own research shows that closers perform far more effectively in this model.

All of Steve's research only shows that pitchers are pitching less and a heck of a lot better. Any other research to this point shows that bullpen's are pitching better. That alone makes this pretty specious.

(3) Duration.
(a) With the exception of a select few pitchers (who had shorter careers) this IP packing has created premature drop offs. Even among the better pitchers you start to see cyclical performances by year, including the man himself, the GOOSE.
(b) Some pitchers can only go so much. I cannot prove this, but its pretty intuitive.
(c) Dierker just told you that certain pitchers can only do so much.

(d) There is no reason to believe any benefit would be gained by increasing duration because of the effectivness arguments you have seen before.
(4) Availability of talent
This is the only real disputed issue. Is it easier to get a pitcher or a hitter.

(5) Roster management
(a) In a detailed study, Steve can only produce about 10 teams that he considered used the roster effectively. These ten teams can be matched by greater performances by using those spots from the bullpen in a matter of minutes. Some of these 10 teams carried utter garbage on their roster. None of them could repeat the performance in the next year. Most of their bench performance could be matched by present teams. It also requires you to think there is value from carrying a Mark Belanger on your roster.

(b) Who do you need to rest more a position player or a pitcher?

(c) In macro analysis, an out saved is roughly equal to an out earned.

(d) Teams can repeat good bullpen performance.

Now most of this has been shown in detail in previous threads. As I've stated some has even been emailed to you.

I suppose we can play that game where we have to once again derive this information, and independently link the information.

do it, and don't tell me about his motives and what he does and doesn't know

You expressly asked me why he was misrepresenting information, and I responded to that question.

More important IMO is the stress per pitch ... Number of pitches thrown with baserunners : Pitching from the stretch obviously being more stressful ... I could go on in this vein, but the essence of the argument being that the conditions under which you pitch are more relevant than just an actual bland pitch count.

Obviously true. Of course we have know way of accurately assessing "stress per pitch." It is true that today's game is higher-scoring than in most (but not all) past eras, but it's also true that the reduction in workloads of top pitchers (starters and relievers) has been far more significant, percentage-wise, than the increase in baserunners and runs scored.

The sense they are using it in is the number of pitches thrown in the game! They don't count pick off attempts, the warm up pitches before each inning.

Completely agreed. Pitch counts are at best a proxy for total workout.

I once had an email conversation with Will Carroll on this topic ... it was odd that he seemed never to have considered it before.

The gist of the argument is that the increased medical knowledge is being matched by the increased stress on the pitchers, so while they are able to diagnose injuries better and treat them, the increased chance of injury is hiding the gains there.

Certainly possible. If so, however, given the tremendous gains in injury diagnosis and treatment, then pitchers are working under a dramatically increased amount of stress, certainly much more dramatic than that suggested by the actually rather moderate increases in hitting/scoring.

I just looked up data for 1960-64 and 2000-04. In 2000-04, average number of stolen bases, 2787, number of CS, 1249.
In 1960-64, average number of sb, 1146. Average number of cs, 691.
More than double the number of baserunners!

Um ... dude. There are also 50% more teams than in 1962-64, and almost double the number of teams from 1960. On a per-game basis, there is less than one additional baserunner per game in 2000-2004 than in 1960-1964.

Pitchers are throwing in much smaller parks to much more bigger, powerful sluggers.

Parks are actually smaller by only a few feet, and batters are actually bigger by only a few pounds, than a couple of generations ago. Chris Dial loves to trot out this data.

There is more money in the game and less room for mistakes, as there is always someone breathing down your neck.

Actually, as our charming friend Backlasher is fond of pointing out, average pitching careers are actually longer today than in the past. I think this is explained by economic factors that motivate both teams and players, as well as primarily by career-saving medical advances, but whatever the reason, jobs and careers are actually more secure today than in the past.

More media coverage so each mistake is analysed. The effort to be perfect creates a lot of stress

No doubt. Whether this factor is greater than in the past, and if so to what degree, is obviously a problematic question.

Is that taking into account the number of teams?

good point! I told you I was hacking it :)
I will have to normalise it I guess. Probably will see it tonight..need to get some work done. boo hoo, work sucks!

Checked. little less than double the number of games, so I guess the increase in number of baserunners isn't that significant.

On a per-game basis, there is less than one additional baserunner per game in 2000-2004 than in 1960-1964.

To be precise:

Average MLB hits + walks per game, 1960-1964 = 11.85

Average MLB hits + walks per game, 2000-2004 = 12.50

I think we often tend to perceive the difference in the mode of baseball played today compared with previous eras as being more dramatically different than scrutiny bears out. It's different, but it isn't that different.

The pitch count estimator (PCE) being discussed here should only be used as a rough estimate. When looking at historical data, the xPCE should be used. Note as well that I will modify the xPCE (eventually, but probably within the next few months).

