Dusty Baker: Arm killer?

[Eric_the_Red]

This article was linked in CTR's blog today:
http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/02/23/dustys-trail-a-ticket-to-operating-table/


The criticism stings Baker, but not so much because of what it means to him. Baker said he feels empathy for the pitchers who have gotten hurt under his watch.

"I'm a responsible person," he said. "If anything, I might be overly responsible for things that aren't in my responsibility realm. That's how my dad was. That's how he taught me to be. ... I feel badly for whoever gets hurt in this game. Anyone who knows me knows I'm not that hard-hearted of a person. You put it past you and move forward. I haven't changed."

[westofyou]

Billy Martin killed more arms in 10 years than Dusty could in 30.

[Chip R]

Billy Martin killed more arms in 10 years than Dusty could in 30.


And his partner in crime Art Fowler.

[westofyou]

And his partner in crime Art Fowler.

Without a doubt, Art did some work on his own in California in 64-65 too

[Always Red]

The PAP "pitcher abuse points" that they reference is sketchy science as well. Baseball Prospectus came up with that one.

Nearly every year, the best pitchers in the league wind up being "the most abused."

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=68783

Most Abused of 2009: Verlander, Lincecum, Edwin Jackson.

2008: Lincecum, Sabathia, Halladay

2007: Matsuzaka, Zambrano, Burnett

Daisuke followed up his year of non-stop abuse with an 18-3, 2.90 ERA; Lincecum followed his up with a Cy Young Award!

Sounds more like a "pitching studs list" than a pitchers abuse list to me.

Abuse does happen; but IMO, this is not very scientific, nor accurate.

[alexad]

Pitchers are babies. Pay them 10 million a year to pitch 175 innings. Come on!? Love the guys who pitch 200 plus innings and go 7-8 innings a game.

[TheNext44]

The PAP "pitcher abuse points" that they reference is sketchy science as well. Baseball Prospectus came up with that one.

Nearly every year, the best pitchers in the league wind up being "the most abused."

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=68783

Most Abused of 2009: Verlander, Lincecum, Edwin Jackson.

2008: Lincecum, Sabathia, Halladay

2007: Matsuzaka, Zambrano, Burnett

Daisuke followed up his year of non-stop abuse with an 18-3, 2.90 ERA; Lincecum followed his up with a Cy Young Award!

Sounds more like a "pitching studs list" than a pitchers abuse list to me.

Abuse does happen; but IMO, this is not very scientific, nor accurate.

Their cut off line is 100 pitches, every pitch beyond that gets abuse points, and the further you get from 100 the more abuse points each pitch is worth.

I really would have expected more from BP, since they clearly just picked a big round number, instead of using actual research to determine what the real breaking point is for pitch counts and arm injuries.

Back in the 80's, when pitch counts really started to matter, the number that seemed to lead to the most injuries was 120 for pitchers 25 years and younger. There was a big SI article about it and how Gooden was likely to have arm problems as he got older.

As far as I know, there really is no evidence that pitching too many pitches per start for pitchers older than 25, or that young arms throwing less than 120 pitches per game lead to injury. IIRC, many older pitchers in the 60's and 70's threw as many as 200 pitches a game somewhat regularly, with no ill effects.

And even that 120 mark for young arms is not absolute, as evidence by the Cubs of 2003. They had Prior, Wood and Zambrano all throw over 210 innings, over 3200 pitches and all had almost the same number of games with 120+ pitches (Prior 14, Zambrano and Wood 12 each). Prior and Wood blew out their arms and Zambrano is still a TOR pitcher today. I do think that Dusty "abused" all three arms, but Wood's mechanics and Prior's "abuse" in college probably had has much or more to do with their injuries than Dusty.

And it seems to me that just as many arms get injured today, as they did back before pitch counts started to be in fashion, but that more guys recover today due to advances in surgery and training.

[TheNext44]

Pitchers are babies. Pay them 10 million a year to pitch 175 innings. Come on!? Love the guys who pitch 200 plus innings and go 7-8 innings a game.

In 1970, in Gaylord Perry's last 14 games of the season, he threw 10 complete games, four shutouts, and on three days rest 9 times. That was his ninth year in the majors and he only was able to pitch for 13 more seasons after that.

[westofyou]

In 1970, in Gaylord Perry's last 14 games of the season, he threw 10 complete games, four shutouts, and on three days rest 9 times. That was his ninth year in the majors and he only was able to pitch for 13 more seasons after that.
Joe Coleman and Steve Busby say that's an outlier right there.

[TheNext44]

Joe Coleman and Steve Busby say that's an outlier right there.

Perry definitely was a freak of nature, the definition of an outlier.

But I would love to see some research done on arm injuries pre and post pitch count days. I know post will have fewer, because of better and smarter training, medical advancements, and the 5 man rotation. But I would still like to see the numbers.

