Should pitch count matter as much?

[HShockeywatcher]

Last night the twins announcer commented on how pitchers don't pitch as long as they used to. They were saying this because Baker was doing just fine but because his pitch count was up he wasn't gong to be playing the 7th, while back in the day if you were pitching well you knew you'd be pitching the next inning. Not to discredit the wins of Cy Young, but his win total will never be broken because he pitched in a day where the starting pitcher got the win if the game was won because he pitched the whole game; none of this pitching an inning and getting a win.

Also I've watched many a twins game where the starter was in the 90s of their pitch count but had only given up 1-3 runs in their 6 or 7 innings then they put in the reliever and they suck it up the first inning they come in. And we've lost games off that. Doesn't happen a lot, but I just don't like seeing a guy get taken out when they are on fire, with a chance to get their ERA a little lower and they're taking a chance of not getting a win.

[Wild4hockey]

Today's game is different than it used to be. The season is longer and with the wild card as an option, teams need to consider pitch count when evaluating their pitchers. It might not make sense on the surface if a guy is pitching great, but countless studies have been done to show pitcher performance rapidly declining after the 100 pitch count. Case in point Pedro a few years back against the Yankees in the playoffs. Grady Little left him out there and it cost the Red Sox the game and series and Little his job. Middle relivers have a very important place in the game and I for one think that the foresight of managers in these situations in justifiable.

[HShockeywatcher]

Well, to make one thing clear from my post, I'm not claiming they should all finish games, but I'm saying that if you're at 95 after the 6th, let the guy pitch the 7th if he's only given up a few (like last night).

The other thing to keep in mind about studies is that they have to be an average of all pitchers. If I could pick one pitcher on the twins team to have out there for the first 4-5 innings, my second choice would easily be Bonser. But he starts really sucking after that. So when you put people like him and people like Johan, who could probably throw 120-130 pitches an outing if he's doing well, things get skewed. It's a form of "lying with numbers."

Just a minor example. I do agree that many pitchers shouldn't pitch much further, but many pitchers should. IMO

[HShockeywatcher]

Only 91 pitches, including 8 strikeouts, in 7 strikeout innings, and Santana didn't earn another inning?

All I have to say is 'wow'

[NumberCruncher]

Something I've always kept in mind is that the other team might have a pticher figured out by the 3rd or 4th time around in the order. Whether this applies to Johan is another matter though

[sachishi4]

it shouldnt matter, it should depend on the how the pitcher feels

[DannyCalifornia]

it shouldnt matter, it should depend on the how the pitcher feels

finally some solid perspective on here- although i would add the manager obviously has a lot of say in it. pitch count just keeps the next days starting pitcher from sitting in the clubhouse and playing cards-gets his mind on next days start early i would hope.

[Govs93]

I've always found it interesting that human genetics have deteriorated from guys pitching every 4 days, throwing 8 innings, 150-160 pitches, and lasting 15-16 years to guys throwing every 5 or 6 days, throwing 6 innings tops, 110 pitches (if they have a shutout going) and being out of the league in 10-12 years.

We're doomed if finely tuned athletes have taken a downturn like that. I need another beer...

[HShockeywatcher]

Wow, with all the pointless avoiding the topic rants you usually make, you make a very good point here. One I'm still amazed about. Would Santana really be worse off pitching every forth game? No, we'd win more games.

[elliott70]

I've always found it interesting that human genetics have deteriorated from guys pitching every 4 days, throwing 8 innings, 150-160 pitches, and lasting 15-16 years to guys throwing every 5 or 6 days, throwing 6 innings tops, 110 pitches (if they have a shutout going) and being out of the league in 10-12 years.

We're doomed if finely tuned athletes have taken a downturn like that. I need another beer...

Pitching is an unnatural act. The arm takes a beating.
Pitch count is a very reliable number to gauge the physics put on an arm.
Having said that, it is still the manager's job to 'know' the pitcher and whether another inning is important in the current game vs the fatigue placed on that arm.

And Govs, do you have a list of players that lasted 15 - 16 years versus the numbers that went out early with arm problems? If you look a that list you will see amazing, unnatural arms. At the same time, the other list will give you an idea why pitch count does become important.

Could Santana pitch more often and more inninngs?
I don't think any of us posting know the answer to that question.



But it is fun to talk (and read) about.

[Govs93]

I've always found it interesting that human genetics have deteriorated from guys pitching every 4 days, throwing 8 innings, 150-160 pitches, and lasting 15-16 years to guys throwing every 5 or 6 days, throwing 6 innings tops, 110 pitches (if they have a shutout going) and being out of the league in 10-12 years.

We're doomed if finely tuned athletes have taken a downturn like that. I need another beer...

Pitching is an unnatural act. The arm takes a beating.
Pitch count is a very reliable number to gauge the physics put on an arm.
Having said that, it is still the manager's job to 'know' the pitcher and whether another inning is important in the current game vs the fatigue placed on that arm.

And Govs, do you have a list of players that lasted 15 - 16 years versus the numbers that went out early with arm problems? If you look a that list you will see amazing, unnatural arms. At the same time, the other list will give you an idea why pitch count does become important.

Could Santana pitch more often and more inninngs?
I don't think any of us posting know the answer to that question.



But it is fun to talk (and read) about.

Not sure what your point is...

If you want a "list", you'll have to find it on your own, but I think it's pretty common knowledge that the more aggressive arm injuries in MLB have occurred over the last 20-25 years in the era of the pitch count, as opposed to guys like Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Bob Gibson, etc. who had no pitch count. Those threee would probably fall into your "unnatual arm" category, but the point stands in term of their longevity and durability. Drysdale threw over 300 innings 5 times, Koufax 3 times and Gibson twice - (although he also threw 299 and 294 in other seasons), and they all pitched 12, 14 and 17 years respectively.

