A question about pitch counts and innings limits

In Commentary And Analysis by dmick8997 Comments

This is posted in the Commentary and Analysis category that we have here at Obstructed View, but it really should be posted in a category called Questions. Since we don't ask these questions very often, this category will have to do. It makes no sense to set up a new category for one stinking post.

Anyway, this will be short. I really only have a question for you and to be completely honest, I'm not even looking for an answer because truthfully, there isn't one. I just thought it worth highlighting the question by leaving it as a post rather than a comment. Apparently I think my questions deserve more prominence than those others ask.

A pitcher these days is almost always on a pitch count. Only 9 times this year has a starter thrown 130 pitches or more and none higher than 136. Only 64 times has a pitcher thrown 120 or more pitches. We've already seen 4282 games played this year, which means that 0.2% of the time a pitcher has thrown between 130 and 136 pitches and 1.5% of the games a pitcher has thrown 120 or more. That's a total of 1.7% of games in which a starting pitcher has thrown 120 or more pitches and none higher than 136. Even these pitchers who threw this many pitches were on a pitch count. This has been going on for at least a decade.

Only recently have we heard of such things as innings limits.

My question is why do teams manage a game with a pitch count and then the season with an innings limit? They're closely monitoring the pitch count of starts, and relievers for that matter, but when it comes time to shutting a pitcher down it's all about innings.

I'd not have even thought about this had it not been for Rany's fantastic article in which he asks the very same question, but I thought I'd post it here too. Not to get an answer, because quite honestly there isn't one, but to point out that an innings limit is never the right way to approach a lighter workload.

Share this Post

Comments

  2. josh

    @ josh:
    I’m glad I stayed away from whatever corner of the internet where that was a point of contention.

    I believe Cracked.com made fun of this debate/also kind of joined the debate in a couple different articles. That was mainly how I was aware of it.. I read cracked.com religiously.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  3. josh

    two innings aren’t necessarily comparable. You could throw 33 pitches in an inning or 4. Seems like an arbitrary metric. I wonder what research they base that on, if any. Or is it just an arbitrary attempt at caution.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. josh

    @ WaLi:
    Over the season, it probably evens out, but I bet the pitches/inning increases on average as you get later in a game. I don’t know if that’s true, but I’d wager it was.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. Rice Cube

    @ josh:
    I think it should be a function of how many times through the order the pitcher has gone as well as pitches per inning. A guy having to stay on the mound to throw more than 20 pitches to get three outs has to be more gassed than a guy who’s gotten those same three outs on 10 pitches and had time to hang out in the dugout to drink spiked Gatorade.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. WaLi

    @ josh:

    So if you pitch 6 inning per game (+/- 1), the first 3 you pitch 40 pitches, the next 3 you pitch 60 pitches, and that is pretty consistent, then why not say 6 inning = 100 pitches so at the end of the year you can limit based on 180 inning instead of 3000 pitches. This is based on no math whatsoever since I’m on my iPhone so if it isn’t consistent then nevermind.

    Also, If you are approaching 120 pitches in 5 inning then you are probably sucking.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. josh

    @ Rice Cube:
    That’s why I would think pitch count is more telling. Maybe pitch count combined with a rule of thumb where you don’t let the pitcher have 2 long innings. I think that’s basically what I see most managers doing. Except Mike Quade, he was kind of bizarre.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. uncle dave

    I’m not as firmly against the monitoring and limitation of pitcher workloads as most folks around here, I think, but I will concede that both pitch counts and inning counts are overly simplistic given the info that teams have available on their pitchers and what’s at stake. Still, to play the role of Becky (the devil’s advocate), I think you can make the argument that the two metrics measure separate stressors — pitch count gives you a look at how hard a player has been worked in a given game, with known risk factors coming into play as the count goes higher, while inning count is a measure of how hard a player is worked over the course of a year.

    The latter is probably a shitty metric to use for this, with the shutdown of Aroldis Chapman an example — he’s only gone 70 innings or so, but you have to account for the fact that going through the warmup and the stress of usage on a regular basis as a reliever probably equals more stress on a per-pitch or per-inning basis than does going out and throwing seven innings every fifth day.

    I don’t know enough to know how the various routines and workloads affect pitchers, though I strongly suspect that fatigue is related to soft tissue damage, with the supporting muscles becoming less able to protect the ligaments from the trauma of throwing a baseball. It would be interesting to see what the more forward-thinking teams are doing in terms of research with respect to off-day routines, warmups, and so on, though I guess that stuff is probably guarded as highly proprietary information (unfortunately).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. WenningtonsGorillaCock

    mb21 wrote:

    This is posted in the Commentary and Analysis category that we have here at Obstructed View, but it really should be posted in a category called Questions.

