Did anyone notic that Mark Gonzalez mentioned

[RockRaines]

2008 IP to date is 150.3

2007 IP was 139.0

 

What was the litmus test on acceptable increases to innings pitched before breaking down your pitchers over the long term?

To be honest, I think that Danks has looked alot less taxed this season, so I dont think his IP are as bad as people would like to think, especially basing it on last year.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

2008 IP to date is 150.3

2007 IP was 139.0

 

What was the litmus test on acceptable increases to innings pitched before breaking down your pitchers over the long term?

 

 

Generally its considered 30

[ptatc]

2008 IP to date is 150.3

2007 IP was 139.0

 

What was the litmus test on acceptable increases to innings pitched before breaking down your pitchers over the long term?

 

 

Most coaches will use somewhere between 15-25% of the previous season, unless injuries are involved. This has no basis in the research literature and is strictly based on anecdotal evidence from coaches.

[thedoctor]

Most coaches will use somewhere between 15-25% of the previous season, unless injuries are involved. This has no basis in the research literature and is strictly based on anecdotal evidence from coaches.

 

you know, i've always had an issue with the innings pitched stat as it relates to pitcher health. wouldn't pitches thrown be a more reliable and accurate way to measure the chances of a pitcher breaking down? some pitchers can get through an inning in 10 pitches, others use many more.

 

kind of an off the topic thought but it's always something i've wondered about. i'm sure some of the more stats-oriented folks here could provide the rationale behind using innings pitched as a primary measure that dictates pitcher health.

[elrockinMT]

Richard should start the suspended game.

 

If we had Wilbur Wood on this team we wouldn't be having this discussion

[Balta1701]

2008 IP to date is 150.3

2007 IP was 139.0

 

What was the litmus test on acceptable increases to innings pitched before breaking down your pitchers over the long term?

At this point, it's a gamble either way. We're gambling Danks's long-term health if we try to push him 180-190 innings this year, but we're also gambling this season away if we try to bench him and go with both Richard and Broadway in the rotation. Damn Twins.

 

I'd still really like to give Danks 1 start off in September even if the Twins stay right on our tails.

[Pants Rowland]

At this point, it's a gamble either way. We're gambling Danks's long-term health if we try to push him 180-190 innings this year, but we're also gambling this season away if we try to bench him and go with both Richard and Broadway in the rotation. Damn Twins.

 

I'd still really like to give Danks 1 start off in September even if the Twins stay right on our tails.

 

And those reasons make me think they will not use the off days remaining to skip 5th spot in the rotation, whoever that 5th man will be.

[YASNY]

And those reasons make me think they will not use the off days remaining to skip 5th spot in the rotation, whoever that 5th man will be.

 

They might be able to work one skip, but you'd have some starters working on short rest because the calendar doesn't exactly match the rotation schedule.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ....YAE/index.html

 

This article details the 30 inning rule. Pretty much every pitcher he lists has either gotten hurt or seen his ERA go up significantly.

 

[scenario]

Here's a contrarian view from David Gassko of The Hardball Times.

 

Here's a key paragraph from the article/analysis...

 

Seems like Verducci is wrong. Verducci writes:

 

The bottom line: a dramatic increase in innings on a young pitcher elevates the risk of injury or a setback to their development.

 

But the evidence points to the opposite. Pitchers who see a large increase in workload are more likely to continue to be successful than those who don’t. It’s important to remember that correlation does not mean causation—just because throwing a lot more innings than a pitcher ever has before is correlated with future success does not mean that managers should be riding their young pitchers hard—but it does imply that Verducci’s argument is incorrect, and there is absolutely no reason that we should expect these YAE candidates to do worse because they’ve overworked.

[ptatc]

you know, i've always had an issue with the innings pitched stat as it relates to pitcher health. wouldn't pitches thrown be a more reliable and accurate way to measure the chances of a pitcher breaking down? some pitchers can get through an inning in 10 pitches, others use many more.

 

kind of an off the topic thought but it's always something i've wondered about. i'm sure some of the more stats-oriented folks here could provide the rationale behind using innings pitched as a primary measure that dictates pitcher health.

 

There was that debate. That is where the dreaded pitch count came from. While there isn't much research on it, pitchers who throw more than 130 pitches, more than a couple of times in a year tend to lose time with injuries.

 

Again, this is by no means good research. Alot depends on mechanics and many other reasons but the pitch count has become the standard on which to base pitcher's workload.

 

[ptatc]

Here's a contrarian view from David Gassko of The Hardball Times.

 

Here's a key paragraph from the article/analysis...

 

Seems like Verducci is wrong. Verducci writes:

 

The bottom line: a dramatic increase in innings on a young pitcher elevates the risk of injury or a setback to their development.

 

But the evidence points to the opposite. Pitchers who see a large increase in workload are more likely to continue to be successful than those who don’t. It’s important to remember that correlation does not mean causation—just because throwing a lot more innings than a pitcher ever has before is correlated with future success does not mean that managers should be riding their young pitchers hard—but it does imply that Verducci’s argument is incorrect, and there is absolutely no reason that we should expect these YAE candidates to do worse because they’ve overworked.

 

One of the flaws in the study, and he does admit there are a number of flaws, is that the number of pitches throw was not a variable. Sometimes the increased number of innings actually had a similar number of pitches. Meaning the young pitcher became more efficient at getting outs and therefore threw more innings.

 

Even with the flaws it is an interesting study and one of the few that has really looked into this problem. Like all good research the first few studies just find more questions and lead us in the right direction to study.

 

There will never be a study which satisfies this problem. Although baseball is a numbers game. The injuries are not. The are too many human variables which cloud the numbers.

 

My view is pretty simplistic, each pitcher only has a certain amount of work they can handle. The variables include but are not limited to body type, mechanics, genetics and work ethic. We can work with a number of them to prolong the career but no matter what we do there are always going to be the variables we can't control and the pitcher will eventually breakdown due to the stresses placed upon the body.

 

[claydude14]

Wow thanks for all the info and links on the innings pitched debate.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

One other thing, the 30 inning rule, it goes by the pitchers previous career high in innings, not the previous season. Danks' career high was 156 innings in 2006, so in a perfect world we can push him to around 186 innings, but that includes the playoffs (although I'm not sure if I like the idea of including playoffs, since pitchers are usually have more rest).