Pitch Counts This; Pitch Counts That
This post isn't aimed towards any one person. I've heard and read these claims on multiple outlets. It seems like groupthink. One based around evidence that has nothing to do with facts.
The Texas Rangers starting rotation is better this year than in 2008.
They are, but only barely:
2008: 5.46 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 5.51 ERA, 5.02 FIP
2009: 4.89 K/9, 3.27 BB/9, 4.36 ERA, 4.95 FIP
The lack of concrete pitch counts has made the pitchers better.
Or it could be their defense. Last year the Rangers' rotation had a .327 BABIP; this year their BABIP is down to .280. The Rangers team UZR is 18.4, about 70 runs better than last year. Yes, 70 runs. Seventy. -51.7 UZR is an amazing accomplishment, after all the 2007 Rays had one of the worst defenses ever and only record -57.7 UZR.
The Rays are too strict with their pitch counts. They should take after the Rangers.
Let's use facts to figure this out.
The Rangers starters throw 99 pitches per start on average, have topped 100 pitches 28 times, 120 thrice, and maxed out at 124. Meanwhile they've had seven starts where pitchers exited in under 80 pitches.
The Rays starters throw 97 pitches per start on average, have topped 100 pitches 29 times, 120 once, have a max of 120. Meanwhile they too have had seven starters where pitchers exited below the 80 pitch threshold.
So all this hoopla about pitch counts and such, it's over two pitches per start. That's it. Two pitches. The Rangers do get more innings out of their starters, but that's probably because they don't have David Price and Scott Kazmir wasting all of their bullets in the first five innings of the ballgame.
Other topics that make this argument rather pointless:
1. Josh Kalk is a Rays employee. He knows more about how to detect pitcher fatigue than anyone else with a pulse.
2. Why would you want your starter going 8 every game anyways? I get wanting to save your pen, but you have relievers for a reason. Use them. If they suck, get better ones. This isn't a hard concept to grasp. Besides being tired, the lineup gets more exposure to him. A 30-40% energy starter working on his third or fourth time through the lineup, or a 90-100% reliever freshly entering the game? Assuming neither is replacement level or elite, I think I'll go with the fresh reliever in most cases.
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Exactly.
My understanding was high major league pitch counts would be the end result of a conditioning program (more live batting practice, more long toss, sprinting exercises instead of jogging, etc) starting at the lowest levels of the minors, a process they only recently enacted.
Unless I’m misunderstanding, this new conditioning program and broader philosophy should have a minimal impact on the major league team at this point, making the entire “Rangers are better because of unrestricted pitch counts” argument baseless without even looking at the numbers.
I give them points for trying something against current orthodoxy. I also gladly let them take the risk instead of the Rays.
Some people think it's for the majors as well.
by R.J. Anderson on Jun 17, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Up 8 pitches per start, and they've went over 120 3 more times than all of last year.
by R.J. Anderson on Jun 17, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Millwood in particular: up 18 pitches per start
and accounts for two of the three 120+ outings.
Interesting to note his K/9 is at its lowest point in his career (and the huge gap between ERA and FIP).
I don't see how anybody thinks it is even a remotely good idea to allow a pitcher like price throw 100 pitches through 4 innings then send him out for the 5th and 6th.
"Where we all wait in earnest with pudding in hand for the Upton comet to sail through the roofed skies, so that we may meet Him."
The only time we had real problems with a pitch count was with Hal McRae, who would pull a pitcher exactly at 100 pitches unless that pitcher had a no-hitter.
And even then, he’d have the bullpen already going for as soon as the starter gave up a hit. That’s when it was rediculous.
"Where we all wait in earnest with pudding in hand for the Upton comet to sail through the roofed skies, so that we may meet Him."
Plus, the damage of continuously high pitching counts
often doesn’t manifest until the next season or even further down the road
I don't think I agree with you on this one
Nolan Ryan was a freak. I know he worked hard and I’m sure his training will help the young pitchers, but just because he was rubber armed and could throw 150 pitches at maximum effort every other day doesn’t mean everybody can. Usually people who are naturally talented do not understand why everybody else isn’t like them. They don’t see the world the same way that the rest of us do.