Huh. Hadn't seen that before. Oops. I'll probably wait for the update before I change the stuff on my site. In the next few days I'll just put a qualifying statement at the top of the appropriate pages mentioning the problem.

Chris, I love your site, but is there any way you can make those numbers easier to read, or easier to copy, paste and parse in Excel?

It's a pain, innit? Actually I meant to do that for the '67 info, but typed it in today on the spur of the moment after seeing a thread about this stuff. My problem is that I only know of two ways to get stuff up: 1) typing it in (and the way I typed it in is the best way I know to get it looking readable at all), 2) cut & paste from excel. That's proved to be a little tricky in the past because the columns don't always match up well, but there's no reason why that should be a problem with this stuff. I'll just have to put the pitchers' names out in the last column.

BL, you mentioned this study by ASMI and linked to an ESPN article about it, but I couldn't open it. Was it in ESPN the Magazine? We have some back issues lying around at work.


Try the July 5, 2004 edition. I don't know why the link doesn't work for you.

More important IMO is the stress per pitch.

I don't think anyone would argue. But you left out:

(4) Pitching when tired as mechanics break down.

And for RSI's the total workout is also very important as well as the amount of rest between outings.

needless to say this is but more hypothesis against Steve's pet theory.

I've heard some suggestions that the length of the game has something to do with how long a pitcher can stay out there. But I'm no Mike Marshall, so I have no idea how long a pitcher can stay effective time-wise (not pitch-wise).


And more evidence.

The gist of the argument is that the increased medical knowledge is being matched by the increased stress on the pitchers, so while they are able to diagnose injuries better and treat them, the increased chance of injury is hiding the gains there.

And even more.

To be honest, Steve has heard all this before as well.

Do you use some kind of MS Word Template for your posts?
They pretty much all read the same after a while.


On this subject they should because Treder keeps posting the same garbage over and over, so its pretty much the same rebuttal. Then someone will make you repeat the entire rebuttal again.

Pitch counts are at best a proxy for total workout.

No pitch counts are the number of pitches thrown. Workout is irrelevant. You aren't building muscle. What matters is the duration and quantity of stress in domains of time, pattern and total force. Pitch counts, TOG, # of batters, longest consecutive inning, and least amount of rest in game or probative.

Certainly possible. If so, however, given the tremendous gains in injury diagnosis and treatment, then pitchers are working under a dramatically increased amount of stress, certainly much more dramatic than that suggested by the actually rather moderate increases in hitting/scoring.


LOL. This is what I mean "tremondous" "dramatic" and "moderate" Have you seen a quantum of evidence on any point here, and why is it tremondous or dramatic. Why not marginal, why not an increase between that 90% that Dierker posits to 93% or 95%. At these levels of stress wouldn't a marginal increase result in rather geometric increases in injury risk. Which is worse taking your car from 2000 to 4000 RPMs are taking it from 10000 to 11000 RPMs. And doesn't that drastically depend on the type of car.

I mean other than playing with language for no real reason, has it even occurred to Steve that you aren't talking about linear progressions. Is it not intuitive that you wouldn't be in a linear progression. Is there any reason to cast things with these terms, particularly when you have no evidence whatsoever.

as well as primarily by career-saving medical advances

But those same medical advances which include usage limitations and rest patterns are just stupid.

Now, you demand proof from me and not your hero

1. I'm not asking for proof from anyone. I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about. Nor do I care about this discussion. I'm just letting you know that it makes your arguments look bad when you choose to question the character and motives of your adversaries. Whether it's in addition to, or in lieu of, your other arguments. I'm saying that it hurts, not helps, your case. It makes you look like you're more interested in winning the argument than you are in productive discussion.

You can ignore my feedback if you want, but I honestly feel your arguments and input are too valuable to lump together with this other stuff, and would be received much, much better if you dumped the other stuff. You can freely think I'm wrong, and you can also not care whether I'm wrong, but frankly, what I'd like is to have someone on your side of the issues who seems more interested in *convincing* us than *defeating* us. The kinds of things you say here do not lead to that.

2. Steve is not my hero, never has been, and never will be. I disagree with him often, and often think he acts like a jerk, too.

One reason that I think people ask Backlasher to repeat himself ad infinitum is that his writing style isn't really web-friendly; it's more suited for print. There are others that write in this style (I think that Walt Davis is the biggest culprit.)

Rather than try and poorly describe this, I'll refer everyone to a Jakob Nielsen essay.

I'm not asking for proof from anyone. I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about. Nor do I care about this discussion. I'm just letting you know that it makes your arguments look bad when you choose to question the character and motives of your adversaries. Whether it's in addition to, or in lieu of, your other arguments. I'm saying that it hurts, not helps, your case. It makes you look like you're more interested in winning the argument than you are in productive discussion.


Then I misunderstood. I thought you really were questioning the evidence or the thesis.

You can ignore my feedback if you want, but I honestly feel your arguments and input are too valuable to lump together with this other stuff, and would be received much, much better if you dumped the other stuff.

