Yesterday Joe Posnanski and Bill James had another of their interesting exchanges over at SI.com and this time the subject was the contemporary obsession with keeping pitch counts low.
I have some highlights from the discussion and - to justify my participation - some Data Tables!
Posnanski: We both like the idea of team officials doing what they can to protect their young starting pitchers ... nobody wants to go back to those days when a 21-year-old Mark Fidrych throws a preposterous 198 innings in the 13 weeks between May 15 and Aug. 29. But the current 100-pitch limit that has overtaken baseball doesn't make much sense, either. Why 100 pitches? Is it because it's a nice round number? Does it have any basis at all?
There's a question no one has an answer for, at least not that I'm aware of. Meanwhile, Texas Rangers president Nolan Ryan is hoping he can get his pitchers to find a way to go deeper into games. This was never a problem for Ryan himself, and obviously it may be a little optimistic to expect mere mortals to carry the same kind of workload that the Express did. But on the other hand...
James: I think that what Ryan is doing CAN succeed, because he is doing battle with an empty suit. There's really no basis to the belief that a mature starting pitcher can't throw 150 or 160 pitches in a game -- when he's feeling good, when he's throwing freely and not fighting anything -- without negative consequences.
This is true. We actually know this to be true. We don't know that every starting pitcher in baseball can do it. We're pretty sure that quite a few of them can't. But just last week I found that Roger Clemens, David Cone, and Jack Morris all had managed to continue with their careers after throwing that many pitches in a game. I think Roy Halladay probably could as well (although I can't imagine Halladay actually needing to throw that many pitches, at least not without going a fair ways into extra innings.)
I doubt any manager today would allow them to do that, of course. I certainly don't recommend it as a regular policy, every fifth day. I don't recommend springing it on someone out of the blue, someone who's never gone past 110 pitches. And the traditional way of finding out whether a pitcher can carry a heavier workload obviously has problems (if he wrecks his arm, well, now you know!)
But certain guys, every now and then... I've got no problem with it. And I've got no problem with a proven and physically mature starter averaging 130 pitches per start.
Posnanski: How did we get here? Let's think about this for a moment. Baseball, as an industry, spends billions of dollars on starting pitchers. Billions...And the point? Teams spend all this money on starting pitchers, and then they decide that the round number, 100 pitches, is ideal. Exactly 100 pitches. Not 110. Not 123. Not 97. No, 100 pitches, ideal, no matter how old the pitcher, no matter what kind of stuff he throws, no matter if he's left-handed or right-handed, no matter what. One hundred pitches.
James: The movement toward harder and lower pitch counts, which began about 1980 and matured about 2000, was driven by the desire to avoid injuring pitchers, which is laudable. None of us wants to see starting pitchers get hurt. It was -- is -- an excellent idea to do anything you can to avoid starting pitchers getting hurt....
That's one reason, and probably the most important one. Me, cynic that I am, think managers have gone along with this quite happily (Posnanski's statement to the contrary below notwithstanding) because it simplifies their job. It eliminates the burden of having to make a decision. This is especially the case in the American League, where the decision on whether or not to remove the starter is not shaped by some of the factors at work in the National League. In the NL, if you''re behind by a run in the seventh, and the pitcher's spot in the order comes around, you have to pinch hit. There's no decision required. (And for those of you who go to the ballpark to watch middle aged guys think - pinch hitting for the pitcher, or telling him to lay down a bunt, is certainly not strategy.) The AL manager doesn't have that security blanket, he doesn't get that decision made for him. He's on his own - but he always has pitch counts to ease the burden on his brain.
It beats the hell out of actually making a decision, and leaving yourself open to all that second-guessing. And every time an AL manager lets a starter throw 120 pitches - never mind 130 - there will be second guessing. Galore..
James: Around 1984 ... USA Today began publishing box scores WHICH INCLUDED PITCH COUNTS FOR PITCHERS.
