I’m with those who question the 100 pitch limit. I think it came into place initially when Baseball Prospectus had the concept of “Pitcher Abuse Points”; they started awarding points at the 100 pitch mark. As far as I can tell, there wasn’t a lot of empirical evidence behind why they chose that number vs. another. And it’s interesting to look at the young arms that were “abused” vs. the young arms that weren’t; at first glance, the less abused young arms didn’t go on to longer or more successful careers. Of course, they were arguably worse.
I do wonder if pitchers pitched more earlier (in the minors) if that might both build more endurance and also sift through to find the arms that could best handle the stress. But no one likes the idea of chewing up hundreds of people to find the 5 who can throw 300 innings.
Completely anecdotal - no clue where I actually fall in the debate - but Ortiz and Contreras both were given huge inning bumps last year and have been broken versions of their peak selves this year.
Its so weird to me that preventing pitcher injuries is still just based on vibes. 100 pitches, increase by ~30 innings, etc. are all just kinda numbers put out there with no real conclusive data pushing one way or another. If someone could find out some way to science or math their way to real conclusions, they could probably make a bunch of money
I think part of the problem is that pitchers just can't be trusted to mention when there is an issue because some will try to push through it, so you have to set some kind of limits that seem to work best as a group, even though everyone is different. Pitch limits are still crazy though. These guys are supposed to be the best athletes in the world and in better shape than any previous time, yet they do so much less work than previous pitchers on average. Imagine trying to explain to someone from the early years of baseball that teams willingly use their 4th and 5th best pitchers because their best pitcher is resting from pitching 5-6 innings 3-4 days ago. It would make their head explode. Then you tell them that pitchers don't even hit, so they're sitting on the bench half of the time. They would look at you like you were crazy and the pitchers were lazy
I hear you, but the biomechanics of the arm are something that seems to have little do with with athleticism or fitness.
Today's pitchers would get smoked if they reduced intensity like those of past eras. No human has ever been able to max out like pitchers do now for the durations they used to pitch.
Which in itself will be an interesting follow with Bednar, cause a lot of Shelton's answer about Bednar's usage is with regards to Bednar being "honest with him".
Tom Veryzer did an analysis many moons ago on the results of pitchers increasing their innings workload a whole lot over the previous year. It wasn’t pretty.
But NOBODY has ever done a study on that d**nable 100 pitch limit!
My take is that the 100 number correlates more to when a pitcher gets three times through the order than it does with any health marker, but it's easier for coaches and managers to say they're protecting the arm than it is that they're afraid the dude is about to get smoked.
My stance has always been that pitchers of yore seemed to get stronger as they went along. Maybe if we train our pitchers to go thru the order three times vice babying the heck out of them, they might actually be able to do it?
Of course, we could probably debate this until we die, lol.
The way they used to pitched has change a ton as well. I remember pitchers not throwing anything but fastball first time through the order, anyone who has a high fastball usage and is successful is rare now a days and studies might have change, but breaking pitches are hard on the elbow, especially when they are now thrown at 85-90+!
For realz. Ive started to notice my own bias in questioning when a pitcher throwing over 100 pitches, but realistically i think thats just an aesthetically pleasing and round number thats kinda become the standard with no significant evidence. AdminSky's new arbitrary standard: throw until velo drops 2mph or you are bad
I’m with those who question the 100 pitch limit. I think it came into place initially when Baseball Prospectus had the concept of “Pitcher Abuse Points”; they started awarding points at the 100 pitch mark. As far as I can tell, there wasn’t a lot of empirical evidence behind why they chose that number vs. another. And it’s interesting to look at the young arms that were “abused” vs. the young arms that weren’t; at first glance, the less abused young arms didn’t go on to longer or more successful careers. Of course, they were arguably worse.
https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/148/pitcher-abuse-points-a-new-way-to-measure-pitcher-abuse/
I do wonder if pitchers pitched more earlier (in the minors) if that might both build more endurance and also sift through to find the arms that could best handle the stress. But no one likes the idea of chewing up hundreds of people to find the 5 who can throw 300 innings.
Great work dude.
Completely anecdotal - no clue where I actually fall in the debate - but Ortiz and Contreras both were given huge inning bumps last year and have been broken versions of their peak selves this year.
Its so weird to me that preventing pitcher injuries is still just based on vibes. 100 pitches, increase by ~30 innings, etc. are all just kinda numbers put out there with no real conclusive data pushing one way or another. If someone could find out some way to science or math their way to real conclusions, they could probably make a bunch of money
I think part of the problem is that pitchers just can't be trusted to mention when there is an issue because some will try to push through it, so you have to set some kind of limits that seem to work best as a group, even though everyone is different. Pitch limits are still crazy though. These guys are supposed to be the best athletes in the world and in better shape than any previous time, yet they do so much less work than previous pitchers on average. Imagine trying to explain to someone from the early years of baseball that teams willingly use their 4th and 5th best pitchers because their best pitcher is resting from pitching 5-6 innings 3-4 days ago. It would make their head explode. Then you tell them that pitchers don't even hit, so they're sitting on the bench half of the time. They would look at you like you were crazy and the pitchers were lazy
I hear you, but the biomechanics of the arm are something that seems to have little do with with athleticism or fitness.
Today's pitchers would get smoked if they reduced intensity like those of past eras. No human has ever been able to max out like pitchers do now for the durations they used to pitch.
Which in itself will be an interesting follow with Bednar, cause a lot of Shelton's answer about Bednar's usage is with regards to Bednar being "honest with him".
Tom Veryzer did an analysis many moons ago on the results of pitchers increasing their innings workload a whole lot over the previous year. It wasn’t pretty.
But NOBODY has ever done a study on that d**nable 100 pitch limit!
My take is that the 100 number correlates more to when a pitcher gets three times through the order than it does with any health marker, but it's easier for coaches and managers to say they're protecting the arm than it is that they're afraid the dude is about to get smoked.
My stance has always been that pitchers of yore seemed to get stronger as they went along. Maybe if we train our pitchers to go thru the order three times vice babying the heck out of them, they might actually be able to do it?
Of course, we could probably debate this until we die, lol.
And whaddabout this Designated Hitter balogna?! ;)
The way they used to pitched has change a ton as well. I remember pitchers not throwing anything but fastball first time through the order, anyone who has a high fastball usage and is successful is rare now a days and studies might have change, but breaking pitches are hard on the elbow, especially when they are now thrown at 85-90+!
Good to see you over here, PR.
I think. 😜😜😜
We’ll see!😏
Yo!
I need to start science and mathing
For realz. Ive started to notice my own bias in questioning when a pitcher throwing over 100 pitches, but realistically i think thats just an aesthetically pleasing and round number thats kinda become the standard with no significant evidence. AdminSky's new arbitrary standard: throw until velo drops 2mph or you are bad
three times through the order!
it's more of a performance limit than health limit.
And I know throughout the entire CWS and regionals, JJ Cooper kept posting the "accepted" limits depending on pitches and days rest.
So, should we worry about pitchers like Solo and Bubba who will be doubling their innings this year?
I don't think we should be any more concerned than we already are with pitcher injuries as it is.