    There are categories here? I thought it was broken down as “Dick Jokes” and “Everything Else”

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. mb21

    @ josh:
    Yeah, for the most part it does, but a Greg Maddux inning isn’t the same as a Carlos Marmol inning. You know that of course, but that’s the point I’m trying to make in asking why it’s an innings limit and not a pitch count limit. Especially when teams use pitch count limits all season long. Just seems weird to me.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. mb21

    uncle dave wrote:

    The latter is probably a shitty metric to use for this, with the shutdown of Aroldis Chapman an example — he’s only gone 70 innings or so, but you have to account for the fact that going through the warmup and the stress of usage on a regular basis as a reliever probably equals more stress on a per-pitch or per-inning basis than does going out and throwing seven innings every fifth day.

    Especially for a reliever who may get up more than once to warm up. Not to mention, as you implied, that a closer may throw only 15 pitches in a game, but adding up warmups he threw twice that many at least. The same isn’t true for starters who throw 100 pitches and maybe 120 with warmups.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  27. josh

    @ uncle dave:
    I wouldn’t say I’m against it. I am just curious about the data, and how it’s implemented. I’m wondering if they just decided 100 pitches was a nice round number, or if there is science to back it up. Same with inning totals for the year.

    Either way, I don’t think it’s too much to say that the Nats misused Strasburg to some degree. They clearly weren’t playing him with the postseason in mind, even after the all star break.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  28. mb21

    I guess I want to see evidence that taking it easy on young pitchers keeps them healthy. For every Mark Prior there is a Livan Hernandez. And Boras’ study about pitchers throwing a lot of innings at a young age and not so much after the age of 30 is irrelevant. Pitchers are often at their peak when they reach their big leagues. Their velocity tends to drop as they accrue innings and their effectiveness declines. By the time they’re 30 they have a lot of innings, have had a lot of coaches, a lot of different stressful situations and so on and so forth. And they’re worse.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  30. SVB

    @ mb21:
    I’d like to see that evidence too, but I don’t think it exists. If you go back and look at leaderboards from bygone days, we are now far below the innings and pitch counts of before. Hell, remember the 4-man rotation? Now Colorado has this ridiculous 75 pitch 4-5 inning thing going. (OK, well, their pitchers really suck so they might as well, basically they have a team of relievers–mediocre ones–but I digress.)

    If you look even 25 years ago at minor league innings and pitches, the minor leaguers pitched many more innings. The theory was that you had to pitch X innings in the minors before you knew how to pitch well enough to last in the bigs. I think it was 1000 innings, but I don’t remember any more. Maybe SK knows.

    I think the pitch count/innings count thing actually creates more injuries. Why?
    1. Pitchers look “good enough” to get to the bigs but are only throwers when they arrive. They have no idea how to get batters out if they don’t have their wicked curve or devastating fast ball. So they end up in bad spots in a game and labor more to get outs. This puts strain on their arms.
    2. Because they’ve pitched fewer innings, their arms haven’t built up the stamina needed to pitch in the bigs.
    3. Coaches/managers don’t have as much exposure to each pitcher’s tendencies, so when the pitcher tires, they miss the early signs of fatigue and don’t take them out. Tired innings are more of an issue than total innings. Tired innings could be based on pitch count, but my guess is the range in pitch count at which a pitcher begins to tires is something like 30. So they might tire at 80, or at 110, depending on if they were hangin with Kyle Farnsworth the night before or not. So the eh-we’ll-split-the-difference approach to pull a pitcher at 90 or 100 pitches wastes them when they are going well, and kills them when they struggle through.

    If it isn’t clear by now, I think both pitch and inning counts are pretty dumb. I don’t think Uncle Dave even went far enough in his comments. For the moment, I think MLB is stuck with them, because they’ve screwed up the kids in the minors so much that they have to teach pitching and build strength in the majors. For me, bottom line, if you don’t think a rookie starter can pitch 180 innings in the bigs, you haven’t pitched him enough in the minors.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  32. Rizzo the Rat

    Ugh. Verlander/Sale game was rained out. Why does God hate pitching duels between teams in contention with one another?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  35. mb21

    SVB wrote:

    If it isn’t clear by now, I think both pitch and inning counts are pretty dumb.

    I think by themselves they are, but I would limit most starting pitcher’s innings by not allowing them to face the lineup the 4th time around. The worst starters probably wouldn’t even get to face them the 3rd time around and only the elite starters would go deeper than 3 times through the order.