[Eric_the_Red]

The trouble with trying to find any solid "evidence" in pitch counts is that there are so many variables: pitcher mechanics, types of pitches thrown, velocity, physical differences between different pitches, number of pitches thrown on the side/during warm-ups, previous use in amateur ball/minors/overseas, etc. I just don't see any way to come up with a tried and true rule about the number of pitches thrown.

Maybe Dusty has it right- ask the pitcher while trusting your eyes, and make a decision.

[edabbs44]

Carlos Zambrano is the #1 contender for breakdown every year.

[Caveat Emperor]

Carlos Zambrano is the #1 contender for breakdown every year.

Though, if you keep predicting the same thing over and over, it's hard to take a lot of credit when you're right.

[dougdirt]

Pitchers are babies. Pay them 10 million a year to pitch 175 innings. Come on!? Love the guys who pitch 200 plus innings and go 7-8 innings a game.

Pitchers aren't babies just to be babies. They are conditioned differently now than ever before. The guys that used to fall off the table before reaching the majors before aren't doing so as often because they are now babied in high school, college and the minors. It used to be the guys who could handle the large workloads would all make the majors because the ones who couldn't never made it there as they fell off with injuries in HS, college and the minors. So you generally had the rubber armed guys at the majors because they were the only survivors. Top it off with that the guys were throwing more and at a younger age, which also led to built up arm strength for the guys who could get through the gauntlet.

[Always Red]

Joe Coleman and Steve Busby say that's an outlier right there.

yep- the ole bell shaped curve.


Their cut off line is 100 pitches, every pitch beyond that gets abuse points, and the further you get from 100 the more abuse points each pitch is worth.

I really would have expected more from BP...

And even that 120 mark for young arms is not absolute, as evidence by the Cubs of 2003. They had Prior, Wood and Zambrano all throw over 210 innings, over 3200 pitches and all had almost the same number of games with 120+ pitches (Prior 14, Zambrano and Wood 12 each). Prior and Wood blew out their arms and Zambrano is still a TOR pitcher today. I do think that Dusty "abused" all three arms, but Wood's mechanics and Prior's "abuse" in college probably had has much or more to do with their injuries than Dusty.

And it seems to me that just as many arms get injured today, as they did back before pitch counts started to be in fashion, but that more guys recover today due to advances in surgery and training.

I am loathe to defend the Duster, but I've read in many places that it was a front office decision to ride Woods, Prior and Zambrano. So how much of it is Dusty's blame? I don't know, but he has taken the rap for the entire organization.

[redsfandan]

Dusty was a major league manager for the Giants for 10 years before he managed the Cubs. Did he have the reputation of an "arm killer" when he first arrived in Chicago?

I think his 4 years in Chicago, and more specifically Prior and Wood, is all some people care about when it comes to Dusty.

[mbgrayson]

Dusty was a major league manager for the Giants for 10 years before he managed the Cubs. Did he have the reputation of an "arm killer" when he first arrived in Chicago?

I think his 4 years in Chicago, and more specifically Prior and Wood, is all some people care about when it comes to Dusty.

Look back a little further in the RedsZone archives...

'Dusty Baker's Pitch Count History' (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63038)from 2007. Some good stuff in that one.....

[dougdirt]

Dusty was a major league manager for the Giants for 10 years before he managed the Cubs. Did he have the reputation of an "arm killer" when he first arrived in Chicago?

I think his 4 years in Chicago, and more specifically Prior and Wood, is all some people care about when it comes to Dusty.

While in San Francisco Baker still had his pitchers throwing a lot more than league average almost every year.

[TheNext44]

While in San Francisco Baker still had his pitchers throwing a lot more than league average almost every year.

Dusty likes his pitchers going deep into games, no doubt. But with the Giants, Shawn Estes was the only pitcher younger than 25 that Dusty really gave a lot of innings to. Russ Ortiz and Livan Hernandez got a lot of innings at age 25, but they went onto long, successful careers.

Most of his Giants' pitchers were veterans in their late 20's-early 30's who should be able to handle 200 innings.

[TheNext44]

Dusty was a major league manager for the Giants for 10 years before he managed the Cubs. Did he have the reputation of an "arm killer" when he first arrived in Chicago?

I think his 4 years in Chicago, and more specifically Prior and Wood, is all some people care about when it comes to Dusty.

Yep, it's all about Prior and Wood. Very easy marks for lazy journalists.

I wonder why no one comments on the abuse that Bobby Cox gives his pitchers? His starters always seem to give 200 innings every year, no matter their age.