One of my arguments is that Steve is dishonest. One of my arguments is that Steve is not a good analyst.

His utilization thesis has been put to bed a long time ago.

You should know that I take your feedback very seriously. I would hope that you can see I have incorporated both things that you and Srul have recommended. But the Treder question does remain.

2. Steve is not my hero, never has been, and never will be. I disagree with him often, and often think he acts like a jerk, too.

That's good to know, and I always did know that you possessed analytical skills.

2. Steve is not my hero, never has been, and never will be. I disagree with him often, and often think he acts like a jerk, too.

Note to self: turn up dial on Jedi mind trick brainwaves directed toward Dan Werr. He isn't as compliant as the rest of the feeble-minded drones!

Rather than try and poorly describe this, I'll refer everyone to a Jakob Nielsen essay.


Three problems with that Daly:

(1) I can't use those graphic tools like they recommend.
(2) Its a double edged sword. If you have a minority opinion and you don't address all issues. You get demands for links, demands for reasons, etc. I'd rather head off articles.
(3) Its no benefit that someone is scanning keywords. That is the problem. They will just see a keyword and launch into some lameasss diatribe.

Note to self: turn up dial on Jedi mind trick brainwaves directed toward Dan Werr. He isn't as compliant as the rest of the feeble-minded drones!

That is the problem Steve, Werr is not some feeble minded drone. Your "irrefutable" "undeniable" shtick doesn't work with someone who knows you are likely hyperbolic. Your "memory" and "complex this" and general sophistry doesn't work on anybody who can see the pattern of what you do. Just posting irrelevant numbers won't help you at all.

You have been exposed. All those people who use to say, "I don't see what you have against Treder" now know how you distort, misrepresent, and lie. He11, one whopper is your assertion that you don't read my posts. You have referenced me twice in this very thread.

You should have stuck to telling fish stories about what you claim to remember about baseball history. But you can never go back now. People will know you for what you really are.

People will know you for what you really are.

Your posts reveal you too, BL, and the image is not flattering.

But if you are exasperated, maybe you should stay in the confines of the lounge, because I haven't seen where you have added anything out here.

I am happy to do so, by and large. However, you do highlight one more aspect of your personality, or at least your persona on this site, with this last statement. You have a decidedly marked case of taking things very seriously. Even your jests are pointed. I can't understand why you would want or need to post the things you do with such vigor or vitrol, and I suppose I really do not care.

To be precise:

Average MLB hits + walks per game, 1960-1964 = 11.85

Average MLB hits + walks per game, 2000-2004 = 12.50

Steve, what happens if you take out HR? After all, if the issue is extra stress from pitching from the stretch, there should be even less of that today because so many more hits are HR.

Distribution counts too. A pitcher often goes to a windup with runners on 3d, 2d and 3d, or bases loaded. More doubles and fewer walks could affect the distribution.

(Back to the original topic, somewhat obliviously)

I don't think it was just in the majors. If you get a look at how many IPs these '60's and '70's era guys were racking up in the minors, before they ever got to the big leagues... some of them are pretty amazing. Guys as young as 18 in the rookie leagues often well over 200 IP. Even to someone who thinks today's young pitchers are coddled (primarily for the economic reasons already pointed out), that seems insane.

Steve, what happens if you take out HR? After all, if the issue is extra stress from pitching from the stretch, there should be even less of that today because so many more hits are HR.

1960-64: 11.85 - 0.89 = 10.96

2000-04: 12.50 - 1.11 = 11.39

The difference grows smaller, of course. Indeed, the increase in home runs has an impact of removing pitches from the stretch.

Guys as young as 18 in the rookie leagues often well over 200 IP. Even to someone who thinks today's young pitchers are coddled (primarily for the economic reasons already pointed out), that seems insane.

I'm researching an article right now that will come out in a few weeks about some of the most amazing minor league pitching performances, and applying the pitch count estimator for the hell of it will be part of it. Some of the stuff that happened is mind-boggling.

Just as a teaser:

Eddie Albrecht, age 20, in 1949 for Pine Bluff in the Class C Cotton States League:

58 games, 332 innings, 29-12, 260 hits, 150 walks, 389 strikeouts, and a 2.60 ERA. I'm guessing they didn't have him on a pitch limit.

-- 2. Steve is not my hero, never has been, and never will be. I disagree with him often, and often think he acts like a jerk, too.

Note to self: turn up dial on Jedi mind trick brainwaves directed toward Dan Werr. He isn't as compliant as the rest of the feeble-minded drones!

This is not the "Well said" you're looking for.

...

Coming back to the article, I'm a pretty big proponent of the four-man rotation. Fifth starters are, as a group, pretty terrible pitchers, and nearly every team would improve by giving more innings to their top four guys.

Also, the top four will get many more innings in a season even if you cut their innings-per-start to compensate for the more frequent workload.

I suspect that most pitchers would be as effective on three-days' rest as on four, though it's probably impossible to prove that.

