Lincecum vs Dbacks

[HoustonGM]

Tim regularly threw well over 120 pitches in college, I don't think high pitch counts are necessarily as high a risk with him as with many others.

I don't either. I think he's a freak of nature. But the thing is, we don't KNOW, and it's silly to take a risk that could have huge consequences in a blowout game between non-contenders at the end of September, particularly when he's been worked hard in his past few starts as well.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I don't either. I think he's a freak of nature. But the thing is, we don't KNOW, and it's silly to take a risk that could have huge consequences in a blowout game between non-contenders at the end of September, particularly when he's been worked hard in his past few starts as well.

No disrespect here HGM but do you know the consequences ? I mean your rhetoric,ie using "silly/huge" is claiming that (again) management don't know what there are doing & that they will sacrifice players unduly.

If you look at it from another perspective ,maybe they are "testing" him now (ie in a "non" important situation) for the future.

On this I am sure (& you will agree) they know the investment they have in him but unlike say a Halladay or a Schilling in his prime or Mr October - Beckett,they DONT know his limits .... making him pitch deep in September is a very good judge of whether he can or cannot repeat the phenomenon in the future or if/when they do make the playoffs.*


As we have said (plus numerous "experts") pitchers tend to pitch less & less innings with the hope to get a better long term return - more seasons/longer life span in the MLB - but as of today,there is no indication or study that proves it.If anything the injuries to Pitchers have remained stable over the years & if anything (from Hardball Times "survey") they have increased as IPs have decreased.Could it be pitchers' no longer build up enough arm strength for a 162+ season ?

Just my comments/idea on a contentious subject.


* Some pitchers build up strength during the season OTHERS lose strength & thus are "October" or not pitchers.Repetition being the "best" indicator of future actions that most analysts use.As known is usually considered better than unknown .

[HoustonGM]

No disrespect here HGM but do you know the consequences ?

No, we don't know the consequences, which is exactly why it's not a good choice to risk finding them out, because they could be catastrophic. There's no short or long term gain for leaving Lincecum in for the 9th inning of that game.

I mean your rhetoric,ie using "silly/huge" is claiming that (again) management don't know what there are doing & that they will sacrifice players unduly.

Yes. Management is not infallible.

If you look at it from another perspective ,maybe they are "testing" him now (ie in a "non" important situation) for the future.

And if the testing results in him blowing his arm out, there is no future, and nothing at all was gained.

On this I am sure (& you will agree) they know the investment they have in him but unlike say a Halladay or a Schilling in his prime,they DONT know his limits .... making him pitch deep in September is a very good judge of whether he can or cannot repeat the phenomenon in the future or if/when they do make the playoffs.*

And it's my opinion that that's a silly way to go about things because the risk is high and the potential consequences could be horrible.

[HoustonGM]

As we have said (plus numerous "experts") pitchers tend to pitch less & less innings with the hope to get a better long term return - more seasons/longer life span in the MLB - but as of today,there is no indication or study that proves it.If anything the injuries to Pitchers have remained stable over the years & if anything (from Hardball Times "survey") they have increased as IPs have decreased.Could it be pitchers' no longer build up enough arm strength for a 162+ season ?

I'm of the opinion that the whole pitch count thing has been taken to far. However, the arms of young pitchers have to be protected, and that one extra 20 pitch inning isn't going to do anything more to help him build up arm strength for a full season, while it could push his arm over the edge. I just don't think there's any benefit to it, while there's great risk to it.

Note, I'm not advocating strict pitch counts or what have you. I just don't think it's necessary to push a young arm in a meaningless September blowout.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

No, we don't know the consequences, which is exactly why it's not a good choice to risk finding them out, because they could be catastrophic. There's no short or long term gain for leaving Lincecum in for the 9th inning of that game.

You see this is where we digress - you see risk is part & parcel of life ...the risk's of dying in a car crash are incredibly higher than a bus crash but we still,mostly, drive to work.

Risk exist in every action & reaction we do,from breathing on (ie there is a risk you stop breathing).YOU personally see no gain but that is your choice.

However as I stated in my post:

On this I am sure (& you will agree) they know the investment they have in him but unlike say a Halladay or a Schilling in his prime or Mr October - Beckett,they DONT know his limits .... making him pitch deep in September is a very good judge of whether he can or cannot repeat the phenomenon in the future or if/when they do make the playoffs.*

* Some pitchers build up strength during the season OTHERS lose strength & thus are "October" or not pitchers.Repetition being the "best" indicator of future actions that most analysts use.As known is usually considered better than unknown

THUS There is a Major long term gain - this is where we differ.Athletes train more than they actually employ there abilities in competition - eg Phelps swims 16 Km,roughly a week,but in competition never does more than 400m.