When you introduce hard facts into a discussion, it changes the discussion. The pitch counts introduced by USA Today became a weapon of the critics...Every time a pitcher got hurt, somebody could point to something that the manager had done to cause this injury.... It is my view that, once conventional wisdom about leaving pitchers in the game stampeded into a full-fledged retreat, it ran right past the point of reason, without any real effort to balance the discussion by taking account of the costs of pulling pitchers out of the game too early and too often.
Posnanski: Something happened around 2001, too.... while managers were definitely being more careful with pitchers throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it had not reached the point of absurdity. In 2000 managers let their starters throw 120 pitches or more about 12 percent of the time -- there were 454 instances of a pitcher throwing 120-plus pitches. That was more or less in line with the 1990s. But in 2001 the 120-plus pitch games were cut in half. By 2006 they were cut in half again. Last season there were only 71 games where a pitcher threw 120-plus pitches ... these games have become almost extinct. I do think it's fear-driven ... most of the managers I talk to around the game privately DESPISE the pitch count.
I don't think it's the pitch count they despise so much as the third degree that any manager is subjected to when he does anything that goes against the conventional wisodm of the day. And we have our own Conventional Wisdom, here in this shiny new milennium. Future generations will find much it incomprehensible, and they will shake their heads at our blind spots. Just as we do at those who came before us.
James: The problem with the move toward pitch counts was that there was never any logic or research that said that limiting a pitcher to 100 pitches would prevent injuries, as opposed to 130 pitches, or 130 for young pitchers and 160 for mature pitchers, or as opposed to getting the pitcher out of the game at the first sign of a problem, or as opposed to improving his training regimen. I am opposed to making decisions based on fear, and in favor of making decisions based on logic and research, and therefore I support what Nolan Ryan is trying to do.
And here's where I come in. Can we see, in the records so far, if Nolan Ryan and the Rangers are making any progress on this front? Run that Data Table!
All of this needs to be taken with several shakers of salt, of course. The best starters are always going to be allowed to throw more pitches than the other guys. There isn't much Dave Trembley can do about it - his starters have been bad, and he's been forced to go to the bullpen.
The team whose starters average the most pitchers per start is not the team Nolan Ryan is in charge of - but rather the team that Bill James works for. Boston's starters haven't actually been all that good so far in 2009 - but Beckett, Wakefield, Penny, and Matsuzaka all have lengthy resumes as Proven Quality Veterans. Boston and the Yankees are the only teams in the AL whose starters have thrown more than 100 pitches in more than half the team's games (Kansas City and Texas are split right down the middle - the starters have gone over 100 in 31 of 62 games.)
You will note that only two managers have allowed a starter to crack the 130 pitch barrier - Jim Leyland and Cito Gaston. That's old school, of course, and I don't think it's a coincidence that Gaston and Leyland are the only men in the AL who began their managerial careers back in the 1980s. (In fact, Terry Francona is the only other AL manager who was even managing in the 1990s.)
Both Gaston and Leyland have pulled the starter before 100 pitches in more than half the team's games. Gaston, as everyone knows, has a rotation which consists of Roy Halladay, a reliever converted in mid-season, and a changing cast of rookies. Jim Leyland's numbers are being shaped by the presence of Rick Porcello in his rotation. Porcello is being handled very carefully - he has yet to throw 100 pitches in a major league game (and has in fact thrown more than 90 pitches just twice.) And I'm fine with that.
Here's the data for individual pitchers, through games of June 15:
So... the large fellow in pinstripes is the only AL pitcher averaging even 110 pitches per start. And of the 112 men who have started games in the AL this season, just 12 have been permitted to throw 120 pitches in a game.
They are: Roy Halladay, Edwin Jackson, Kyle Davies, Brandon McCarthy, C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, Justin Verlander, Cliff Lee, Kevin Millwood, Gil Meche, Josh Beckett, and Matt Garza.