Guys as young as 18 in the rookie leagues often well over 200 IP. Even to someone who thinks today's young pitchers are coddled (primarily for the economic reasons already pointed out), that seems insane.

A fair number of rookie leaguers are just filler. They aren't considered serious prospects and were signed to play catch with the annointed ones. Many are Dominicans who are signed for pocket change for this purpose. Could it that these are the 200 IP rookies?

It would be both bad business and bad karma to treat young arms, and young men, like that but.....

Could it that these are the 200 IP rookies?

I think it's important to bear in mind the changing purpose and structure of the minor leagues. Until the about 1955 or 1960, most minor league teams weren't "farm teams," but were instead independent operations whose goal wasn't primarily to develop talent per se -- it was to make money, by attracting fans, usually by winning as many games as possible.

By the 1960s, this was pretty much gone; the farm system was now all that remained of the minor leagues. Minor league teams were now primarily engaged in the purpose of developing talent. By my research, by 1965-1970 or so, the really heavy workloads on very young arms in the minor leagues was largely a thing of the past.

I'm a pretty big proponent of the four-man rotation. Fifth starters are, as a group, pretty terrible pitchers, and nearly every team would improve by giving more innings to their top four guys.

This very argument has made me a vigorous supporter of the two man rotation.

I suspect that most pitchers would be as effective on one day's rest as on four, though it's probably impossible to prove that.

It was perfectly obvious to anyone with eyes that Eric Gagne was a 82.0 innings per season pitcher, tops.

You send him out for 82.3 year after year after year, and you gotta expect this.

That was RDF.

That is the problem Steve, Werr is not some feeble minded drone. Your "irrefutable" "undeniable" shtick doesn't work with someone who knows you are likely hyperbolic. Your "memory" and "complex this" and general sophistry doesn't work on anybody who can see the pattern of what you do. Just posting irrelevant numbers won't help you at all.

You have been exposed. All those people who use to say, "I don't see what you have against Treder" now know how you distort, misrepresent, and lie.

An obviously tounge in cheek post is an exposition of how ST distorts, misrepresents and lies?

Wow, that's some overheated rhetoric. A good reason to take you seriously, BL.

It is pretty obvious that no matter what position ST takes, you will be there to oppose him. Puts me in the mind of Daffy and Bugs arguing about Wabbit Season and Duck Season.

It is pretty obvious that no matter what position ST takes, you will be there to oppose him. Puts me in the mind of Daffy and Bugs arguing about Wabbit Season and Duck Season.

The Roadrunner and Coyote also comes to mind.

An obviously tounge in cheek post is an exposition of how ST distorts, misrepresents and lies?


Nope, but #77 is a good reason as to why you should keep your promise and stay out of the adult discussions. If I had said, "here is another example of your lying Steve" then all the rest of that claptrap you posted may have had a place and purpose. Since I said no such thing, you are just inventing material to give back some prepackaged garbage that you wanted to infuse.

It is pretty obvious that no matter what position ST takes, you will be there to oppose him.

Its really sad and pathetic that you come to that conclusion. Obviously, you are doing exactly what Daly's essay suggests. You are the one who wants to make it about personality because you are unable to comprehend the issues. It should be pretty obvious that whenever Steve takes a stupid position, e.g. ACE RELIEVER, Buenos culpability, Bonds and steroids, you can expect that I'll disagree. You can also expect that I'll show why he isn't that bright. But its pretty ludicrous to say that I'm going to disagree with whatever position he takes. There are active threads were I think he and I had almost exactly the same position, but that would require reading, and you are none to good at that. If you don't see a "Well Said" or some other simplistic cue, you probably can't tell if we agree or disagree.

I don't even think Treder would go so far as to create that type of fiction just so he could try to sound clever.

In fact, you are his "well said" target audience. Those that act in loyalty rather than by using reason.

The Roadrunner and Coyote also comes to mind.

The Coyote would give his left nut to be me. Or do you still think Bonds didn't take steroids.

I've laid the ACME smackdown on Treder so many times it has ceased being sporting.

ASMI or ACME?

Blue Moon Odom
<u>1965 (Age 18)</u>
198 IP, Lewiston (NW League)

Jim Kaat
<u>1958 (Age 18)</u>
223 IP, Missoula (Pioneer League)

Joe Moeller
<u>1963 (Age 20)</u>
212 IP, Spokane (PCL)

Mel Stottlemyre
<u>1962 (Age 20)</u>
241 IP, Greensboro (Carolina League)

Tom Burgmeier
<u>1962 (Age 18)</u>
197 IP, Modesto (California League)

Joe Coleman
<u>1966 (age 19)</u>
199 IP, York (Eastern League)

Chris Short
<u>1958 (age 20)</u>
243 IP, High Point-Thomasville (Carolina League)

Fred Talbot
<u>1960 (Age 19)</u>
195 IP, Idaho Falls (Pioneer League)
<u>1961 (Age 20)</u>
208 IP, Charleston (Sally League)