You could say he "ruined" Steve Avery and Horatio Ramirez and maybe stunted Kevin Millwood's development. Maybe after we see what happens with Jurrjens, people will notice it. "shrug"

[dougdirt]

Dusty likes his pitchers going deep into games, no doubt. But with the Giants, Shawn Estes was the only pitcher younger than 25 that Dusty really gave a lot of innings to. Russ Ortiz and Livan Hernandez got a lot of innings at age 25, but they went onto long, successful careers.

Most of his Giants' pitchers were veterans in their late 20's-early 30's who should be able to handle 200 innings.

Except only about 30-35 pitchers each year throw 200 innings. The idea that someone SHOULD be able to handle it is why pitchers get hurt. It has nothing to do with young pitchers and everything to do with all pitchers. Dusty works his starters harder than the average guy does and has since he became a manager in major league baseball. That probably isn't a good sign.

[edabbs44]

I'm still trying to figure out if it was Baker's overuse or Prior's and Wood's mechanics. I guess it all depends on who you speak to.

[TRF]

Yep, it's all about Prior and Wood. Very easy marks for lazy journalists.

I wonder why no one comments on the abuse that Bobby Cox gives his pitchers? His starters always seem to give 200 innings every year, no matter their age.

You could say he "ruined" Steve Avery and Horatio Ramirez and maybe stunted Kevin Millwood's development. Maybe after we see what happens with Jurrjens, people will notice it. "shrug"

Cox used a 4 man rotation until 1995. His pitchers were used to the heavier workload and a different routine. And well, three of those guys are going to the HOF for a reason.

And the Braves have always had that throw, throw, throw philosophy. It may have destroyed Steve Avery's arm, but they have also had a ton of success.

[TheNext44]

Except only about 30-35 pitchers each year throw 200 innings. The idea that someone SHOULD be able to handle it is why pitchers get hurt. It has nothing to do with young pitchers and everything to do with all pitchers. Dusty works his starters harder than the average guy does and has since he became a manager in major league baseball. That probably isn't a good sign.

There are around 120 pitchers who have the opportunity to throw 200 innings (1-4 starters for 30 teams). In order to throw 200+ innings, you have to average around 7 innings a game, which means that you are very good. Bad pitchers, even average pitchers, no matter the manager, cannot log 200+ innings.

So it makes sense that around a fourth of all starting pitchers are good enough to reach 200 innings. Only 30-35 pitchers reach 200 inning? Sounds like the right number to me.

What studies have been done that show that pitchers over 25, who throw 200+ innings, are more likely to get injured than those that don't? I haven't seen any. I would love to see them if there are any.

[TheNext44]

Cox used a 4 man rotation until 1995. His pitchers were used to the heavier workload and a different routine. And well, three of those guys are going to the HOF for a reason.

And the Braves have always had that throw, throw, throw philosophy. It may have destroyed Steve Avery's arm, but they have also had a ton of success.

I completely agree on all counts. Which is why I don't buy into the whole pitch count philosophy that has dominated baseball recently. Throw, throw, throw philosophy has been shown to be very successful. I don't know why more teams don't adopt it.

[mbgrayson]

I'm still trying to figure out if it was Baker's overuse or Prior's and Wood's mechanics. I guess it all depends on who you speak to.

With any given pitcher, it is impossible to pin down exactly what caused a problem.

But all of this is not the point. The point is that year after year, from S.F. thru Chicago to Cincinnati, Dusty has pushed his pitchers harder than most other managers. He has had more pitchers exceed 120 pitches a game than others, and more than his fair share of pitcher injuries.

In the other thread from 2007 (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63038), I like this quote from RedManRick:



The smoking analogy is absolutely the right one in my opinion. Throwing lots of pitches in a single outing increases ones chances of getting injured and/or losing effectiveness. It is not a 100% cause/effect -- if you throw 130 pitches your arm falls off.

Smoking can lead to cancer. Sometimes it takes 15 years, sometimes it takes 70, sometimes you get hit by a bus at 34 and the smoking is irrelevant, and sometimes non-smokers get lung cancer. And sometimes, the smoker simply gets emphysema and has trouble breathing for the rest of his life. That said, I'm not going be passing out cigarettes to my kids.

The logic isn't complicated:
1.) Effective pitchers are extremely valuable because of their rarity. Young effective pitchers are even more valuable, due to their low cost.
2.) Throwing lots of pitches beyond 100 in a given outing(s), is proven (see able) to correlate with increased rates of injury.
3.) Therefore, it would be wise to avoid doing that thing which increases a pitchers chance to suffer injury.

You're right. Stopping at 100 pitches is not a silver bullet that will magically protect all your pitchers. Likewise, throwing 130 pitches does not guarantee the need for Tommy John surgery. However, just like taking out a starter after a long rain delay or giving him 4 days to recuperate after a start, there is a growing body of knowledge which suggests the best ways to maximize performance while minimizing chance for injury.