Sabathia, Verlander, and Millwood are the only men who have topped 120 pitches twice.
I have some highlights from the discussion and - to justify my participation - some Data Tables!
Posnanski: We both like the idea of team officials doing what they can to protect their young starting pitchers ... nobody wants to go back to those days when a 21-year-old Mark Fidrych throws a preposterous 198 innings in the 13 weeks between May 15 and Aug. 29. But the current 100-pitch limit that has overtaken baseball doesn't make much sense, either. Why 100 pitches? Is it because it's a nice round number? Does it have any basis at all?
There's a question no one has an answer for, at least not that I'm aware of. Meanwhile, Texas Rangers president Nolan Ryan is hoping he can get his pitchers to find a way to go deeper into games. This was never a problem for Ryan himself, and obviously it may be a little optimistic to expect mere mortals to carry the same kind of workload that the Express did. But on the other hand...
James: I think that what Ryan is doing CAN succeed, because he is doing battle with an empty suit. There's really no basis to the belief that a mature starting pitcher can't throw 150 or 160 pitches in a game -- when he's feeling good, when he's throwing freely and not fighting anything -- without negative consequences.
This is true. We actually know this to be true. We don't know that every starting pitcher in baseball can do it. We're pretty sure that quite a few of them can't. But just last week I found that Roger Clemens, David Cone, and Jack Morris all had managed to continue with their careers after throwing that many pitches in a game. I think Roy Halladay probably could as well (although I can't imagine Halladay actually needing to throw that many pitches, at least not without going a fair ways into extra innings.)
I doubt any manager today would allow them to do that, of course. I certainly don't recommend it as a regular policy, every fifth day. I don't recommend springing it on someone out of the blue, someone who's never gone past 110 pitches. And the traditional way of finding out whether a pitcher can carry a heavier workload obviously has problems (if he wrecks his arm, well, now you know!)
But certain guys, every now and then... I've got no problem with it. And I've got no problem with a proven and physically mature starter averaging 130 pitches per start.
Posnanski: How did we get here? Let's think about this for a moment. Baseball, as an industry, spends billions of dollars on starting pitchers. Billions...And the point? Teams spend all this money on starting pitchers, and then they decide that the round number, 100 pitches, is ideal. Exactly 100 pitches. Not 110. Not 123. Not 97. No, 100 pitches, ideal, no matter how old the pitcher, no matter what kind of stuff he throws, no matter if he's left-handed or right-handed, no matter what. One hundred pitches.
James: The movement toward harder and lower pitch counts, which began about 1980 and matured about 2000, was driven by the desire to avoid injuring pitchers, which is laudable. None of us wants to see starting pitchers get hurt. It was -- is -- an excellent idea to do anything you can to avoid starting pitchers getting hurt....
That's one reason, and probably the most important one. Me, cynic that I am, think managers have gone along with this quite happily (Posnanski's statement to the contrary below notwithstanding) because it simplifies their job. It eliminates the burden of having to make a decision. This is especially the case in the American League, where the decision on whether or not to remove the starter is not shaped by some of the factors at work in the National League. In the NL, if you''re behind by a run in the seventh, and the pitcher's spot in the order comes around, you have to pinch hit. There's no decision required. (And for those of you who go to the ballpark to watch middle aged guys think - pinch hitting for the pitcher, or telling him to lay down a bunt, is certainly not strategy.) The AL manager doesn't have that security blanket, he doesn't get that decision made for him. He's on his own - but he always has pitch counts to ease the burden on his brain.
It beats the hell out of actually making a decision, and leaving yourself open to all that second-guessing. And every time an AL manager lets a starter throw 120 pitches - never mind 130 - there will be second guessing. Galore..
James: Around 1984 ... USA Today began publishing box scores WHICH INCLUDED PITCH COUNTS FOR PITCHERS.