Marcelino Lopez
<u>1960 (Age 17)</u>
199 IP, Tampa (Fla. St. League)

Bob Bolin
<u>1957 (Age 18)</u>
199 IP, Michigan City (Midwest League)
<u>1958 (Age 19)</u>
177 IP, St. Cloud (Northern League)
<u>1959 (Age 20)</u>
225 IP, Eugene (Northwest League)

Pete Richert
<u>1958 (Age 18)</u>
200 IP, Reno (California League)

Jim Merritt
<u>1962 (Age 18)</u>
223 IP, Erie (NY-Penn. League)
<u>1963 (Age 19)</u>
159 IP, Charlotte (Sally League)
<u>1964 (Age 20)</u>
200 IP, Atlanta (International League)

Jim Perry
<u>1957 (Age 20)</u>
231 IP, Fargo (Northern League)

Dean Chance
<u>1960 (Age 19)</u>
207 IP, Fox Cities (Three-I League)

Juan Marichal
<u>1958 (age 19)</u>
245 IP, Michigan City ((Midwest League)
<u>1959 (Age 20)</u>
271 IP, Tacoma (PCL)

Nope, but #77 is a good reason as to why you should keep your promise and stay out of the adult discussions. If I had said, "here is another example of your lying Steve" then all the rest of that claptrap you posted may have had a place and purpose. Since I said no such thing, you are just inventing material to give back some prepackaged garbage that you wanted to infuse.


One might accuse you of this, given that I made no such promise to stay out of any discussion. The 'adult discussion' line is a perfect example of the behaviour I mentioned.

You are the one who wants to make it about personality because you are unable to comprehend the issues.

No, I don't give a rat's ass about the issues, nor did I give any comment on it one way or the other. My comments have been about your rhetorical style, your insults, your insistence on ascribing evil motives or subpar intelligence on anyone who dares question you and your general incivility.

ST can take care of himself, I only brought him into 77 as it illustrates my points above. Your effort to paint me as a breathless ST fan is a non-starter.

Your effort to paint me as a breathless ST fan is a non-starter.

Well, I'm not sure about that, but I guess even you don't dispute your own posts clearly show that you really aren't capable of handling the conversation.

One might accuse you of this, given that I made no such promise to stay out of any discussion.

That is why you and your ilk are such constant sources of amusement. Its pretty easy to see that you said you were "Happy [to stay in the lounge] by and large" That's all anyone wants you to do. Don't involve yourself in things over your head, and you will save us all a lot of time. But if you want to make a literalist argument that you didn't promise to stay out of the adult discussions, go right ahead. Its so very clever of you. (It is the best argument you have made).

No, I don't give a rat's #### about the issues, nor did I give any comment on it one way or the other. My comments have been about your rhetorical style, your insults, your insistence on ascribing evil motives or subpar intelligence on anyone who dares question you and your general incivility.


You mean you lef the comfort and safety of the lounge, just to comment on little old me. I'm so flattered. Well come back again soon, just not too soon mind you. While its fun to play games, I'd rather have some conversation with people who are able to comprehend the issues.

Giving a rat's asss would be a step for you, considering that up until this point, you have offered nothing. I'm wondering if you could even make it to the level of rat's #####.

You mean you lef the comfort and safety of the lounge, just to comment on little old me. I'm so flattered. Well come back again soon, just not too soon mind you. While its fun to play games, I'd rather have some conversation with people who are able to comprehend the issues.


Well, I surely can, given that the great issues of the day are safely discussed by real adults like you. Ah, such the hard edged realist!

The fact that I do not care about the issue is obviously different from not being able to comprehend it. My point remains that none of these issues are worth the vitrol and bile that you spit in their discussion.

#82,

I'll see your examples and raise them from a few years earlier:

Don Bessent
1950 (Age 19)
242 IP, La Grange (Georgia-Florida League)

Jim Brosnan
1947 (Age 18)
228 IP, Elizabethton (Appalachian League)

Harry Byrd
1946 (Age 21)
236 IP, Martinsville (Carolina League)

Gene Conley
1951 (Age 20)
263 IP, Hartford (Eastern League)

Carl Erskine
1947 (Age 20)
233 IP, Danville (III League)

Ned Garver
1944 (Age 18)
245 IP, Newark (Ohio State League) with a 1.21 ERA!

Larry Jackson
1952 (Age 21)
300 IP, Fresno (California League) with 351 K's!

Turk Lown
1942 (Age 18)
232 IP, Valdosta (Georgia-Florida League)

Taylor Phillips
1952 (Age 19)
297 IP, Waycross (Georgia-Florida League)

Bob Purkey
1948 (Age 18)
224 IP, Greenville (Alabama State League)

Herb Score
1954 (Age 21)
251 IP, Indianapolis (American Association) with 330 K's!