Here is a possible chance of testing an athlete's skill in as close to real Post season situation & garner INFORMATION for the future.Information being the most important aspect of knowledge for a team.

Yes. Management is not infallible.

I know & agree that Management as they are Human are fallible but also do things for ulterior motives which us (as humans) may or may not understand as we are fallible too.

And if the testing results in him blowing his arm out, there is no future, and nothing at all was gained.

Big word IF,no ?


Anyways,Did it happen ? No - thus the test was successful & the results obtained satisfactory.Thus management in this case weighed the risks,did the action (allowing him to pitch) & obtained a satisfactory result (ie the knowledge he can pitch in September deep)

And it's my opinion that that's a silly way to go about things because the risk is high and the potential consequences could be horrible.

Again we all agree that the consequences could have been....but how high was the risk ? Do you know ? 90% of injury or 15% or 0.01 % ? What are the % risk of injury in throwing 120 pitches in September ? Risk,as I said above,exists in every single action.Pitching 1 or 120 pitches has a culminating risk but what % .That is the point.To you it was high,to management (coaches/manager/team players') it was lower.

I re-iterate EVERY ACTION taken has a RISK.Team's & management calculate risk in there DECISION making process** & use the RETURN to calculate if the RISK outweighs the RETURN.That is the basis of baseball (& funnily life too)!

** The major difference (& I think I said this elsewhere) teams' have MORE knowledge than fans/writers/bloggers' etc because they SEE players' day in,day out,KNOW how they react & have medical information as well.We can only judge from the LIMITED information we have & we are (as of today) looking in from outside the system.Most of the time we know less of what is really happening to a club & a player than those who work daily within an organization.

[rogue9]

Could it be pitchers' no longer build up enough arm strength for a 162+ season ?
[/B]

I have heard several old time greats bring this very thing up.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

The problem is that (& again,NO disrespect here,HGM) we have an emotive tendency to say X or Y action will be detrimental to player's health but exactly what are the risks ?

We should know the risks becuase we have statistical information - games played,IPs & even Pitch counts but so does Management.If pitching was so dangerous then why doesn't every manager pull a pitcher after 100 or 120 or whatever pitch level ?

Simply because there is no conclusive evidence & that EVERY player has a DIFFERENT risk factor - from some needing 30+ pitches to warm up,other with "rubber" arms etc.

Teams' calculate RISK-RETURN information & proceed accordingly & then CHANCE & the opponent are also to be considered.

I was simply stating,that we don't have FULL information (neither do teams' but their's is optimally close) to fully engender whether a decision is right or wrong.Stating that a risk is "high"/"average"/"low" we need results & studies & as of today THERE are non that conclusively show a definite tendency EITHER way.You stated it was a "high risk",but garner the information please & forward it on to MLB or whoever....& the problem will be solved.


In this case SFG calculated their RISK-RETURN & were proved right - Lincecum throws the IPs asked & WAS NOT injured in the process & the Giants' obtained a LONG TERM gain as they garnered more information on him,his capacities which they can & will use in FUTURE (similar) situations eg Next September & on....


However,most Sports' studies do show that training does lead to increased body strength & increased endurance & better results in game situations.

Lastly athletes & coaches say (difficult to prove) that game situations are better than training to improve FUTURE game situations.

[HoustonGM]

THUS There is a Major long term gain - this is where we differ.Athletes train more than they actually employ there abilities in competition - eg Phelps swims 16 Km,roughly a week,but in competition never does more than 400m.

Here is a possible chance of testing an athlete's skill in as close to real Post season situation & garner INFORMATION for the future.Information being the most important aspect of knowledge for a team.

It's one inning. What is the "major long term gain" gained by throwing one 20-pitch inning in a 7-0 game in September against a non-contender? What information is gained from that that outweighs the risk of blowing out a young ace's arm?

Anyways,Did it happen ? No - thus the test was successful & the results obtained satisfactory.Thus management in this case weighed the risks,did the action (allowing him to pitch) & obtained a satisfactory result (ie the knowledge he can pitch in September deep)

Uh, how can you say "No, it didn't happen."? It's not going to happen overnight. He's not just going to wake up the next morning with a blown out shoulder. We don't know if it's hurt him for the future or not. We can only hope that it hasn't.