Baker simply doesn't appreciate the level of risk he's taking by constantly pushing his starters, particularly some of his highest risk starters, beyond 100-110 pitches. Arroyo in particular has shown to lose effectiveness after throwing a lot of pitches, despite his insistence that he likes pitching while tired. Getting those extra 10-20 pitches out of your starters is just a risk that just isn't worth taking -- and that's even assuming that pitches 115-130 from your starter are more effective than pitches 1-15 from a reliever.
__________________

[westofyou]

Cox used a 4 man rotation until 1995. His pitchers were used to the heavier workload and a different routine. And well, three of those guys are going to the HOF for a reason.

And the Braves have always had that throw, throw, throw philosophy. It may have destroyed Steve Avery's arm, but they have also had a ton of success.

Another thing that is glossed over is the fact that many of the guys who are outliers in Batters Faced and IP is that a good portion of them incurred theri development workload under low run scoring situations (llike the late 80's and early 90's) and that in turn helped them pitch more as they got older too. Guys like Glavine/Maddux/Schmoltz/Clemons all came up in the 80's.

Furthermore many of the guys that were studs as far as IP and BF's in the early 70's came up during the deadball 60's. Mickey Lolich even takes it a step further since he pitched with his less dominant arm since he was RH in everything he did save pitching.

How do guys stay old and pitch a lot if they don't come up during low scoring environments?

Usually by throwing less during their formative years, the body only has so many tosses in it and some guys realize that and cultivate it (Warren Spahn, Greg Maddux) others like Avery run out of tosses before their time.

[redsfandan]

Look back a little further in the RedsZone archives...

'Dusty Baker's Pitch Count History' (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63038)from 2007. Some good stuff in that one.....
Thanks but I'm not that sentimental when I'm eating breakfast.

Alot of managers don't handle their pitchers well. Take out Prior and Dusty is just another of those managers.

[Raisor]

Cox used a 4 man rotation until 1995. .

The only year you might be able to make this case is in 93, where Pete Smith only had 14 starts.

In 91, 17 starts from the "5th" guys
92: 25 from Smith and Bielcki
93" Pete Smith 14
94: Strike shortened year 17 starts by Merker.

[dougdirt]

Thanks but I'm not that sentimental when I'm eating breakfast.

Alot of managers don't handle their pitchers well. Take out Prior and Dusty is just another of those managers.

Except that isn't the case at all. As has been shown, Dusty has his pitchers throw more pitches per start than other managers. That isn't an opinion or a debatable point. He does it and has done it since he began managing.

[RedsManRick]

I completely agree on all counts. Which is why I don't buy into the whole pitch count philosophy that has dominated baseball recently. Throw, throw, throw philosophy has been shown to be very successful. I don't know why more teams don't adopt it.

Just like people hurt their backs when lifting something using poor technique, pitchers hurt their arms/shoulders when pitching with poor technique.

Some pitchers use poor technique from the start and are bound to become injured at some point. Other pitchers have generally "safer" mechanics. However, when anybody's muscles become tired, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the proper form.

So there are two issues here. The issue of "throw, throw, throw" is fine -- long toss and the like build arm strength, endurance more accurately, which allows the pitcher to pitch longer in a given session while maintaining his mechanics/technique/form. That is to be encouraged.

What should not be encouraged is having a pitcher continue to pitch in a given session beyond the point at which he's able to maintain his mechanics or to the point where his muscles are so fatigued that the tiny tears which we experience as soreness grow in to big tears (strains).

The Japanese are excellent on both fronts in terms of using mechanics that are less stressful and encouraging more frequent throwing to build arm strength. That said, I wonder how many pitchers from Japan today or the majors 30 years ago threw 250-300 innings for 15 years compared to the guys who do 180-200 for that long today. For every Nolan Ryan or Steve Carlton (and I don't think there were many of them...) there's a Sandy Koufax who did break down and was never the same again.

The other difference with today's pitchers is that they are throwing more types of pitches which are particularly stressful, such as the split-finger fastball and the slider. And they are facing lineups where every guy is a threat and the pitcher has fewer opportunities to coast and recover a bit during a start.

As for Dusty, as I said earlier, I don't know with certainty that Dusty has caused pitchers to break down. I do know however, that he has pushed his pitchers harder than almost any other manager. If there is increased risk with longer outings, then Dusty is taking it. And given both the immense value of young, cheap, effective starters and the minor difference between the last 20 pitches of a starter and the first 20 pitches of a reliever, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution... whether your definition of caution is 100 pitches or if it's 90 for one guy and 110 for another. What's clear is that Dusty does not err on the side of caution.

[Scrap Irony]

Dusty, according to Hardball Times columnist David Gassko in 2006:


In fact, these 17 pitchers did indeed throw more innings per start with Baker at the helm, though the magnitude of the difference was not as great as might have been expected. In total, Dusty Baker added 3.09 pitches to each start, or about 100 pitches a season. Basically, pitching for Dusty was the equivalent of making an extra start—probably not a killer.