When you introduce hard facts into a discussion, it changes the discussion. The pitch counts introduced by USA Today became a weapon of the critics...Every time a pitcher got hurt, somebody could point to something that the manager had done to cause this injury.... It is my view that, once conventional wisdom about leaving pitchers in the game stampeded into a full-fledged retreat, it ran right past the point of reason, without any real effort to balance the discussion by taking account of the costs of pulling pitchers out of the game too early and too often.
Posnanski: Something happened around 2001, too.... while managers were definitely being more careful with pitchers throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it had not reached the point of absurdity. In 2000 managers let their starters throw 120 pitches or more about 12 percent of the time -- there were 454 instances of a pitcher throwing 120-plus pitches. That was more or less in line with the 1990s. But in 2001 the 120-plus pitch games were cut in half. By 2006 they were cut in half again. Last season there were only 71 games where a pitcher threw 120-plus pitches ... these games have become almost extinct. I do think it's fear-driven ... most of the managers I talk to around the game privately DESPISE the pitch count.
I don't think it's the pitch count they despise so much as the third degree that any manager is subjected to when he does anything that goes against the conventional wisodm of the day. And we have our own Conventional Wisdom, here in this shiny new milennium. Future generations will find much it incomprehensible, and they will shake their heads at our blind spots. Just as we do at those who came before us.
James: The problem with the move toward pitch counts was that there was never any logic or research that said that limiting a pitcher to 100 pitches would prevent injuries, as opposed to 130 pitches, or 130 for young pitchers and 160 for mature pitchers, or as opposed to getting the pitcher out of the game at the first sign of a problem, or as opposed to improving his training regimen. I am opposed to making decisions based on fear, and in favor of making decisions based on logic and research, and therefore I support what Nolan Ryan is trying to do.
And here's where I come in. Can we see, in the records so far, if Nolan Ryan and the Rangers are making any progress on this front? Run that Data Table!
Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Most ERA
BOSTON 63 1 0 9 15 22 15 1 0 100.7 120 4.89
YANKEES 63 6 1 6 13 18 16 3 0 98.4 123 4.89
KANSAS CITY 62 1 4 12 14 16 13 2 0 97.8 126 4.01
TEXAS 62 2 5 8 16 15 13 3 0 97.1 124 4.36
TAMPA BAY 65 2 5 4 24 24 5 1 0 96.9 120 4.67
DETROIT 63 3 4 18 13 12 10 2 1 95.5 132 4.05
SEATTLE 63 2 5 10 19 20 7 0 0 95.3 113 4.00
WHITE SOX 64 5 3 7 22 20 7 0 0 94.6 115 4.36
MINNESOTA 65 3 4 10 24 19 5 0 0 94.3 116 4.69
TORONTO 65 7 5 4 23 19 6 0 1 93.7 133 4.41
OAKLAND 62 1 6 14 23 16 2 0 0 93.5 111 4.44
CLEVELAND 66 4 5 16 19 14 7 1 0 93.1 122 5.45
ANGELS 62 5 1 9 20 18 9 0 0 92.5 119 4.12
BALTIMORE 63 6 4 10 19 19 5 0 0 90.7 113 5.59
All of this needs to be taken with several shakers of salt, of course. The best starters are always going to be allowed to throw more pitches than the other guys. There isn't much Dave Trembley can do about it - his starters have been bad, and he's been forced to go to the bullpen.
The team whose starters average the most pitchers per start is not the team Nolan Ryan is in charge of - but rather the team that Bill James works for. Boston's starters haven't actually been all that good so far in 2009 - but Beckett, Wakefield, Penny, and Matsuzaka all have lengthy resumes as Proven Quality Veterans. Boston and the Yankees are the only teams in the AL whose starters have thrown more than 100 pitches in more than half the team's games (Kansas City and Texas are split right down the middle - the starters have gone over 100 in 31 of 62 games.)