In this case SFG calculated their RISK-RETURN & were proved right - Lincecum throws the IPs asked & WAS NOT injured in the process

Again, we know this how? Mark Prior didn't throw a bunch of 130 pitch games, and then walk into the park next day with his arm hanging from its socket. It's a process, not an instantaneous thing.

If this was C.C. Sabathia, or Carlos Zambrano, or Roy Halladay, or some other pitcher with a proven track record of handling high workloads, it's a different story. But this is a young ace with huge potential for the future. It's one inning at the end of a meaningless September blowout. What could that one inning possibly tell you that is enough to outweigh the risk of throwing out a young pitcher's arm? That he can go "deep in September"? Is going 8 innings and throwing 118 pitches not "going deep"? It's also a different story if this was just one game like this. However, in his last 4 games, he's had pitch totals of 132, 92, 127, and 138. There's no reason to subject a young pitcher to those workloads while out of contention and building for the future.

As I said, I happen to think that Lincecum has incredible mechanics, is a phenomenal athlete, and has a rubber arm. But, the same things were said of Mark Prior. Lincecum's September of his second season and first full season is shaping up to look eerily similar to Prior's - whose pitch counts in his September 2003 starts were 132, 129, 109, 124, 131, 133. Chicago, though, was contending for the playoffs, so it's more defensible, but, we all know how well that worked out for Prior's future. Now, yes, every pitcher is different. Livan Hernandez threw tons of pitches at the same age and has proven to be durable. This very well may not affect Tim Lincecum's career, and I sincerely hope it doesn't because Lincecum's one of my favorite pitchers and I want to see him have a full career, but I'd always err on the side of caution when it comes to young pitchers, and I don't think racking up 130 pitches a game tells us anything more useful than we could glean from 110 pitch games.

I think C.C. Sabathia is a great model for teams to follow when raising young pitchers. In his first year, at the age of 20 he broke 120 pitches just twice, and was often kept around 100. Same story the next year, and in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. In 2007, he still rarely threw high pitch count games but managed to rack up impressive inning totals. In 2008, he's throwing more high pitch count games than usual, while also racking up innings. He was kept on regular pitch counts while he was young, still threw 180-200 innings a year, and now his team is reaping the benefits of a well-developed pitcher entering the prime of his career in his late-20's.


And also, I know very well that we don't know whether this is right or wrong, as you keep trying to say. I'm simply stating my opinion of it, so there's no need to tell me that I can't know for sure whether this is the right decision or wrong decision. It seems you do that on most topics we discuss - repeatedly say "You can't know fully whether this is right or wrong" and I don't think stating that is necessary, as OF COURSE that's the case. I'm just giving my opinion on whether I think it's the right or wrong decision. I don't KNOW for sure, nobody does.

[rogue9]

Is going 8 innings and throwing 118 pitches not "going deep"?

It didn't used to be, but is now due to pitch counts. Thats something that has had me wondering. If you look at the 60s (just cause its my favorite era), many pitchers threw many, many CGs, with pitch counts so high you wouldn't see anything remotely close to them today. Why did it work back then but now its a no no. Is it just because a handful of potential super studs blew out their arms? Or have many blown out their arms?

[TheNamelessPoet]

It's one inning. What is the "major long term gain" gained by throwing one 20-pitch inning in a 7-0 game in September against a non-contender? What information is gained from that that outweighs the risk of blowing out a young ace's arm?

if every game he is throwing 10-20+ more pitches than the standard 100-110 then he will be better abble to late in a pennt race (Such as the mets are) run him out thre when his bullpen stinks.

The mets when Perez had 99 pitches last night had him come out for another inning (I was at the game it was AWESOME) becuase their bullpen stinks, if u dont believe me look at the 5 runs they gave up in the 9th ) THATS why guys need to throw 120 pitches... becase good bullpen arms are hard to find.

[TheNamelessPoet]

It didn't used to be, but is now due to pitch counts. Thats something that has had me wondering. If you look at the 60s (just cause its my favorite era), many pitchers threw many, many CGs, with pitch counts so high you wouldn't see anything remotely close to them today. Why did it work back then but now its a no no. Is it just because a handful of potential super studs blew out their arms? Or have many blown out their arms?

yes I think thats why... Imagine if nolan ryan had been told "your at 100 pitches you have to come out"

[HoustonGM]

It didn't used to be, but is now due to pitch counts. Thats something that has had me wondering. If you look at the 60s (just cause its my favorite era), many pitchers threw many, many CGs, with pitch counts so high you wouldn't see anything remotely close to them today. Why did it work back then but now its a no no.

