The numbers aligned, and the Angels set a record

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Renner

The early decades do not prove your point. For guys like Walter Johnson and 3-Finger Brown who had careers up to or over age 40, there were more guys who flamed out early.

I knew someone would make the mistake of bringing up longevity. It's not really relevant to my original point, which is that it's fallacious to suggest that there are immediate risks by allowing players to remain in particular games or to be used extensively in a given season. Your longevity concerns actually help make the case.

Yes, there can be long-term consequences of heavy usage. The relatively brief effectiveness of NFL running backs proves this out. But it doesn't mean necessarily that there is a massive risk of injury by using them heavily in a given game or season. If that was the case, then the NFL would still be using two running backs in the same backfield and sharing carries, like it did for decades until the 1980s. Instead, teams now use one running back that carries nearly the entire workload. That has long-term implications for the player, but it's a short-term advantage for the team, so the lead backs are given 30 carries a game.

The same goes for baseball, where the evidence is overwhelming that players can withstand extremely heavy usage for years on end. There was no problem with Ed Walsh pitching 400+ and 300+ innings for nearly seven straight years. There is some debate over whether his arm suffered from overuse or he failed to report to spring training in proper condition one year, and he damaged his arm. But his story, like the others that you cite, is simply evidence of the long-term impact of such usage. It's not a proof of short-term injury risk.

Today, managers are pulling pitchers and resting position players because they're trying to save them within that given season. Sometimes they try to coddle a young player when he's first under contract, but mostly their interest is in preserving players for that given season, to keep them healthy and ready to play at their peak by the end of the year.

But this is in conflict with the history of baseball, which shows that players can be used heavily, avoid injuries, and still be at their peak in the post-season. They may break down over time, but how many teams and managers really care about what's going to happen to a player in seven or eight years? Almost no player is ever under contract to a team for that long, so the focus is on getting everything you can from them right now.

That's why I say that they should go ahead and use them as much as possible. I'll take a stud starter with a 3.00 ERA after 120 pitches over a fresh but bad reliever any day. Yes, leaving a pitcher in a game with a 28-run lead might be extreme, but how many times do we see starters pulled after seven innings with a 5-run lead, only to see it blown by a horrible bullpen? In my opinion, pitch counts are the worst thing that has ever happened to baseball ... except for maybe steroid usage.

[Renner]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I knew someone would make the mistake of bringing up longevity. It's not really relevant to my original point, which is that it's fallacious to suggest that there are immediate risks by allowing players to remain in particular games or to be used extensively in a given season. Your longevity concerns actually help make the case.

Yes, there can be long-term consequences of heavy usage. The relatively brief effectiveness of NFL running backs proves this out. But it doesn't mean necessarily that there is a massive risk of injury by using them heavily in a given game or season. If that was the case, then the NFL would still be using two running backs in the same backfield and sharing carries, like it did for decades until the 1980s. Instead, teams now use one running back that carries nearly the entire workload. That has long-term implications for the player, but it's a short-term advantage for the team, so the lead backs are given 30 carries a game.

The same goes for baseball, where the evidence is overwhelming that players can withstand extremely heavy usage for years on end. There was no problem with Ed Walsh pitching 400+ and 300+ innings for nearly seven straight years. There is some debate over whether his arm suffered from overuse or he failed to report to spring training in proper condition one year, and he damaged his arm. But his story, like the others that you cite, is simply evidence of the long-term impact of such usage. It's not a proof of short-term injury risk.

Today, managers are pulling pitchers and resting position players because they're trying to save them within that given season. Sometimes they try to coddle a young player when he's first under contract, but mostly their interest is in preserving players for that given season, to keep them healthy and ready to play at their peak by the end of the year.

But this is in conflict with the history of baseball, which shows that players can be used heavily, avoid injuries, and still be at their peak in the post-season. They may break down over time, but how many teams and managers really care about what's going to happen to a player in seven or eight years? Almost no player is ever under contract to a team for that long, so the focus is on getting everything you can from them right now.

That's why I say that they should go ahead and use them as much as possible. I'll take a stud starter with a 3.00 ERA after 120 pitches over a fresh but bad reliever any day. Yes, leaving a pitcher in a game with a 28-run lead might be extreme, but how many times do we see starters pulled after seven innings with a 5-run lead, only to see it blown by a horrible bullpen? In my opinion, pitch counts are the worst thing that has ever happened to baseball ... except for maybe steroid usage.

In OOTP pitchers are more suceptible to injuries the more they are worked game to game.

OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - Markus

Baseball Prospectus | Articles | Pitcher Abuse Points

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Renner

In OOTP pitchers are more succeptible to injuries the more they are worked game to game.

OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - Markus

Baseball Prospectus | Articles | Pitcher Abuse Points

I love the Baseball Prospectus article. The results since it was published indicate that there is huge exaggeration about short-term injuries and risks that result from using pitchers as a workhorse. The same may go for OOTP.

Look at his list of the 12 most abused pitchers overall. Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, Jamie Moyer, Andy Pettite, Tom Candiotti, Livan Hernandez, Bartolo Colon, Al Leiter, Chuck Finley, and Jesus Sanchez. Every single one of these pitchers except for Sanchez was a long-term workhorse that did not suffer short-term consequences for heavy usage. Most of them were long-term veterans that pitched successfully for ages.

But the author's focus was on young pitchers. Let's look at the list of young pitchers that the author said were being abused most heavily in all of MLB. Supposedly they would be at huge risk for rotator cuff and similar catastrophic injuries. Roughly 70% of them went on to have long, durable careers with no injuries or with injuries that occurred only after they had pitched for years on end.