My guess is that ultimately he will help a handful of young Ranger pitchers to be better than they would have, but he will blow out more talented arms than he helps when it’s all said and done.
RGlass was being sarcastic.
But you do have a point about Ryan expecting the same elasticity from everyone that he himself had.
by R.J. Anderson on Jun 17, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought so with the "cock" comment
but I’ve had this argument with a lot of people and just wanted to throw my two cents in for the people who agree with him.
And while I’m at it, love the site. Been coming here for a few years now and I have to give all of you guys some love. Keep it up. I find it refreshing to find an intelligent view point on baseball instead of all the crap you hear on sports radio and read in the papers. Plus you guys have really opened my eyes to some new stats and analysis that I was not very famaliar with before.
Soooo
You’re saying we need a closer?
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 17, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Need a closer
and have to get rid of that lazy ass Upton. Maybe we can trade Burrell, Upton and Maddon for Huston Street. I’m sure we’ll win the WS then.
That's the spirit
Bienvenudo.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 17, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
My favorite are the people that still curse when they see BJ leading off
The guy is hitting over .300 in June with an OPS over .850
Free Ray Durham!
SSS
LET’S SEE HIM DO IT OVER A CAREER
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 17, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Anyone that doesn't understand why it's bad to leave a guy in with a high pitch count.
Doesn’t understand modern baseball.
In the BP book "Between the Numbers" they ask the question...
What is more dangerous: having a four-man rotation or leaving your pitcher in a game when he’s tired? The conclusion they came to (via much statistical analysis) was that everyone’s decision to switch to a five-man rotation ~ 20/30 years ago was largely arbitrary, and that it’s a myth that four-man rotations are dangerous to pitchers’ health. On the other hand, of course, they found much evidence to suggest that high pitch counts have a detrimental impact on pitchers’ health. One example they cited was a year in the late ’90’s when the Royals pre-All Star break pitching (incl. Kevin Appier, who started the ASG) was historically awesome. Their second half saw the staff fall apart with injuries and bad pitching. Those pitchers were never the same afterwards. The common link between the starters was that they were all throwing 130 to 140 pitches per game.
Nolan Ryan was a great pitcher, but are we going to believe him when the Rangers are basically the only team (to my knowledge) who think that high pitch counts are just fine? Maybe I’m just biased against Texans, but I’m not going to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
They smell for the most part
Texans, nor Royals.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 17, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think the Rangers new approach will show up in major league results for at least a couple of years
Personally my opinion on it kind of lies between the modern approach and the historical approach.
But I do think it’s dumb to think that there is a magical number (e.g. 100 pitches) were all pitches get tired or all pitchers injury risk increases. There are so many factors and some many different pitching styles that to assign one arbitrary number to it is very simplisitic.
Free Ray Durham!
This kind of piggybacks off of the biomechanical analysis in another thread, but
How far do you think we are from a team doing that analysis to all their pitchers, and then feeding that data into a computer to get an idea of what an optimal pitch count is on a human by human basis?
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 17, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Rays weren't pitching into late-October, I have no doubt it would have already been done this past winter.
RD over and out.
by ReasonableDoubt on Jun 17, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
If anyone were to do it, I would think we would be at the forefront.
I would imagine the mean is somewhere around 100 anyway, but if it gives some peace of mind about letting a guy go from 98-105 to 104-112, fine by me. Garza looks like he relishes going late in games.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 17, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
The Red Sox have a medical device that allows them to develop benchmarks for each pitcher's indvidiual arm strength and durability.
Thus, they build their pitch counts and work loads off of that.
You would need tissue samples as well
by Graham MacAree on Jun 17, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
So I didn't just think up this on my own
I better ring the ambulance siren and give Reasonable Doubt something else to work on.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 17, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree completley
I’d personally rather go with the majority of relievers at full strength in the 7th instead of a tired #3 or #4 starter. The argument of saving your bullpen could also go the way about saving your starters as well. I would say something more concrete than that, but…I dunno, not in the mood I suppose.
Thank you for at least trying to shut people up R.J =]

by 



