But while comparing a pitcher's years with Dusty as the manager to the years surrounding helps eliminate a lot of problems, since we're comparing pitchers to themselves, it is not a method without problems. First of all, our sample—only 17 pitchers—is kind of small. Secondly, we don't know what impacted their pitch counts without Dusty. Maybe they were just worse pitchers without the guru of the complete game?

So let's try another method, just for fun. Let's take every pitcher season beginning in 2000, 394 in total, with six seasons worth of data, and try to predict pitch counts while controlling for everything in the universe that needs to be controlled for. In this case, "everything" means hits, walks, strikeouts, league, and year. Essentially what we're asking is this: "Given that a pitcher allowed this many hits and this many walks, struck out this many batters, played in this season, and in this league, how many pitches per start would we expect him to throw?"

Why all the controls? We want to avoid biases. For example, while Baker is often accused of making Prior or Wood or Zambrano throw too many pitches, the fact is, they should be throwing more innings than the average pitcher, because they're better than the average pitcher. Perhaps it's not that Baker overuses his pitchers, but that he simply has been blessed with a good starting staff.

That's actually probably part of the answer. Nevertheless, even after we control for all these variables, Baker's pitchers still throw 3.68 more pitches per start than expected. That's maybe an extra start-and-a-fifth a year. It's about 5-10 extra innings.

So it seems that to claim that Baker ruins pitchers' careers is hyperbolic at the least. Even if we account for the fact that younger pitchers should probably be throwing less innings, Baker still isn't quite the monster people make him out to be. Nevertheless, if he is worth 5-6 extra pitches per outing for a young pitcher, that may indeed be significant. There's certainly no reason not to be on the cautious side, and Baker's lack of caution with high-pitch outings is certainly disconcerting.

But Dusty Baker is not a professional arm shredder; he only leaves his starters out there for about three-and-a-half more pitches than expected. Prior and Wood have had injury troubles, but so do many young pitchers. Perhaps it isn't Baker, but just bad luck. Perhaps the Cubs should have never pissed off that Billy Goat.

[TheNext44]

Just like people hurt their backs when lifting something using poor technique, pitchers hurt their arms/shoulders when pitching with poor technique.

Some pitchers use poor technique from the start and are bound to become injured at some point. Other pitchers have generally "safer" mechanics. However, when anybody's muscles become tired, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the proper form.

So there are two issues here. The issue of "throw, throw, throw" is fine -- long toss and the like build arm strength, endurance more accurately, which allows the pitcher to pitch longer in a given session while maintaining his mechanics/technique/form. That is to be encouraged.

What should not be encouraged is having a pitcher continue to pitch in a given session beyond the point at which he's able to maintain his mechanics or to the point where his muscles are so fatigued that the tiny tears which we experience as soreness grow in to big tears (strains).

The Japanese are excellent on both fronts in terms of using mechanics that are less stressful and encouraging more frequent throwing to build arm strength. That said, I wonder how many pitchers from Japan today or the majors 30 years ago threw 250-300 innings for 15 years compared to the guys who do 180-200 for that long today. For every Nolan Ryan or Steve Carlton (and I don't think there were many of them...) there's a Sandy Koufax who did break down and was never the same again.

The other difference with today's pitchers is that they are throwing more types of pitches which are particularly stressful, such as the split-finger fastball and the slider. And they are facing lineups where every guy is a threat and the pitcher has fewer opportunities to coast and recover a bit during a start.

As for Dusty, as I said earlier, I don't know with certainty that Dusty has caused pitchers to break down. I do know however, that he has pushed his pitchers harder than almost any other manager. If there is increased risk with longer outings, then Dusty is taking it. And given both the immense value of young, cheap, effective starters and the minor difference between the last 20 pitches of a starter and the first 20 pitches of a reliever, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution... whether your definition of caution is 100 pitches or if it's 90 for one guy and 110 for another. What's clear is that Dusty does not err on the side of caution.

I agree with all your points until the last paragraph, which seems to conflict with what you said until then.

The fact that one should not pitch a fatigued pitcher, especially a young one; the fact that the pitches one throws impacts the wear on it as much as the number of pitches; the fact that training plays a big part on the wear on a pitchers arm; all tell me that it is ineffective to use pitch counts to determine how long to pitch a pitcher.

It seems to me that there are so many variables that the best method is to judge every pitcher on a game by game basis. Know the pitchers history and pitch selection, and watch to see if he is changing his delivery, losing velocity, losing control, or other signs of fatigue. A somewhat randomly selected number just seems like a silly way to go to decided whether or not to take a pitcher out.

You mention using caution, and I agree, but I just don't see why you need to use a pitch count as the basis for your decision on when to be cautious.

