Bill James and Joe Poz on pitch counts
Joe Posnanski has an aticle at SI.com where he discusses with Bill James how pitch counts have changed baseball over the past few decades. They talk about Nolan Ryan's crusade to increase the workload of his starting pitchers in Texas.
Both of them wonder why 100 became such a magic number for pitchers. Of course, everyone in baseball wants to keep their pitchers healthy, but where is the proof that 100 pitches should be the limit for starters -- because it's such a nice number? Why not 110 or 120 or 130? And we know that Bill James loves any discussion that confronts conventional wisdom.
Rob Neyer also gives his two cents on their discussion.
over 2 years ago
Buckeye Brad
39 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Very interesting, although it’s bizarre to hold up Ryan as someone challenging conventional wisdom. Isn’t he really just pining for an old form of conventional wisdom?
I love when the freaks of nature like Ryan and Feller complain about how wimpy the new pitchers are for not being able to throw as much as they did. Like all pitchers should be held to the standard of two of the greatest pitchers to ever live
the only reason we know that’s feller’s opinion is because some reporter paid him 15 dollars so he could print it one day.
His fatal flaw was allowing a lot of runs to score. 244th all-time in ERA. He did win two ERA titles in 25 years; Millwood could tie him this year. Never won a Cy Young and only came close once.
Anyone who has the Annual can check out the best two pitching seasons in Indians history, both by Feller. Ryan never had a year comparable either one of those. Back in 2000, BIll James ranked Feller #12 all-time, Ryan #24. They are not particularly close together.
Feller sneaks into the greatest-ever conversation because he was truly dominant in his own era. Ryan belongs in that conversation only if you think Pete Rose belongs in the greatest-hitter conversation. That is, he belongs in it only as long as it takes to acknowledge and politely dismiss his candidacy.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
That’s exactly right. As Neyer mentions, Joe wants facts and research but I don’t think Ryan has any of that. He just wants pitchers to be more like him, and that’s just not psysically possible for most people.
But this is a good discussion to have.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 16, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah it was a good article, but that was my problem with it too. Did Ryan actually do any research?
FE WEE
i wasn’t there, but i will garraunteee the answer is, no.
by Brick. on Jun 16, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
While I think this is a fair criticism, I don’t think Ryan necessarily believes pitchers can be that much like him, just maybe a little bit more like him. He’s intelligent enough to understand that he’s a unique specimen.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Lookin at Ryan’s B-Ref page, it looks like his numbers in late innings and late pitch counts aren’t noticeably worse than earlier in games. I have no idea whether this is common or not.
by supermarioelia on Jun 17, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions
The magic number could be different for every type of pitcher or for each pitcher. And that magic number might be mostly 90 or 80, for all we know. The human body can take only so much repeated stress and pitchers are expected to throw with tremendous velocity these days from a lowered mound.
If Ryan had anything to offer resembling deductive reasoning or data, he should have produced it.
The question I have been thinking about is why is 100 pitches (or 80, 90, 120, 130) every 5 days optimal? Maybe 40 pitches every other day, or 60 pitches every third day would be better. I would love to see this studied. I suspect that physically and mentally, shorter and more frequent pitching would be better than what is universally practiced now.
Or every 4 days and pitch until the games over. Get good and you don’t have to throw so much.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
The Doc Halladay plan.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 17, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Not to comment specifically on this article, but it was our boy Woolner who did a lot of the early research (after the pitch count had already become popular if I’m remembering correctly) suggesting the 100 pitches is the average number when a pitcher’s arm starts to get tired.
He also did extensive research about pitching on three, four, or five days’ rest. I’ve discussed this year more than I’d like to, but essentially pitchers can go on short rest their entire careers if they aren’t throwing more than 100 pitches every start.
Steel Nick
Ugh.
“suggesting that 100 pitches…”
“I’ve discussed this here more than…”
Sorry. Will you ever forgive me, Brick?
Steel Nick
I wonder which is the better approach….trying to get 40 starts out of your top 4 pitchers but only averaging 6 innings per (240 innings each, 960 total), or 30 starts out of your top 5 averaging 7 innings per (210 innings each, 1050 total).
concentrating more innings in better pitchers being the reason, I suppose…but in the case I stated, more innings also go to the bullpen…who are presumably worse
and there’s the issue of when relievers are getting deployed, 3 innings at a time (case 1) or 2 innings at a time (case 2)
because of course, this is a problem similar to evaluating contracts based solely on WAR or VORP or other equivalent measures. Just as talent is inconveniently packed into discrete units known as players, innings over the season are inconveniently packaged into consecutive 9-inning blocks (usually), each of which comes with its own outcome
