You will note that only two managers have allowed a starter to crack the 130 pitch barrier - Jim Leyland and Cito Gaston. That's old school, of course, and I don't think it's a coincidence that Gaston and Leyland are the only men in the AL who began their managerial careers back in the 1980s. (In fact, Terry Francona is the only other AL manager who was even managing in the 1990s.)
Both Gaston and Leyland have pulled the starter before 100 pitches in more than half the team's games. Gaston, as everyone knows, has a rotation which consists of Roy Halladay, a reliever converted in mid-season, and a changing cast of rookies. Jim Leyland's numbers are being shaped by the presence of Rick Porcello in his rotation. Porcello is being handled very carefully - he has yet to throw 100 pitches in a major league game (and has in fact thrown more than 90 pitches just twice.) And I'm fine with that.
Here's the data for individual pitchers, through games of June 15:
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Millwood TEX 13 1 1 1 8 2 102.1 121
Padilla TEX 11 1 1 3 5 1 98.4 115
McCarthy TEX 11 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 95.2 124
Feldman TEX 10 1 2 1 2 4 92.2 109
Harrison TEX 9 1 4 2 2 99.7 112
Holland TEX 4 1 2 1 86.0 91
Benson TEX 2 1 1 106.0 111
Mathis TEX 1 1 98.0 98
Hunter TEX 1 1 90.0 90
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Weaver LAA 13 1 3 7 2 102.3 119
Saunders LAA 13 3 4 2 4 98.1 113
Palmer LAA 8 2 1 3 2 99.3 112
Lackey LAA 7 1 1 1 3 1 87.7 114
Loux LAA 6 1 2 3 88.3 99
Santana LAA 6 1 4 1 88.3 109
Moseley LAA 3 1 1 1 85.7 105
Ortega LAA 3 1 1 1 82.7 100
Adenhart LAA 1 1 98.0 98
Escobar LAA 1 1 92.0 92
Oliver LAA 1 1 62.0 62
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Hernandez SEA 13 1 3 5 4 102.5 113
Washburn SEA 12 1 6 4 1 99.0 110
Bedard SEA 11 1 2 6 2 101.5 112
Jakubauskas SEA 8 2 3 3 90.0 105
Vargas SEA 7 1 1 4 1 92.7 106
Silva SEA 6 2 1 2 1 86.0 101
Olson SEA 4 1 1 2 84.3 94
Rowland-Smith SEA 1 1 82.0 82
Morrow SEA 1 1 64.0 64
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Braden OAK 13 3 6 3 1 96.2 111
Cahill OAK 13 1 1 8 3 93.2 105
Anderson OAK 12 1 7 1 3 90.1 109
Outman OAK 11 2 2 2 4 1 95.1 113
Eveland OAK 5 1 3 1 94.6 108
Mazzaro OAK 3 1 2 97.3 105
Gonzalez OAK 2 1 1 92.5 97
Gallagher OAK 2 1 1 84.5 92
Giese OAK 1 1 93.0 93
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Verlander DET 13 1 2 2 6 2 108.7 122
Jackson DET 13 2 4 5 1 1 103.0 132
Galarraga DET 13 2 1 1 4 2 3 90.8 118
Porcello DET 12 1 9 2 86.5 99
Willis DET 7 1 1 2 3 88.0 105
Miner DET 4 1 2 1 86.0 97
Bonderman DET 1 1 85.0 85
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Blackburn MIN 13 1 2 6 2 2 97.1 111
Slowey MIN 13 1 1 1 6 2 2 94.3 114
Liriano MIN 13 2 2 5 4 92.2 104
Baker MIN 12 1 5 5 1 98.6 116
Perkins MIN 8 1 3 1 3 86.4 107