[redsfandan]

Except that isn't the case at all. As has been shown, Dusty has his pitchers throw more pitches per start than other managers. That isn't an opinion or a debatable point. He does it and has done it since he began managing.

Is Dusty far and away the worst manager at handling pitchers? So much worse than every other manager in the game today? He may very well be one of the 10 worst or even 5 worst managers as far as how they handle pitchers. I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. But how many are called an "arm killer"?

I think everyone would agree that Dusty isn't good with pitchers. But I bet that there are other managers that are also bad with pitchers but just don't receive nearly as much hate as Dusty. If you want to consider him an "arm killer" that's up to you but I doubt he's the only manager where the label could fit.

[WMR]

I hate the way Dusty handles our pitchers, but then again, I hate most things about the way he manages.

I want the Reds to do well, but I also feverently wish this is Dusty's last season as manager of the Reds. I think a new manager coinciding with the arrival of all the pieces we've got coming JUST down the pike will result in the energy shot this franchise needs to take the next step.

[OnBaseMachine]

Jeff Fletcher, the the guy who wrote the story linked in the first post, just tweeted this message regarding his story:

Since this story on Dusty Baker's use of pitchers, fmr pitch coach D.Pole and J.Schmidt contacted me to defend Dusty

http://twitter.com/JeffFletcherAOL

[mbgrayson]

As for Dusty, as I said earlier, I don't know with certainty that Dusty has caused pitchers to break down. I do know however, that he has pushed his pitchers harder than almost any other manager. If there is increased risk with longer outings, then Dusty is taking it. And given both the immense value of young, cheap, effective starters and the minor difference between the last 20 pitches of a starter and the first 20 pitches of a reliever, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution... whether your definition of caution is 100 pitches or if it's 90 for one guy and 110 for another. What's clear is that Dusty does not err on the side of caution.

That is IT in a nutshell. :thumbup:

Dusty's negatives are real, and there is also newer ancedotal evidence....Harang's 2008 decline after the relief outing, Harang in 2009 after coming back after the rain delay, Volquez's 2009 injury problems, etc. I know there are arguments about all of this, but I want to keep putting pressure on Dusty to be careful, because I think that is prudent.

It is interesting that Dick Pohle defends Dusty, and so does Harang, Woods, Prior, and everyone else that Dusty has worked with (that I know of...). Of course, they are all disciples of conventional pitching wisdom.

The Reds have great young pitching talent: Bailey, Cueto, Volquez, Leake, Chapman, Woods, etc., and that talent is our hope for a winning future. We need to safeguard that talent, and even if Dusty is only slightly pushing too hard, I want to pressure him to be careful.

I agree that the impacts are likely fairly small, and that we are blowing things out of proportion, especially with the thread title. But, where there is smoke, there is fire....even if it is a small little campfire...

[westofyou]

here are all the Giants starters who had at least 5 starts in a season while Dusty was manager.




AN FRANCISCO GIANTS
SEASON
1993-2002

BATTERS FACED displayed only--not a sorting criteria
INNINGS PITCHED displayed only--not a sorting criteria
GAMES STARTED >= 5
ERA vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RSAA displayed only--not a sorting criteria