Warren Spahn pitched 476 innings at age 20-21 in 1941-42

Gerry Staley
1941 (Age 20)
261 IP, Boise (Pioneer League)

Virgil Trucks
1938 (Age 21 -- though he was thought to be 19 at the time)
273 IP, Andalusia (Alabama-Florida League) with 418 K's and a 1.25 ERA!

Bob Turley
1949 (Age 18)
230 IP, Aberdeen (Northern League)

Jack Urban
1950 (Age 19)
247 IP, McAlester (Sooner State League)

Herm Wehmeier
1946 (Age 19)
232 IP, Columbia (Sally League)

Stan Williams
1955 (Age 18)
242 IP, Newport News (Piedmont League) with 301 K's!

Early Wynn
1937 (Age 17)
235 IP, Sanford (Florida State League)

George Zuverink
1946 (Age 19)
241 IP, Fresno (California League)

My admittedly inexpert take is that I do not believe that broad actuarial approaches to risk are appropriate in these circumstances. There's no need to say "Pitchers generally tire after 100 (or 90, or 110, or whatever) pitches so I'm going to pull this specific pitcher after 100 pitches."

If this is still a pitch count thread.....

This is exactly my criticism of BPros PAP stats. While there numbers are useful for long range decisions, I think they're all but useless for individual pitchers or individual starts.

If there is any sort of breakthrough in pitcher injuries in the future, I suspect it will come from medical analysis of young pitcher's arm construction and breakdown of mechanics using high speed video and other technologies. I think (hope) we will someday be able to take a minor league pitcher, do a full workup and say "fastballs produce 4 points of stress, sliders produce 4.25. Depending on velocity during warmup, ambient air pressure, and yada-yada-yada, pitcher should be pulled after 210 to 245 points of stress".

Good examples, Steve. Damn, some of those are unreal.

I don't want to send this off on another tangent, but there is also the idea that the raw material you get nowadays is different. You know, kids coming up today don't have nearly the history of just throwing things (balls in the schoolyard, rocks at trains, stones across a pond, etc.) that the old timers had. This is supposed to be one reason why earlier pitchers could throw so much more (if that is even true -- I don't know now.) Sounds kind of apocryphal, but I believe the part about kids being less physically active today, to a degree. Subjectively.

You know, kids coming up today don't have nearly the history of just throwing things (balls in the schoolyard, rocks at trains, stones across a pond, etc.) that the old timers had. This is supposed to be one reason why earlier pitchers could throw so much more (if that is even true -- I don't know now.)

Who knows? What is abundantly factual is not only that most pitchers in previous eras threw significantly more innings at young ages than modern pitchers, but also that many, many pitchers who went on to long and successful professional careers (the above examples are but some of many) handled immense workloads at very young ages, workloads that would be inconceivable today, workloads that even the most hardcore of us modern-pitchers-are-coddled-schoolers would unhesitatingly describe as abusive. Obviously such patterns are possible, and don't inevitably lead to injury problems. It's also a near-certainty that we will never, ever see such usage patterns in young pitchers again.

The fact that I do not care about the issue is obviously different from not being able to comprehend it.

And in this case both are true.

My point remains that none of these issues are worth the vitrol and bile that you spit in their discussion.


LOL. Well I'm so glad that you emerged from the lounge to make such a contribution. Now that you have offered us this fine piece of wisdom, you can return from whence you came to talk about your dinner or the girl who doesn't notice you or whatever other event you wished to diary.

Then you and your ilk can breed yet another mosquito to dart out, create an inordinate buzz, only to have the life and impact of fleeting moment.

And its a good thing you don't engage in any real issue, because all you have is some canned response that's triggered like Pavlov's dog off of some keyword. You admit by your own words that you are incapable of understanding. You attribute sins to me that are actually more strongly levied against your hero and to which I doubt you could support if you took days to investigate.

And all for what, to only embarrass yourself with both your apathy and limitations in cognitive thought. If you want to get real clever maybe you can work on another cute little handle for yourself.

But it actually amazes me that with all the talk of how much hatred I inspire, or the Van Buren Boys, that you guys fly out here with nothing and openly admit your sole purpose is to insult. Yet Werr, Dial, and Szym are nowhere to be found. Daly is silent. And all that happens is that you end up embarrassing yourself with weak arguments, couched insults, and innuendo.

In your limited mind, I bet you really do believe that I state that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. Yet, coming forward with this obvious cliche is going to do nothing but expose your lack of investigation, lack of critical thought, and your lack of communication and originality. Because most everyone that actually gives something to this site other than a diary of their day, realizes this is completely untrue, and has as much depth as a wading pool. I only call the weak minded out for their lack of ability to reason. I only do so in reciprocating fashion. And you, "Dr. S is going to think of a new nickname to sound cool in the lounge" are just one of the people that are in that line of greyboy, vlr, and fishy. There is just nothing there...nothing.