    A league average hitter the 4th time facing a pitcher in the same game becomes a very good hitter. At that point every reliever on the roster is going to be more effective than the average starter. Even the mop-up relievers. That’s when I take a pitcher out: when the average reliever is more effective than the starter as it relates to times through the order. For pitchers like Clemens, RJ and Maddux it just might be that they’re more effective that 4th time through than the average reliever at which point my decision would be dictated by the score of the game. If it’s close and late, I’d go to my late inning guys to nail it down. If it’s a big lead, I’d probably leave them in to save the bullpen, which I would use a hell of a lot more than teams do these days.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  36. mb21

    mb21 wrote:

    which I would use a hell of a lot more than teams do these days.

    That may or may not be true. I would use my 8th and 9th inning guys a hell of a lot more than they are used today, but I would probably limit the amount of innings that the middle guys get.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  37. mobile skip

    @ mb21:
    I’m fine with that. The data backing this strategy is really strong. But I mighjt be less inclkined to do so in the minors so that pitchers could learn the mental side better-pitch not throw. Of course in the minors it may be that hitters effectiveness goes up the secind time through.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  48. Rizzo the Rat

    mb21 wrote:

    If it’s a big lead, I’d probably leave them in to save the bullpen, which I would use a hell of a lot more than teams do these days.

    You’d leave Clemens and Maddux in to save the bullpen? Where are your priorities?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  49. Rizzo the Rat

    If I had a Clemens or a Maddux (or even a Mussina or Glavine) I’d do my best not to waste them when I have a large lead. Let the middle reliever blow his arm out for all I care; I’m not wasting my ace when the game outcome is already decided.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  53. Rizzo the Rat

    @ josh:
    Any time they’re throwing they’re risking injury. I don’t want to risk Maddux getting injured with an 8-run lead. Pitching a lot of innings probably also puts “mileage” on an arm. Pitchers get worse over time (as velocity declines), and I’d be surprised if the repeated stress of throwing more doesn’t speed up the decline.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  56. Rizzo the Rat

    @ Rizzo the Rat:
    And, frankly, I think going deep into a game might be an overrated skill, anyway. I think I’d rather have my Clemens or Maddux start more games, but not go as deep (on average). If my offense scores 8 runs in the first, my ace comes out really early and maybe has his next start moved up.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  57. Rizzo the Rat

    Of course, if I did that, my ace would be pissed off for costing him a sure win. Oh, well. I’m talking more about an idealized world wherein pitchers are emotionless automata.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  58. mb21

    @ Rizzo the Rat:
    Even though low stress pitches are easy on the arm and just about ever starter tells us the games starters should go deep is precisely those games? Yeah, I’m leaving them in in blowouts and I’d be getting them out earlier in close games. Adds up to the same number of innings.

    Obviously I won’t be leaving them in for 150 pitches or anything. 120 would probably be the max I’d allow in any game.

    By the way, if Maddux ever becomes a pitching coach you can be guaranteed that starters stay in longer in blowouts. He did it his entire career and talked about it several times.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  59. Rizzo the Rat

    @ mb21:
    Why use your best pitcher in a low-leverage situation? It makes no sense to me and seems exactly backwards. And even in a “low-stress” situation, there’s appreciable risk involved.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  60. mb21

    @ Rizzo the Rat:
    So you’re going back to the days in which pitchers didn’t get regular work and were less effective?

    By the way, I’m perfectly fine with going back to a 4 man rotation. The best starters should probably be pitching every 4th day right now anyway.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  61. Rizzo the Rat

    mb21 wrote:

    So you’re going back to the days in which pitchers didn’t get regular work and were less effective?

    What? That’s not what I said. I said they’d probably pitch more often and not go as deep, especially if the leverage is low.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  63. Rizzo the Rat

    @ mb21:
    I don’t see the point of leaving in the best pitcher to “play catch.” Under your scheme, the ace would have the same number of innings, but less impact on the game outcome. Is that really what you want?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  64. mb21

    @ Rizzo the Rat:
    I don’t know if he’d have less impact, but the team would theoretically win more games by replacing the starter at the point one of the relievers would be as or more effective. Fewer close games would be blown by a tired starter.

    The one thing I wouldn’t do is send him out there for 40 pitches one game and 117 the next like they used to do and that’s what you are suggesting by taking them out real early and bringing them back on less rest.

    Truthfully though, if I had my way I’d go back to the 4-man rotation and I’d carry 4-6 relievers. I would use starters for an inning on their throw day if needed.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  65. mb21

    Me? I’m not nearly as concerned about overworking a pitcher as some are. I figure a pitcher has a certain number of innings in their arm. They’re like Walter White: a time bomb tick, tick, ticking away.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  66. Rizzo the Rat

    mb21 wrote:

    I figure a pitcher has a certain number of innings in their arm.