AGE YEAR AGE BFP IP GS ERA RSAA
1 Danny Darwin 1998 42 660 148.2 25 -1.27 -24
2 Danny Darwin 1997 41 196 44 7 -.70 -4
T3 Orel Hershiser 1998 39 887 202 34 -.17 -8
T3 Mark Gardner 2001 39 398 91.2 15 -1.04 -15
5 Mark Gardner 2000 38 634 149 20 0.59 3
T6 Bud Black 1994 37 227 54.1 10 -.25 -2
T6 Mark Gardner 1999 37 613 139 21 -1.91 -36
T8 Bud Black 1993 36 394 93.2 16 0.49 2
T8 Scott Sanderson 1993 36 201 48.2 8 0.53 1
T8 Mark Gardner 1998 36 886 212 33 -.09 -7
11 Mark Gardner 1997 35 764 180.1 30 -.08 -4
12 Mark Gardner 1996 34 782 179.1 28 -.19 -4
13 Mark Leiter 1996 33 602 135.1 22 -.96 -14
T14 Bill Swift 1994 32 457 109.1 17 0.84 9
T14 Terry Mulholland 1995 32 666 149 24 -1.61 -31
T14 Mark Portugal 1995 32 445 104 17 0.03 -3
T14 Mark Leiter 1995 32 817 195.2 29 0.37 3
T18 Bill Swift 1993 31 928 232.2 34 1.22 23
T18 Kirk Rueter 2002 31 846 203.2 33 0.89 13
T18 Mark Portugal 1994 31 580 137.1 21 0.29 3
T21 Kirk Rueter 2001 30 840 195.1 34 -.06 -10
T21 Jose Bautista 1995 30 451 100.2 6 -2.25 -28
T21 Bryan Hickerson 1994 30 436 98.1 14 -1.18 -14
T21 Sergio Valdez 1995 30 290 66.1 11 -.56 -6
T25 John Burkett 1994 29 676 159.1 25 0.60 10
T25 Trevor Wilson 1995 29 354 82.2 17 0.26 0
T25 Jason Schmidt 2002 29 769 185.1 29 0.67 7
T25 Kirk Rueter 2000 29 799 184 31 0.68 6
T25 Chris Brock 1999 29 479 106.2 19 -.92 -16
T25 Jeff Brantley 1993 29 496 113.2 12 -.23 -7
T25 Pat Rapp 1997 29 154 33 6 -1.79 -7
T25 Bryan Hickerson 1993 29 525 120.1 15 -.22 -7
T33 John Burkett 1993 28 942 231.2 34 0.39 1
T33 Osvaldo Fernandez 1997 28 256 56.1 11 -.75 -5
T33 Jason Schmidt 2001 28 284 66.1 11 0.97 4
T33 Kirk Rueter 1999 28 804 184.2 33 -.84 -27
T33 Russ Ortiz 2002 28 911 214.1 33 0.50 5
T33 Shawn Estes 2001 28 693 159 27 0.34 -1
T39 Osvaldo Fernandez 1996 27 760 171.2 28 -.39 -7
T39 Trevor Wilson 1993 27 455 110 18 0.45 1
T39 Kirk Rueter 1998 27 806 187.2 33 -.13 -7
T39 Russ Ortiz 2001 27 911 218.2 33 1.07 16
T39 Shawn Estes 2000 27 829 190.1 30 0.38 0
T39 Livan Hernandez 2002 27 921 216 33 -.26 -14
T39 Wilson Alvarez 1997 27 283 66.1 11 -.27 -3
T46 William Van Landingham 1997 26 403 89 17 -.75 -9
T46 Ryan Jensen 2002 26 744 171.2 30 -.39 -13
T46 Kirk Rueter 1997 26 802 190.2 32 0.76 13
T46 Dave Burba 1993 26 408 95.1 5 -.20 -6
T46 Russ Ortiz 2000 26 871 195.2 32 -.38 -17
T46 Shawn Estes 1999 26 914 203 32 -.35 -18
T46 Livan Hernandez 2001 26 1008 226.2 34 -.88 -32
T46 Greg Brummett 1993 26 196 46 8 -.65 -5
T54 William Van Landingham 1996 25 810 181.2 32 -1.18 -24
T54 Allen Watson 1996 25 793 185.2 29 -.38 -8
T54 Joe Nathan 2000 25 426 93.1 15 -.57 -10
T54 Ryan Jensen 2001 25 193 42.1 7 0.11 -1
T54 Russ Ortiz 1999 25 922 207.2 33 0.75 7
T54 Shawn Estes 1998 25 661 149.1 25 -.83 -17
T54 Livan Hernandez 2000 25 1030 240 33 0.89 13
T61 William Van Landingham 1995 24 523 122.2 18 0.52 4
T61 Keith Foulke 1997 24 209 44.2 8 -4.05 -21
T61 Joe Nathan 1999 24 395 90.1 14 0.38 -1
T61 Russ Ortiz 1998 24 394 88.1 13 -.76 -9
T61 Shawn Estes 1997 24 849 201 32 1.03 20
T61 Livan Hernandez 1999 24 274 63.2 10 0.18 -2
T67 Jamie Brewington 1995 23 334 75.1 13 -.36 -5
T67 William Van Landingham 1994 23 363 84 14 0.68 6
T67 Steve Bourgeois 1996 23 198 40 5 -2.08 -9
T67 Shawn Estes 1996 23 305 70 11 0.62 5
T67 Joe Rosselli 1995 23 140 30 5 -4.52 -16
72 Salomon Torres 1994 22 378 84.1 14 -1.22 -12
73 Salomon Torres 1993 21 196 44.2 8 0.02 -2

[reds44]

Honestly, Dusty has been nowhere near as bad as I expected him to be. Yes, he pushes his pitchers, but IMO he's not even as bad with that as Narron was. His biggest flaw has been Taveras and Patterson in his first two season.