I think its probably very likely that Vinay hates me, but I'd never call him dumb. I don't imagine studs is a fan; Lichtman describes me as a "bloviating troll" Dial will curse me at the drop of a hat. But you won't see me refer to any of them as limited, only you my friend, and the rest of the swarm that so pestulates this site.

What is abundantly factual is not only that most pitchers in previous eras threw significantly more innings at young ages than modern pitchers, but also that many, many pitchers who went on to long and successful professional careers (the above examples are but some of many) handled immense workloads at very young ages, workloads that would be inconceivable today, workloads that even the most hardcore of us modern-pitchers-are-coddled-schoolers would unhesitatingly describe as abusive.

Lordy. Steve as was told to you way back when you first started playing with that estimator, nobody disputes that pitchers used to pitch a lot more. And they also had shorter careers. And as you were told way back when, and many, many times, making a list of names is not evidence of anything. You can also make a list of names of pitchers whose careers were cut short by injury.

What you have is the here and now. You have medical evidence on RSIs. You have medical experts detailing for you the cause of the injuries they see. You have risk analysis experts telling you about the preventability and cause of injuries.

Why not throw Old Hoss or Ferris Fain in the mix too. Didn't Dierker in the very article tell you about rest and level of effort. Did you ignore that part, or is he just another person who is locked in that black box of stupidity that you claim all baseball people except you and a few believers are locked into.

I mean what is this endgame, Don't be a wuss Prior, look what Spahnie did. I mean if Turk Loin can do it, goodness gracious, Burnette you gotta take the ball every third day. Why don't you tell us how many pitchers were lost due to injury or sore arm during that time never to pitch again. Why don't you show me how many future stars we had to burn up to get these silly numbers.

More orthopediasts weigh in,

""In effect, he injures his arm," said Stephen G. Rice, a sports medicine specialist at the Jersey Shore Medical Center in Neptune, N.J., "and we nurse his arm back to health by the fifth day."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/nutritionfit/stories/baseballhealth.htm

And its a good thing you don't engage in any real issue

Yes, I've been very clear this whole time, I am not trying to engage any real issue. Horrors, all 'serious men' who are 'capable' of handling such, look out! Now we getting to the nitty and the gritty.

Any 'real issues' are irrelevant in this case. Regardless of how right you may or may not be, and again, I do not care a whit, will forever be lost because you cannot withstand the temptation to hurtle one final insult. The inherent meaninglessness of the 'real issues' that you imbue with such glory, so that you can bask in the magnificence of your insults, is the very definition of pathetic.

It's because White people are bunch of wussies.

Has anybody seen usage of JAPANESE PITCHERS?

Here's a quote from the Taiwanese Broadcasting team during the Lions-Bluewave team yesterday...
(Translated)
Announcer: With that kind of usage, I beileve Matsuzaka probably dont' have the Cubs as a first choice if he joins the MLB.
Colorman: I don't know, maybe he'll be used to it.

To tell you the truth, the reason you don't hear about Japanese pitchers blowing their arms out in the NPB because any pitcher that is going to have their arms blow out do it in high school, so by Darwinism only the pitchers that have strong arms survive.

White people are just bunch of pussies.

I think its probably very likely that Vinay hates me, but I'd never call him dumb. I don't imagine studs is a fan; Lichtman describes me as a "bloviating troll" Dial will curse me at the drop of a hat. But you won't see me refer to any of them as limited, only you my friend, and the rest of the swarm that so pestulates this site.

You forgot being called a terrorist, Elle.

Your posts reveal you too, BL, and the image is not flattering.

Like I've said, sexy young female blonde lawyer with a large rack.

Has anyone here read Will Carroll's Saving The Pitcher? This discussion has started to spark my interest in this stuff and I was wondering if it's worth the read.

But it actually amazes me that with all the talk of how much hatred I inspire, or the Van Buren Boys, that you guys fly out here with nothing and openly admit your sole purpose is to insult. Yet Werr, Dial, and Szym are nowhere to be found. Daly is silent. And all that happens is that you end up embarrassing yourself with weak arguments, couched insults, and innuendo.

Daly went to bed. Although I rarely engage in it, I don't really mind a little vitriol on the 'net. Sticks and stones and all that. Dial is less of a proponent of turning this place into an old ladies bridge club.

Thanks for the link to this Washington Post article. I'm going to try to track down that ESPN Magazine article later today.

I have no animus towards him, but I really wish that Treder would respond to some of this stuff:

(c) ASMI states that 71% of all injuries are preventable and one of the major causes is overwork. That is linked in a thread from just a few days ago.
(d) Glen Fleisig states that the vast majority if not all the injuries he's seen is from overwork.
(e) Your Pals Jayzerleski and Carroll have posited the same thing.
(f) Marshall posits the same thing.
(g) Many of the injuries you know see are from repetitive stress. RSI's are caused when the body's natural healing processes aren't allowed to work. Not enough rest leads to calcification. I can publish the abstracts again if you insist.
(h) Younger arms are more prone to injury. I can post these links again if necessary.


