The price of success

[dougdirt]

FTR, if you go by Pitcher Abuse Points, Tim Lincecum is far and away the most abused pitcher in the last two years. How'd that work out?

We may find out soon enough. His fastball velocity dropped off big time last year compared to the year before. But just because someone defies the system doesn't mean it works that way for everyone or even most. Just about everything has outliers.

[dougdirt]

You have to learn to pitch those innings. You have to learn to pitch when you are slightly tired, when hitters have seen you 2 times already. You can't learn to pitch in those situations if you never are allowed to do so. You can't learn how to pitch in those situations during simulated games. I am in the camp that the end of last year will be a spring board for Homer's success and not part of the Verducci curse.

But then again this has been discussed in another thread and I don't think either sides are bending.

Its not about learning to pitch with a tired arm. You simply shouldn't pitch with a tired arm. It leads to a break down in mechanics, which leads to injuries.

[pedro]

We may find out soon enough. His fastball velocity dropped off big time last year compared to the year before. But just because someone defies the system doesn't mean it works that way for everyone or even most. Just about everything has outliers.

I'm still waiting for the proof that Dusty's starters throw more pitches than most every other managers.

[dougdirt]

I'm still waiting for the proof that Dusty's starters throw more pitchers than most every other managers.

From AOL Fanhouse - http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/02/23/d...erating-table/

Dusty Baker
	Pitches Per Start 	
Year 	Baker 	League 
1993 	86.7 	89.3 	
1994 	91.0 	88.8 	
1995 	89.6 	85.8 	
1996 	97.7 	83.1 	
1997 	94.9 	88.4 	
1998 	93.9 	91.6 	
1999 	103.8 	95.8 	
2000 	102.5 	97.2 	
2001 	99.7 	93.8 	
2002 	100.9 	93 	
2003 	103.5 	93.5 	
2004 	99.0 	93.8 	
2005 	97.7 	95.4 	
2006 	91.9 	94.5 	
2008 	97.9 	93.9 	
2009 	98.7 	94.4

More from the article:

Analysts at Baseball Prospectus have been studying possible overuse of pitchers since at least 1998, when they developed a metric known as Pitcher Abuse Points. PAP essentially counts pitches thrown over 100, adding weight to the extra pitches the higher the total goes.

Baker's teams were below the league average in PAP in his first three seasons, but since then they have been above in 12 of the past 13 years. In 2002 with the Giants and 2003 with the Cubs, Baker's teams racked up more than three times the number of PAP of the average among the other teams in the league.

With the Reds Baker has had 42% more PAP than the league average.

[pedro]

From AOL Fanhouse - http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/02/23/d...erating-table/

Dusty Baker
	Pitches Per Start 	
Year 	Baker 	League 
1993 	86.7 	89.3 	
1994 	91.0 	88.8 	
1995 	89.6 	85.8 	
1996 	97.7 	83.1 	
1997 	94.9 	88.4 	
1998 	93.9 	91.6 	
1999 	103.8 	95.8 	
2000 	102.5 	97.2 	
2001 	99.7 	93.8 	
2002 	100.9 	93 	
2003 	103.5 	93.5 	
2004 	99.0 	93.8 	
2005 	97.7 	95.4 	
2006 	91.9 	94.5 	
2008 	97.9 	93.9 	
2009 	98.7 	94.4

You're really going to hang your hat on 3-4 pitches per start over last 4 years? Honestly? Looks like he's pretty much average to me.

[TheNext44]

I'm still waiting for the proof that Dusty's starters throw more pitchers than most every other managers.

Actually, Doug is right, that Dusty's starters historically have thrown more pitches than the average pitcher. It was in an article posted here a week or so back. (which Doug has found)

However, there is no evidence that Dusty's starting pitchers break down at a greater rate than other manager's pitchers . Basically, Wood and Prior broke down together, right after spending time with Dusty, so everyone concluded that Dusty ruins arms.

If you look at his history, Dusty's pitchers as a whole have broken down at the same rate as any other manager's pitchers.

I have no more worries about Dusty ruining Reds pitchers than I had about Narron, Boone, McKeon, Johnson, or even Lou.