[WebScorpion]

Despite the SHOCKING story...and that's what this seems to be, a story built to shock you so you'll read it, I have no problem with the way Dusty has handled our pitchers since his arrival. I despise his lineups, and can't stand the way he trusts guys who 'should' perform but continue to fail, but his pitcher handling is fine. I heard all the stories before he arrived, which caused me to pay special attention to the way he handles our starters, and I really haven't seen anything that I completely disagree with. I saw most of Bailey's questionable games toward the end of last season and he was throwing free and easy after 100 pitches, with no signs of fatigue...he was getting as much velocity from his last pitches as his first ones. I thought he left him in as a sign to Homer and I feel it may have helped Homer's confidence which was really growing with each start. Homer needed the confidence badly and again, he showed no signs of fatigue. I'm no Dusty lover, but I consider his handling of our pitchers a point in his favor. :dunno:

[REDblooded]

Here's one thing that can't be disputed... Going back to 1999 Dusty-led teams have been ahead of the league average in PAP... Sometimes as much as TRIPLE the league average... Say what you want about what that ultimately means, but you can't argue that Dusty pushes his arms much more than normal...

[GAC]

Their cut off line is 100 pitches, every pitch beyond that gets abuse points, and the further you get from 100 the more abuse points each pitch is worth.

I really would have expected more from BP, since they clearly just picked a big round number, instead of using actual research to determine what the real breaking point is for pitch counts and arm injuries.

Bingo! :p:

I have nothing but respect for BP; but who set, or came up with, this cutoff number of 100 pitches? Every pitcher is different.

[MikeS21]

I'll say it again. If these young starters would stop needing 120 pitches just to get through 5 innings, this probably would be a moot point. ;)

[Scrap Irony]

Of all the managers in baseball last season, Baker's pitchers ranked the following in PAP:

15. Harang
18. Arroyo
40. Bailey
83. Cueto

That ranks behind the following managers in PAP points, per four starters:
Jimmy Leyland
Charlie Manuel
Bruce Bochy
Trey Hillman
Ron Washington

Manuel is far ahead of the next most "destructive" manager in the game (Leyland), with the rest of this group (and Baker) all much closer to the middle of the pack than Manuel (or, for that matter, Leyland). Joe Maddon and Terry Francona are also extremely close to Baker in terms of PAP. (And that with TOR starters on each team suffering extreme DL binges, negating the huge numbers they usually acrue.)

Yet Baker gets the reputation for ruining arms, while Manuel, Leyland, and others are given relatively free passes, or, worse, shown as beacons of intelligent pitcher usage?

That type of lazy assumption just doesn't hold water.

[GAC]

I'll say it again. If these young starters would stop needing 120 pitches just to get through 5 innings, this probably would be a moot point. ;)

That's absolutely true Mike. But I think that is a separate issue too vs this 100 pitch count benchmark, and anything after that is abuse.

What you're stating involves, IMO, learning HOW to pitch.

I really don't know how these guys do it to be honest - being able to throw a ball 90-100 mph on a consistent basis for several innings, even a complete game, plus make the ball do all that it does, and not destroy their arm. :lol:

It's just something that is not natural to the human body (arm).

Pitching itself is abuse.

[Spring~Fields]

Dusty Baker: Arm killer? How’s come they always ask such tough questions that no one seems to be able to definitively answer for certain?

Why don’t they ask simple questions like, is Dusty Baker a run scoring chance and opportunity killer?

Or

Does Dusty Baker's use of leadoff batters, precede more leadoff batters heading to the unemployment line or scrap heap, than most managers? Is Dusty Baker a leadoff hitter killer?

Or

Does Dusty Bakers offense strategies cost his teams more runs scored each season than most managers? Is Dusty Baker a runs scored killer?

Or

Does Dusty Bakers low scoring teams put additional stress on a pitchers mind, and thus indirectly put more stress on his pitchers arm?

Or

Which metric system of measurement is more effective and objective, Bakermetrics or Sabermetrics? Is Dusty Baker a stats interpretation and application killer?

Or

Based upon their individual answers to the five questions above, would a population if polled, vote to give Dusty Baker a hefty raise and contract extension, if asked to respond simply yes or no?

You know, something simplistic to answer, like those questions. :)

[redsmetz]

I was curious after reading mention of Koufax and wondered whether his arthritis was a result of pitching or a natural occurrence. Not surprisingly, it was a result of his pitching, although he pitched much like most every other pitcher at that time. The workloads today are small compared to what pitchers threw decades before. I'm not saying that as pitchers are babied today, because frankly there are tremendous investments in players and clubs want to maximize that investment. Of course, sports medicine has advanced considerably in the last 40 years (dating from Tommy Johns' surgery).

Here's a bit from Sports Illustrated from a book about Koufax. It recounts the end of the 1964 season and the beginning of 1965. It's gruesome, to say the least. And it's incredible to think Koufax pitched in 1965 and the next also.

I think Baker expects much from his pitchers. He's made a couple of moves, particularly with Harang, that were ill-advised and caused some problems, but overall I'm in the camp that thinks he's handled this staff reasonably well. And I think Bryan Price will be a great addition for Baker and the staff.

But this story about Koufax will put Baker in the molly coddling camp, to say the least.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2002/09/03/pitcher_perfect/