Appropos of nothing in particular, it seems as though some Primates think that just because an intelligent layman may understand when to bunt or how to construct a lineup better than some baseball lifers, that that layman can tackle tougher issues.

Dial is less of a proponent of turning this place into an old ladies bridge club.


If it's a young ladies strip poker club, I'm all for it.

Careers are indeed longer now. But how much of that increased length is due to modern surgical techniques that were not available to pitchers in the past? Guys in the 60s couldn't get Tommy John surgery -- they just retired. Wouldn't a more useful study compare the occurences of major injury in order to control for the improvement in sports medicine?

More orthopediasts weigh in,

""In effect, he injures his arm," said Stephen G. Rice, a sports medicine specialist at the Jersey Shore Medical Center in Neptune, N.J., "and we nurse his arm back to health by the fifth day."


I firmly believe that pitchers could be "nursed back to health" in one less day.

I would drop dead if I tried to run a marathon today (and I'm not going to , so don't bother encouraging me to), but I can build up to it - and then I can do it over and over.

"they" say that pitchers throw harder today.

Maybe a little. Maybe a little more often.

"They" say you can't "coast" anywhere in teh lineup these days.

I say hogwash. Maybe not like in Mathewson's day, but *certainly* like in Spahn's day.

I'd bet Clemens does that very thing - Have I mentioned that Clemens season is stupid good?

I bet you *can* convince pitchers and agents to start every fourth day (or at least do it a few times during the season).

try this:
you get a decision for every 9 IP. You throw 7 IP per start. (7 * 33 = 231 IP, /9 = 26 decisions). that can be 18-8 or 20-6. Now throw every fourth day once a month (April, May, June, July, August, September - 6 additional starts) 39*7/9 = 30 decisons - or 22-8, or 20-10.

Now you are a 20 game winner - that means $$$$. that means HoF.

I think it is really poor roster management *not* to do this with your top two starters (although I'd wait until they were 23+ yr old)

Wouldn't a more useful study compare the occurences of major injury in order to control for the improvement in sports medicine?


Do we need to control for that?

I guess - because the workload is causign the same injuries, but now we can rebuild them - better, stronger, faster.

However, isn't this Gagne's second TJ? What about Wood? oh, his is rotator cuff now?

BTW, *if* pitchers are having longer careers due to TJ surgery, that's performance enhancement.

Hate to interject at the top of a page. From Tango, way at the beginning of the thread:

You will also note, somewhere on my site, I have the almost complete Koufax log, game by game. The number of under-70 pitch games by Koufax is enormous, as is the over-130 pitch games. (Managers I presume did not understand small sample size, and figured that gettign pounded after 4 innings means that the pitcher didn't have "it" that day.) The standard deviation of pitches thrown per game, by Dodger starters in 1957-64 is much larger than those pitchers of today. The overall average number of pitches thrown by the Dodger starters was right around 100. Koufax and Drysdale were somewhere between 105-110 (a little higher in their better years). I think Koufax was as high as around 115 on average. Certainly not some "stamina machine" his 350+ innings are trying to convey. (BFP and not IP should be looked at.) Podres was near 100, IIRC. A few others were below that. On average, those pitches are indistinguishable from today's pitchers, but much less than those in the 70s. But, in terms of quick hooks and slow hooks, they were definitely treated differently.

I think this is the key. Every sport I've trained for -- running, mostly, and triathlon now -- or have any knowledge of high-level training regimens emphasizes this kind of variance in intensity. Particularly that every month or so you need a break -- typically an easy week that is lower in intensity. The new thing that you hear from BP is that Tim Hudson and Roy Halladay aren't overworked because they throw exactly 100-110 pitches a game. Well, I think that's the worst pattern, because they don't have any easy days to help with their long term recovery. I'd rather throw a guy 110-120-130-60 than 110-100-110-100.

If I could design a pitching staff, I'd have my top starters on a 5-day rotation, or other regular schedule they prefer, with 3-4 other guys mixed in around them and available in the pen -- and use quirks in the schedule not to pitch the top guys more often, but to (a) skip starts to give them full recovery periods and/or (b) utilize them in the bullpen instead of starting to give them a relatively easy workout. I'd pitch closers in a close 8th instead of 3-run lead 9th, keeping their IP about the same, and get mop up guys who can throw multiple innings. I mean, I can see using your set up guy and your loogy for short stints, but why have a crappy pitcher on your roster if you can't put him into a lost cause in the 5th and have him finish it out.

Furthermore, all of my regular hitters who play "every day" would get a day off either before or after a scheduled off day to increase their rest period. I think Tango posted stats of batters who play 156+ games a year and it showed a significant underperformance in September that better rested players didn't have. Which is frickin obvious. Rest is good for you; everyone performs better with adequate recovery. Someone playing every game does not get adequate recovery, and the stats bear it out. I wonder if there's an analogue for pitchers -- compare september performance between matched pairs of high PC variance and low PC variance starters.