[dougdirt]

Pedro - see my post again, I hit submit too soon and have added more to it.

[pedro]

Actually, Doug is right, that Dusty's starters historically have thrown more pitches than the average pitcher. It was in an article posted here a week or so back.

However, there is no evidence that Dusty's starting pitchers break down at a greater rate than other manager's pitchers . Basically, Wood and Prior broke down together, right after spending time with Dusty, so everyone concluded that Dusty ruins arms.

If you look at his history, Dusty's pitchers as a whole have broken down at the same rate as any other manager's pitchers.

I have no more worries about Dusty ruining Reds pitchers than I had about Narron, Boone, McKeon, Johnson, or even Lou.

I saw it. It's so close to the average to be almost non existent.

I'd be very interested to see how other managers stack up against that. John Lackey threw 131 pitches in a game last year. Should we be calling for Mike Sciosia's head too?

[Eric_the_Red]

Pedro - see my post again, I hit submit too soon and have added more to it.

Besides pitches thrown, which is not really the point, where are the facts that show Dusty's pitchers break down or get injured above the normal rate?

[TheNext44]

From AOL Fanhouse - http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/02/23/d...erating-table/

Dusty Baker
	Pitches Per Start 	
Year 	Baker 	League 
1993 	86.7 	89.3 	
1994 	91.0 	88.8 	
1995 	89.6 	85.8 	
1996 	97.7 	83.1 	
1997 	94.9 	88.4 	
1998 	93.9 	91.6 	
1999 	103.8 	95.8 	
2000 	102.5 	97.2 	
2001 	99.7 	93.8 	
2002 	100.9 	93 	
2003 	103.5 	93.5 	
2004 	99.0 	93.8 	
2005 	97.7 	95.4 	
2006 	91.9 	94.5 	
2008 	97.9 	93.9 	
2009 	98.7 	94.4

More from the article:



With the Reds Baker has had 42% more PAP than the league average.

PAP points have been debated heavily, and all I can say succinctly is that they are pretty meaningless. No study, zero research has shown that pitches above the 100 count mark add additional wear and tear on a pitchers arm. The only studies that I have seen on the subject show that for pitchers under 25 years old, throwing over 120 pitches a game seems to lead to more injuries. I value RBI's more than I value PAP's.

[dougdirt]

PAP points have been debated heavily, and all I can say succinctly is that they are pretty meaningless. No study, zero research has shown that pitches above the 100 count mark add additional wear and tear on a pitchers arm. The only studies that I have seen on the subject show that for pitchers under 25 years old, throwing over 120 pitches a game seems to lead to more injuries. I value RBI's more than I value PAP's.

So you disagree that pitchers are more tired after pitch 100 than before it? And that pitchers don't maintain the same mechanics while tired? Or that off mechanics can cause injury?

[Eric_the_Red]

So you disagree that pitchers are more tired after pitch 100 than before it? And that pitchers don't maintain the same mechanics while tired? Or that off mechanics can cause injury?

Aren't pitchers more tired after pitch 50 than before it? Or pitch 90? Or 110?

Why is pitch 100 the magic number? Where is the evidence?

[bucksfan2]

Aren't pitchers more tired after pitch 50 than before it? Or pitch 90? Or 110?

Why is pitch 100 the magic number? Where is the evidence?

Its a nice big round number.

[TheNext44]

So you disagree that pitchers are more tired after pitch 100 than before it? And that pitchers don't maintain the same mechanics while tired? Or that off mechanics can cause injury?

This I agree with. When that point comes is dependent on so many factors that choosing a random, round number like 100 seems silly.

Watch the pitcher. If he is changing his mechanics, pull him. If he shows signs of laboring, pull him. Just don't use a convenient, round number to do the deciding for you.

[dougdirt]

Aren't pitchers more tired after pitch 50 than before it? Or pitch 90? Or 110?

Why is pitch 100 the magic number? Where is the evidence?

Sure. The thing is, every manager lets his guy throw 50 pitches. Just about all guys go 90 on a consistent basis. 100 is probably the 'magic' number because its where most managers start to make moves or preparation for moves.