Swarzak MIN 5 2 1 2 93.0 103
Dickey MIN 1 1 104.0 104
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Buehrle CHW 13 1 6 4 2 99.2 114
Floyd CHW 13 1 1 4 5 2 98.6 111
Danks CHW 12 1 1 2 6 2 96.8 112
Colon CHW 11 3 3 5 82.7 98
Contreras CHW 8 1 2 2 2 1 93.0 115
Richard CHW 7 1 3 3 95.4 107
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Greinke KCR 13 1 6 6 108.0 116
Meche KCR 13 1 3 2 2 4 1 99.3 120
Davies KCR 13 2 4 3 3 1 102.5 126
Bannister KCR 11 3 5 3 95.5 108
Ponson KCR 6 1 3 2 89.2 104
Hochevar KCR 5 1 1 1 2 76.2 92
Ramirez KCR 1 1 71.0 71
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Lee CLE 14 1 2 5 5 1 105.6 122
Pavano CLE 14 1 5 5 3 88.9 103
Carmona CLE 12 1 1 3 2 4 1 93.0 114
Reyes CLE 8 1 1 3 2 1 85.4 106
Huff CLE 6 1 1 3 1 89.5 112
Sowers CLE 5 3 2 89.4 99
Laffey CLE 4 1 1 1 1 89.5 104
Ohka CLE 1 1 96.0 96
Lewis CLE 1 1 94.0 94
Jackson CLE 1 1 88.0 88
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Beckett BOS 13 2 4 6 1 109.3 120
Lester BOS 13 1 1 7 4 105.9 115
Wakefield BOS 12 2 4 4 2 98.2 112
Penny BOS 12 4 4 2 2 96.3 117
Matsuzaka BOS 7 1 1 2 3 87.7 102
Masterson BOS 6 1 2 2 1 99.7 112
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Sabathia NYY 13 2 3 6 2 110.1 123
Burnett NYY 13 1 3 2 6 1 105.9 123
Pettitte NYY 13 1 2 6 4 104.7 116
Chamberlain NYY 12 1 3 2 6 90.3 108
Hughes NYY 7 1 1 4 1 89.1 101
Wang NYY 5 4 1 64.8 73
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Halladay TOR 14 1 3 5 4 1 103.0 133
Tallet TOR 12 2 5 4 1 94.5 118
Richmond TOR 10 1 3 2 4 89.8 109
Romero TOR 7 5 2 96.9 106
Purcey TOR 5 1 2 1 1 96.0 113
Janssen TOR 5 1 2 1 1 85.4 108
Cecil TOR 4 1 2 1 95.0 104
Ray TOR 4 1 3 90.8 95
Litsch TOR 2 1 1 78.0 106
Burres TOR 2 1 1 67.0 80
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Shields TBR 14 1 5 8 99.2 107
Garza TBR 13 3 6 3 1 107.4 120
Sonnanstine TBR 13 1 3 7 2 89.2 108
Niemann TBR 12 1 2 2 5 1 1 88.0 110
Kazmir TBR 9 1 4 3 1 97.7 111
Price TBR 4 4 104.8 108
Pitcher Team ST 0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 Avg Top
Guthrie BAL 13 1 3 6 3 97.9 113
Bergesen BAL 11 3 4 3 1 97.5 112
Uehara BAL 10 1 3 4 2 89.0 105
Eaton BAL 8 4 3 1 100.3 112
Hendrickson BAL 7 2 1 2 2 77.4 103
Hill BAL 6 1 1 2 1 1 80.7 106
Berken BAL 4 2 1 1 84.8 102
Hernandez BAL 2 1 1 99.0 108
Simon BAL 2 1 1 57.0 89
So... the large fellow in pinstripes is the only AL pitcher averaging even 110 pitches per start. And of the 112 men who have started games in the AL this season, just 12 have been permitted to throw 120 pitches in a game.
They are: Roy Halladay, Edwin Jackson, Kyle Davies, Brandon McCarthy, C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, Justin Verlander, Cliff Lee, Kevin Millwood, Gil Meche, Josh Beckett, and Matt Garza.
Sabathia, Verlander, and Millwood are the only men who have topped 120 pitches twice.