We tend to forget that a good amount of those pitchers blew their arms out early too. There's some, of course, that lasted despite the workload, and those types of pitchers still exist today.

However, one thing that often goes unmentioned in this type of discussion when people start saying "How come pitchers in the 1960s and 1970s were able to throw tons of pitchers, but now pitchers can't?" is the difference in environments. The 1960s and 1970s were very favorable to pitchers. There were often one or two defense-only players that were near automatic outs, in addition to both leagues having pitchers hit until the early 1970's. Pitchers were able to pace themselves differently and exert different amounts of stress depending on the batter. They were able to let up some a couple times through the lineup when they faced weak hitters. This doesn't even get into how the environment of the game simply favored pitchers because of the mound height, ballparks, etc. and it's easier to throw higher pitch counts when you have less stress because more outs are being made solely as a result of the environment. Today, the game is very offense-oriented. Most teams don't have multiple near-automatic outs in the lineup. An average pitch today comes with more stress than an average pitch in the mid-1960's for the reasons I mentioned above. Pitch counts aren't created the same, as more has to go into it than just strictly the number of pitches, because not all pitches are created equal.

A higher offensive environment coupled with a more offense-oriented approach to team construction leads to a higher stress environment for pitchers, which raises the "stress level" of each individual pitch, so 100 pitches today may have equally 150 pitches in 1965 (just a guess, by the way, I'm not basing those numbers on any actual evidence, but just portraying how the a number of pitches in today's environment comes with a higher level of stress than an equivalent amount in a lower offensive environment).

Is it just because a handful of potential super studs blew out their arms? Or have many blown out their arms?

There's been TONS of young potential studs that have blown out their arms. There's way more pitchers that succumb to injury early in their careers than that last for multiple years.

[haveacigar]

It didn't used to be, but is now due to pitch counts. Thats something that has had me wondering. If you look at the 60s (just cause its my favorite era), many pitchers threw many, many CGs, with pitch counts so high you wouldn't see anything remotely close to them today. Why did it work back then but now its a no no. Is it just because a handful of potential super studs blew out their arms? Or have many blown out their arms?

In the 60s, you didn't have to work as hard to get outs. Guys didn't exert themselves the way guys do now in order to get hitters out, so they could go longer. I believe the mound was higher too, making it even easier to get guys out.

Now that things have swung the other way, pitchers have to use violent mechanics, different pitches, and harder throws to get hitters out.

Also, a lot of guys in that era DID blow out their arms. You don't hear about it because, well, who remembers a guy who pitched 3 good seasons and dropped off due to injury, but I think you had arm problems with much greater frequency than you do now.

[HoustonGM]

if every game he is throwing 10-20+ more pitches than the standard 100-110 then he will be better abble to late in a pennt race (Such as the mets are) run him out thre when his bullpen stinks.

The mets when Perez had 99 pitches last night had him come out for another inning (I was at the game it was AWESOME) becuase their bullpen stinks, if u dont believe me look at the 5 runs they gave up in the 9th ) THATS why guys need to throw 120 pitches... becase good bullpen arms are hard to find.

I'm not advocating keeping pitchers on a strict 100-110 pitch count always and forever. The pitch count idea has been taken too far by teams. It's now applied to all pitchers regardless of situation and age, and that itself is silly, as different pitchers can handle different amount of workloads, and experienced, older pitchers can be subjected to higher workloads than younger pitchers. The circumstances also matter. As you alluded to, the quality of the bullpen. Also, does the game in question matter? Different situations call for different decisions. If Lincecum was pitching for the Mets, it's a different story. But the Giants aren't contending for the playoffs, not to mention had a 7-0 lead entering the 9th inning.

[rogue9]

ok, thats a good answer. I wonder how many of those pitchers have bad mechanics, the ones that blow their arms out early. In the SI article on Lincecum his dad said that there is a large number of big leaguers that have poor or bad mechanics. I know he is by no means an expert, but having tought Tim his mechanics and seeing how successful that is, I would say he probably has some good insight. (incidently, I think the Giants need to get him and Zito together).