Pitcher usage over time

El Tiante thinks that they are wimps.

 #4 pick Kerry Wood....

This is only anecdotal but I do remember seeing some old games and there were a lot of loopy slurvy pitches being thrown, the kind of stuff you don't see a lot of today. Hell, Bill Lee made a career out of striking nobody out and getting a huge ton of ground balls, or from the Tommy John family as Bill James would say.

My brother in Maine has played golf with Luis, (who has a summer home there) on a number of occasions and they talk a lot of baseball. Luis remains adamant that pitchers today are terribly babied.

A thought re shorter outings now is that there is greater emphasis on velo and pitchers are asked to 'throw as hard as you can as long as you can'...so they exhaust themselves earlier. And that max effort can lead to injury. Still, I remember an article in the Boston Herald so many years ago when Luis was then pitching for Cleveland and threw a shutout. The paper reported that he was still at 98 mph in the 9th inning. That stood out to me as it was almost unheard of then, certainly for the perennially pitching poor Sox.

In a game I listened to on radio when Luis was later with us he pitched 14 innings and threw something in the range of 160 pitches.

He was the consummate matador of a bygone era.

Has anyone ever done a study on where the danger zones are for innings in a season, pitches in a game, etc? I am fine with not having guys throw 135, 140, or more pitches. But it seems like even 120 is almost unheard of today, and truthfully that doesn’t seem more dangerous to me than 95-100 pitches.

I think the answer to the change is manifold:
A) survivor bias. There *were* plenty of Fidryches whose arms went kaboom. So we see the survivors and think the practice “worked,” or whatever.
B) guys didn’t try to strike out as many batters and tried to keep pitch counts lower. I suspect there were guys throwing 89-91 who could have been 94-95 if they thought it was worth it.
C) strategic change. With modern bullpens, there is less reason to throw a guy longer, no matter who he is.
D) investments... it is simply too expensive a risk to have, well, Sale miss a year and a half.

That is just a few — and others have been mentioned, too.

That said, it is impossible not to marvel at guys like Palmer in the 70s: 40 starts, 23 CGs in 1976, for example. And we have guys we hope make 23 STARTS.

I love Tanana. I actually often look at pitchers and try to imagine the Tanana Test: if you take away this guy’s fastball, could he reinvent himself? The answer is obviously almost always no (which is no sleight, since Tanana’s second career was amazing).

This isn't exactly what you're looking for but I often go back to these two sources on the matter:


bleacherreport.com/articles/1622573-do-innings-limits-pitch-counts-actually-prevent-serious-injuries


www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/09/predicting-tommy-john-surgeries-the-2017-update.html

The conclusion seems to be that there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest what pitch count is "correct" but modern pitchers aren't being allowed to train their arms to throw 110+ pitches on a consistent basis. Based on the second article (as many would predict) risk of injury is much more heavily correlated with repeatability of delivery, % of hard pitches thrown, and previous arm injuries.

I swear I remember reading an article discussing how the 100-pitch limit had zero basis in science and 100% basis in picking an easy even number, but I think the conclusion was once again that they couldn't find any evidence as to what the proper number should be.

I think the Braves released Tiant before the Sox picked him up and fortunately the Sox let him struggle with them in 1971 and didn't give up on him as you recall he really reinvented himself in 1972 with a great season that set the tone for the ones that would follow that one.

I think Manfred made some good points as to why things are the way they are with pitchers. I keep wondering where it's going on the evolutionary path - are we headed for 3 three inning pitchers per game? 9 one inning pitchers? Or will it eventually swing back the other way? How does what happens in college pitching against those aluminum bats impact those sorts of things, the usage by college coaches?

Well, obviously this is stupid. Athletes exhibit “toughness” all the time, as much as ever (I mean.... consider that the season is longer AND the playoffs are extended, for example). But when you raise only to dismiss shortened careers, you make the main point unconsciously: some fans want more from guys than they deserve. Do you go to the post office and ask the “wimpy” postmen why they don’t work double shifts to get you your Amazon packages faster? Athletes do a job that they get paid for, and they need to be able to play again tomorrow. What is wrong with better work conditions?

And, by the way, as a fan, I’d rather multiple 175 inning seasons from my favorite starter than a single epic 300 inning season, as briefly satisfying as that would be. If we could safely return to 200-220 innings a year, I’d prefer it. But if it is not for the best, I certainly won’t tell guys to rub some dirt on it.

No athlete gets paid to disable himself.

But, then again, I much prefer toilets to trees, so....

The question is, will we ever see another, say, Greg Maddux, who could flummox everyone while not overexerting himself, using his smarts? Baseball may be evolving toward something, but smart management would be to give the extraordinary talent a chance to reveal itself, and if it does, use it to its fullest extent whether or not it follows current trends.

What about the next Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn, who has relatively little interest in 3 true outcomes but can hit .350 to .400 in his prime? There has to be a place for that type of offensive player, and if you find one you should nurture it, because a .350 - .400 average IS better than a .350 - .400 OBP.

I get your general point but I wouldn't have done anything to change Boggs or Gwynn. Gywnn was a lifetime .338 hitter. He impacted for the good. I don't know if coaches trying to tweak his approach might have done more harm than good.

Boggs hit for power for one season and was able to keep his batting average sky high (.363 to be exact), but if he felt he could have done that consistently then he would have tried for more home runs - and as I recall 1987 was a year for the HRs (by 1980s standards anyways).

I think I remember him saying something to the affect that had he changed his swing his batting average decline would have dropped enough it wouldn't have been worth the increase in HRs.

When I think of this class of hitter, the names Pete Rose, Rod Carew, Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, and Ichiro come to mind. With the exception of Rose for obvious reasons and Ichiro because he isn't eligible yet, they're all HOFers, so messing around with their approach could have backfired dramatically on them.

They all offered different skills that supplemented their batting average driven approach.

Rose played several different defensive positions.
Carew played 2b where power doesn't matter as much (until he later moved to 1b).
Boggs drew a ton of walks and was an on-base machine and played a solid 3b
Gywnn was ultimately the best of the batting average guys - I mean the guy was an all-timer. .338 lifetime.
Ichiro supplemented his singles skills with speed and gold glove defense in RF.