Bartolo Colon - eight straight seasons with 30+ starts and 200+ innings
Livan Hernandez - 10 straight seasons with 30+ starts and 200+ innings
Jesus Sanchez - never became good enough to stay in MLB
Brad Radke - 12 seasons, nearly all with 30+ starts and 200+ innings. Was still going strong when he retired.
Jaret Wright - was not very good to begin with, then suffered a major shoulder injury early in his career.
Shawn Estes - consistently went out and started nearly 30 games every season for 10 years, then suffered an arm injury but just recently came back to the Majors
Kerry Wood - was phenomenal and then suffered several arm injuries
Jimmy Haynes - had no problem starting 30+ games for five seasons until he was no longer effective and was out of MLB
Jason Schmidt - started nearly 30 games for most of 10 seasons until he finally suffered a major injury
Tony Saunders - broke his arm early in his career, and Jose Canseco has claimed that this was due to steroid abuse
Geremi Gonzalez - was only pitching 6 2/3 innings per start but managed to suffer a string of injuries and couldn't recover his career in the bullpen
Kevin Millwood - workhorse who has started 30+ games in almost all of 10 straight seasons

So we have 12 pitchers. Only three clearly had major injuries early in their careers (Gonzalez, Wood, and Wright). I'm not going to count Tony Saunders, because an arm break is not an injury that a pitcher typically suffers, and Canseco may well be right about its unnatural cause.

That leaves eight pitchers who were workhorses that typically pitched 30+ starts and a lot of innings. They faced a ton of batters. And yet they did not suffer through strings of injuries, and those who did suffer a major injury did so after numerous seasons.

So, if you remove Saunders and go with a pool of the remaining 11 young pitchers, 73% of them showed no short-term problems from such alleged abuse. The remaining 27% suffered major injuries early in their careers. That seems awfully close to the 80/20 rule to me, which would suggest that you should go with the 80% likelihood and not get caught up in the 20% of exceptions.

But how does the 27% that suffered early injuries compare with the injury rates for other pitchers who weren't among the most abused? I doubt that the percentage is much higher than the overall average, if it's higher at all, but I don't have any data on that front. Pitchers have arm trouble and have short-lived careers all the time. And it includes bullpen guys and others that aren't used very heavily.

Anyway, it's an interesting debate, but I don't see the data to convince me that there is some massive risk of short-term injuries by using pitchers heavily. Instead, I see data that suggests that there can be long-term consequences, as I've stated. But my point is that there isn't enough reason to limit pitchers so much and change the entire way that the sport is managed based on these fears.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Renner

The early decades do not prove your point. For guys like Walter Johnson and 3-Finger Brown who had careers up to or over age 40, there were more guys who flamed out early...Ed Walsh was basically done at age 31 after pitching 368+ IP in 5 of the previous 6 years...Christy Mathewson was basically done at age 33 after having 300+IP in 11 of the previous 14 seasons...Noodles Hahn pitched 296+ IP from age 20-25, then had 119 IP total age age 26 and 27, then was done for good...Chief Bender had 1 IP after age 33...Jack Chesbro (454 IP in 1904 at the age of 30) had 55 IP in his final season at age 35. I'm not an expert in kinesiology by any means, but the myth of iron pitchers who could thrown 300 pitches a game every 2 days is just that; a myth.

Agreed. While I think pitch counts are a bit overated. A whole lot of pitchers flamed out when pitching over 300 innings year after year. That was true back in the 19th century too. I know Radbourn after 1884 season was more or less through (well he lasted 5 or 6 more years, but he went from a great pitcher to a merely average one). A lot of those 19th century 300 game winners would hit 300 at age 32 or so, and then win about 40 combined for 5 more years.

Now, if you want to argue for more CGs, ok. I think they do baby the pitchers a bit too much. Maybe even make the 4 man rotation argument.


I know at my school they thought our number 1 guy being big and strong, well, he can take it. His uncle (one of the asisstants) bragged (after I had quit, not going into my reasons) about he pitched a 168-pitch CG on Friday and the next Monday he went for another CG with 133 pitches. This was the kid's sophmore year. Well, guess what he threw harder as a freshmen than a senior. Take from that what you will.

[Renner]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

I think they do baby the pitchers a bit too much. Maybe even make the 4 man rotation argument.

I think it's funny that Tim Wakefield rarely goes past 105 pitches these days...I'm sure he could go 9 IP every time out. I wish OOTP had some kind of allowance for knuckleballers to go longer than other guys...maybe some kind of indication of arm angle or something...sidearmers could have longer endurance also (just thinking out loud).

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Renner

I wish OOTP had some kind of allowance for knuckleballers to go longer than other guys...maybe some kind of indication of arm angle or something...sidearmers could have longer endurance also (just thinking out loud).

I agree. I also think OOTP should allow for people like Pat Venditte.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

I agree. I also think OOTP should allow for people like Pat Venditte.

Edit: Nevermind, switch-pitchers? Well, there have been some pitchers to pitch with both hands in the majors. But, from what I can tell even the most famous (tony mullane) was essentially a right hander who pitched with his left only now and then. Harris only pitched left once. and Icebox only did a couple of times.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Edit: Nevermind, switch-pitchers? Well, there have been some pitchers to pitch with both hands in the majors. But, from what I can tell even the most famous (tony mullane) was essentially a right hander who pitched with his left only now and then. Harris only pitched left once. and Icebox only did a couple of times.

It might be rare, but we should be able to do it.