I guess you can chalk up those three examples as "freaks", but you could also classify them as "blue collar", and not coddled as players are today. It was a different attitude back then (obviously), but it was the same game, and to get most pitchers off the mound back in the 30's-60's, you'd practically have to tear their arm off and knock them out with it to get them to move.

I don't know... everything evolves and it is what it is now.

And I suppose I should also qualify this by saying that pitch counts in youth leagues are the greatest thing to ever happen to that game. It's much needed.

[elliott70]

Govs
Agreed on all points...
My point is that the manager and player need to make the decision. Pitch counts help with that.

Good examples, and there are many more.
Koufax left the game with arm troubles, but not related to pitch count (per se). And interesting to note that his career took off after an injury and rehab.
But there are lots of guys that went out with arms problems because they threw too much, did not get enough rest between.

But pitch count IS very important for a young arm so nice to see you make a note of that.

[elliott70]

Nothing to do with pitch count but baseball and pitching...

Twins pitcher Santana is #5 on the active list of best ERA's.
Through last year he was 89 and 39 (wins/loses).

Player #2 is a former major leaguer is #14 on all-time ERA list at 2.28 and had a record of 94 and 46. He pitched left-handed.

Which player would you rather have in their prime?

[elliott70]

Obviously player #2,

George (Babe) Ruth.

Not on point of this thread, but interesting to note that Boston thought more of him as a pitcher than a hitter.

A good point that hitting wins championships?
Fills seats?

[Govs93]

Sort of agreed, but I'm one of those who kind of take all of the pitching stats from Pre-1920 with a grain of salt...

Dead ball, high mound.

He obviously was doing something right though.

[Irishmans Shanty]

Let's see, 14 guys got roughly a bucket of balls, that's about 30 some pitches and I threw BP on MON, WED, FRI, and then came back on three days rest to do it again on TUES. That's 1,260 pitches plus the additional 420. I threw 1,680 pitches in the time a major leaguer would start two games.

I'm the last one to ask about the pitch count discussion and which side of it I'm on.

BTW, my arm hasn't felt better.

[elliott70]

Let's see, 14 guys got roughly a bucket of balls, that's about 30 some pitches and I threw BP on MON, WED, FRI, and then came back on three days rest to do it again on TUES. That's 1,260 pitches plus the additional 420. I threw 1,680 pitches in the time a major leaguer would start two games.

I'm the last one to ask about the pitch count discussion and which side of it I'm on.

BTW, my arm hasn't felt better.

Proper lubrication is important!

[Neutron 14]

With the Twins bullpen, the argument is moot.

The A's pitchers in the early 80's were left on the mound till the game was over, racking up 90 some complete games one year. I think their longevity in the majors or lack there of is what started this pitch count thingy.

[Can't Never Tried]

If your form is good you can go the whole game...even pitch a double header no problem

[HShockeywatcher]

Question for those who are older than I: did they have as many players/pitchers on the team back when there was no pitch count? We do have a great bullpen, we could probably easily have our starters only pitch 5 or 6 innings a game and be just fine, but is that because there are more pitchers on the team than there used to be?

[goldy313]

Rosters expanded to 25 quite a few years ago, before that I think it was a 22 man roster. So of course there weren't as many pitchers on a team with a 22 man roster than there is with a 25 man roster.

Over the past few years I lost the ability to listen to the Twins and Cardinals on the radio, so now I get different perspectives; usually from the White Sox or Indians and an occasional Rockie game. All broadcasters lament about the lack of pitching depth these days and with Tom Glavine sitting at 299 wins many think he may be the last 300 game winner in at least the next 20 years. (Randy Johnson looks like he's probably done and for perspective at Santana's current rate it will take him until he is 42 to reach 300 wins)

Personally I think the overuse of the Slider has killed pitching and made the pitch count a necassary evil. Look at the list of young talented pitchers that have flamed out their elbows: Wood, Prior, Liriano, etc. and look at what pitch they primarily throw - the slider. The slider is a cop out pitch that is taught to anyone who can throw a 90 mph fastball with little movement or a weak curve to give them a second pitch. Ironically the top pitchers in the game are not slider ball pitchers, they have it but don't rely on it. Santana-changeup, Halladay-sinker and knuckle curve, Haren-split finger, Schilling-split finger etc.

Someday the Slider will go the way of the Screwball and dissapear due to the havoc it does to arms.

[HShockeywatcher]

goldy313, thanks for all the insight. I am not a baseball historian and knowing cause for what has been happening is nice. All that being said, should their be a limit to the number of pitchers on a team?

Should pitchers pitch longer into the game? From what I've heard "back in the day" was pitching the starting pitcher basically pitched the whole game, so there wasn't any of this a guy pitching one inning and winning the game. Should they be allowed to more so now? I understand that with a bullpen like the twins have no pitcher "needs" to pitch beyond the 6th, but if they did more routinely we wouldn't need as many relievers, for example, and maybe have more room on the roster for others.

Also, I've seen many games where guys like Santana and Silva were pitching just fine into the 7th or 8th then were pulled in the 9th or tenth and the reliever gives up a couple runs. Sure, your arm gets worn out, but if you've got 1-3 ER and have 120 pitches, why pull you every time? Guys pitch 4 innings and when they have 5 ER and 40 pitches they get pulled. Hmmm....