    …which is exactly why I’d try to use my ace in innings that matter as much as possible. And, yes, in your scheme the ace (I’m not talking about starters generally, just the Clemenses and Madduxes) would pitch in more low-leverage situations, since you’re leaving them in for blowouts and taking them out of close games.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  67. Rizzo the Rat

    mb21 wrote:

    The one thing I wouldn’t do is send him out there for 40 pitches one game and 117 the next like they used to do and that’s what you are suggesting by taking them out real early and bringing them back on less rest.

    Do you have any evidence that a more varied pitch count makes them less effective?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  68. Rizzo the Rat

    I will say this, though: if someone can make a convincing argument that leaving the ace in during a blowout is good for him, I’d buy into that. But “saving the bullpen”? Hell no. Clemens is worth more to me than a dozen typical bullpen arms. His needs come first, always, and if it’s even slightly good (for him) to pull him out of a blowout with a low pitch count, that’s what I do. As I said, priorities.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  70. josh

    @ GBTS:
    True, but you see that all the time, where they do that slide, and hit the bag with their back foot first. Maybe they figure it’s a “neighborhood” type thing, like the ump won’t be able to tell and it’s better not to risk injury? I don’t know.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  71. Rizzo the Rat

    mb21 wrote:

    Truthfully though, if I had my way I’d go back to the 4-man rotation and I’d carry 4-6 relievers.

    Oh, I forgot about it, but The Book did find that the 5-man rotation was superior to the 4-man one (and the 6-man one), since it struck an optimal balance between resting the starter and giving the best starters too few starts. Whether this would still be true if starters didn’t pitch as deep into games as they do now is worth looking into, though.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  73. mb21

    @ Rizzo the Rat:
    Yeah, they found that the usage pattern in the 4-man rotation era wasn’t as effective, but if you do a better job of limiting pitches it almost certainly would be an improvement. It really doesn’t matter. We’re not going to squeeze but a win or two at the most out of the team if we did this. However, I wouldn’t have to watch 5th starters starting 20% of the games so that’s a huge improvement as far as I’m concerned.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  80. mobile skip

    @ josh:
    Normally they have the story that would put me with you except one thing: Peter Angelos, dickhead.
    My next “normally” option would be Wash, but their Strasaurg decision hasa put me off.
    So I’m still for Detroit.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  82. josh

    The O’s radio guy just reminded me of the Indians. I thought they would make some noise this year. They had such an amazing start last year, and then fell off the map. They were at least doing okay this year, then fell off the map. Weird team. No endurance, maybe?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  83. Rice Cube

    (dying laughing) Santiago Casilla just got a RBI base hit and didn’t know he could run through first base. This is why pitchers shouldn’t be allowed to hit (dying laughing) Even when they get a hit they’re clueless.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  86. mb21

    @ SVB:
    There are a few things I have to do yet, but for the most part it’s done. Should look a hell of a lot better on your phone now. The sidebar will drop below the content so if you aren’t logged in you’ll have to remember the login box is below the content (though I may try and put this in the menu).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  97. BapspousnuT

    #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] http://lvninki.com/ #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] [url=http://lvninki.com/]{ルイヴィトン 財布|ルイヴィトン バッグ|ルイヴィトン 財布 新作 2013|ルイヴィトン 店舗][/url] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] http://bestguccija.com/ #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] [url=http://bestguccija.com/]{GUCCI 財布|GUCCI アウトレット|GUCCI バッグ|グッチ 財布|グッチ アウトレット 公式|グッチ バッグ][/url] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] http://www.tokui1japgucchi.com/ #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] [url=http://www.tokui1japgucchi.com/]{GUCCI 財布|GUCCI アウトレット|GUCCI バッグ|グッチ 財布|グッチ アウトレット 公式|グッチ バッグ}[/url] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] http://www.mcmjapautoretto.asia/ #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] [url=http://www.mcmjapautoretto.asia/]{MCM 財布|MCM 店舗|MCM バッグ|MCM リュック|mcm}[/url] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] http://guccibuyja.com/ #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] [url=http://guccibuyja.com/]{GUCCI 財布|GUCCI アウトレット|GUCCI バッグ|グッチ 財布|グッチ アウトレット 公式|グッチ バッグ][/url] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] http://www.susumeinsyaneru.com/ #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] [url=http://www.susumeinsyaneru.com/]{シャネル バッグ|シャネル 財布|chanel バッグ|chanel 財布}[/url] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] http://lvfashionjp.com/ #random[A..Z]#random[a..z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] #random[A..Z]#random[a..z]#random[A..Z] [url=http://lvfashionjp.com/]{ルイヴィトン 財布|ルイヴィトン バッグ|ルイヴィトン 財布 新作 2013|ルイヴィトン 店舗][/url]

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment