Kruk on Pitch Counts

[Karros270]

I think Kruk's right. We should eliminate pitch counts. It builds character. Just look what it's done for Dusty!




http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...ge=kruk/040521


If you want to know why the older pitchers have been dominating lately, you aren't going to find the answers by breaking down mechanics and style.

It goes all the way back to Little League and all through college and the minors. Bottom line -- today's young pitchers have been babied since they first threw a ball.


These kids are taught that pitch count and innings are everything. They throw numbers at them on how someone can break down if they pitch too much too soon. You know what? You put that into anyone's head and I guarantee you they will break down. And how are you supposed to know what a pitcher has if you don't push them? These are kids. Did you ever get tired playing ball when you were a kid?


When a pitcher finally gets to the major leagues, he goes out and gives the team six innings and he's happy with that? You go ask Terry Mulholland or Curt Schilling if they're ever happy with that. They know their job is to pitch nine innings, but like every other starting pitcher they get pulled because of pitch counts.


There's only one thing that determines whether or not a pitcher should gets pulled -- the batters.


I asked Mitch Williams why he decided to retire. He told me he didn't decide -- the batters did. They told him it was time to go. And that's what should determine when a pitcher comes out of a game. Not some statistic about what might happen.


And forget about this "quality start" stat. What the hell is that? Six innings with three runs or less is a quality start? What happened to the other three innings? I'll tell you, your bullpen is going to get awfully tired if your rotation only gives "quality starts."


If you don't believe me, like I've said before, look at the numbers. They don't lie.



You think Curt Schilling is a happy with a quality start? No -- he wants to go 9.

The Phillies had a pitcher in the '50s named Robin Roberts. He had six seasons in a row of over 300 innings. If he played today they would shut him down at 200.


Take an Red Sox-Angels game from 1974. Nolan Ryan vs. Luis Tiant. Ryan goes for 13 innings while Tiant goes 14.1. The Angels won 4-3. You think they were counting pitches then?


And that was 19 years before Ryan ended his Hall of Fame career. So I don't think all those innings affected him too much. Now if you started telling Ryan when he was 9 years old that a game like that might end his career -- who knows?


The other day everyone was talking about Mike Stanton pitching in his 900th game -- same as Cy Young. One small difference: Mike has about 800 innings under his belt while Cy had 7,500.


What? Were people made differently back then? No way.


Now I'm not saying you have to pitch nine innings. It still all comes down to winning. So when guys like Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine tell their manager they have nothing left, you have to respect that. But you can't respect a manager for taking out a guy just because some computer printout says after a certain pitch count he's a sitting duck.

[MannyTrillo]

Hmmm... is it just me, or does this column reek of "Oh ****, it's 3 AM, I'm wasted, and I have to send in a column by tomorrow morning!"

[Skipaway]

Originally posted by MannyTrillo
Hmmm... is it just me, or does this column reek of "Oh ****, it's 3 AM, I'm wasted, and I have to send in a column by tomorrow morning!"

You know you can do better than that!

[kq76]

While Kruk is most likely not going to win any literary prize anytime soon, I agree with him that pitch counts are vastly over-rated. I do think there is a point where one can blow out their arm or they lose their effectiveness, but I sense that managers are taking it too far. I was even half-expecting Randy Johnson to get pulled from his perfect game.

[Skipaway]

Originally posted by kq76
While Kruk is most likely not going to win any literary prize anytime soon, I agree with him that pitch counts are vastly over-rated. I do think there is a point where one can blow out their arm or they lose their effectiveness, but I sense that managers are taking it too far. I was even half-expecting Randy Johnson to get pulled from his perfect game.

So perhaps you can explain this:

2003 Braves average pitch count

Russ Ortiz 104.6
Mike Hampton 95.8
Horacio Ramirez 98.0
Shane Reynolds 90.8
Greg Maddux 81.2

2002
Tom Glavine 99.5
Jason Marquis 88.2
Damian Moss 97.7
Kevin Millwood 96.1
Greg Maddux 78.7

2001
Tom Glavine 97.9
Jason Marquis 98.0
Kevin Millwood 88.0
John Burkett 96.7
Greg Maddux 87.6

Leo Mazzone does not use pitch counts.

"I don't want to see them( pitch counts)," says the most successful pitching coach of his generation. "My eyes are gonna tell me more than any (expletive) number."

Yet what his eyes told him matched closely to what pitch counts would have told us.

[kq76]

Originally posted by Skipaway
So perhaps you can explain this

I don't see your point. What I base my judgement on are individual games where the starter is still going strong and they pull him anyways. Perhaps Mazzone feels the same way and leaves them in longer when they're pitching well and pulls them when they're not and the averages you end up with or just averages, nothing more. I have no problem with pulling a pitcher who is no longer effective, but I do have a problem when they're pulled just because they've reached the magic pitch count number. Your point would probably be better served by some variation data. A pitcher with little variation is probably under a pitch count, perhaps the Braves have a great deal of variation.

[Skipaway]

If you must

2003 Braves maximum pitch count/ Games count > 121

Russ Ortiz 131 /4
Mike Hampton 128 /1
Horacio Ramirez 117 /0
Shane Reynolds 113 /0
Greg Maddux 105 /0

2002
Tom Glavine 129 /2
Jason Marquis 130 /1
Damian Moss 123 /1
Kevin Millwood 121 /0
Greg Maddux 105 /0

2001
Tom Glavine 126 /2
Jason Marquis 120 /0
Kevin Millwood 122 /1
John Burkett 116 /0
Greg Maddux 113 /0

Year in year out, good pitchers bad pitchers, Leo Mazzone is very consistent with PAPIP ideas without ultilizing pitch counts.

Remember how people used to wonder how the Braves keep their starters healthy?

[Skipaway]

Let's review the numbers.

By PAPIP theories, starts with more than 121 pitch counts put high stress on pitchers.

Braves starts with more than 121 pitch counts:

2001 3
2002 4
2003 5

By comparison, Dusty Baker team starts with more than 121 pitch counts:

2001 6
2002 19
2003 24

Leo Mazzone believed his own eyes instead of pitch count to judge if pitchers are tired/ineffective, and come up with results amazingly close to PAPIP models.

[kq76]

While that is a bit more informative, it still doesn't tell us much about the variation. It just tells us that 121 pitches is a high count for Braves pitchers, which might be more attributable to their success than being under pitch counts. Is there somewhere that lists pitch counts by game?

By looking at the averages we can see that at least Mazzone does not have every pitcher at the same pitch count. Variation data could tell us if he has each pitcher at their own count though.

What's really the point though? If Mazzone says he does not have his pitchers under pitch counts, I believe him. Could each pitcher really have his own endurance limit though? If Mazzone is telling the truth but it still looks like each pitcher usually gets pulled at about the same time for himself (low variation), then that might be a good argument for at least individual pitch counts. I'd still go by each game though, I'd just use pitch counts as a trigger to tell me to start paying more attention to how the pitcher is doing.

EDIT: I did not see your 2nd post, reading it now... Well, like I said, if there truly is low variation by Braves pitchers, then maybe there's some value in this. I'm certainly not advocating that managers follow Baker's lead, just that I'd trust Mazzone more than I would someone telling me to pull so and so immediately even if he appears to be pitching just fine.

[Skipaway]

Originally posted by kq76
Well, like I said, if there truly is low variation by Braves pitchers, then maybe there's some value in this. I'm certainly not advocating that managers follow Baker's lead, just that I'd trust Mazzone more than I would someone telling me to pull so and so immediately even if he appears to be pitching just fine.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the PAPIP theories.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=1503

The study by Keith Woolner showed that pitch counts less than about 120 are very safe, while the danger of injury increased rapidly after that.

Isn't it amazing that Leo Mazzone almost always pull his starters before the magic number? What you said about variations at best would prove the magic number might be less than 120 for some pitchers.

[kq76]

I'm not arguing against a 120 pitch count in itself. It seems even to me that it is close to the max for most pitchers. I'm arguing against managers pulling pitchers seemingly prematurely. If the guy looks tired or struggling, then fine, pull him. But if he's not, then why risk bringing in a reliever who may or may not have his stuff tonight. I also don't believe that all pitchers get tired after a certain point. I would guess that some get tired at 120, some at 100, some at maybe even 40. And from what I've read, Jazayerli and Woolner agree with me, but it seems like many baseball people do not. Some people hear something bad and then instantly go to the opposite extreme. Again, count the pitches, but don't pull the guy just because he's hit the # you've assigned to him. Similarly, don't leave a guy in there who is tired or struggling just because he's not even close to his magic #.

One last thing. It seems to me that many pitchers have gone on to long successful careers under Mazzone. If he's using his eyes rather than an abacus and has had great success with his system, do you really want to fire him in favour of a monkey with a counting device? Maybe there's just not enough people out there with the knowledge of Mazzone. And so I guess if you cannot find someone like that, then the next best thing is the monkey.

[Skipaway]

kq76 perhaps you can provide what "baseball people" actually go to the opposite extreme?

As far as I know, extreme cautious measures are only applied to low minors.

And the point about Mazzone is, since the way he'd pull a pitcher is just the same as a counting device, why wouldn't every team install a counting device?

[kq76]

Originally posted by Skipaway
kq76 perhaps you can provide what "baseball people" actually go to the opposite extreme?

As far as I know, extreme cautious measures are only applied to low minors.

Easy, JP Ricciardi, Carlos Tosca... Don't get me wrong, I think JP is the best thing to happen to the Jays in a long time, but I don't think he gets everything right. Listening to him you'd think that a player's arm might actually fall off if they make 1 more pitch. Or am I just over-reacting because our bullpen would let someone with a mere scratch bleed to death? I definitely think a pitcher should take himself out if he feels something and I understand one's ego might get in the way and so you want to keep a close eye on him, but taking them out automatically after x pitches just seems wrong to me and so does probably the best pitching coach today (Mazzone) getting labeled as a pitcher abuser (I believe Neyer did that when Mazzone let a young pitcher pitch 121 pitches or something like that). As for younger pitchers, I agree with many that say you need to watch them much closer as you can't really trust that they know what is best for themselves yet, but you should still use your eyes more than your fingers.

And the point about Mazzone is, since the way he'd pull a pitcher is just the same as a counting device, why wouldn't every team install a counting device?

But you have not proved that that is the case. There are going to be days where a pitcher can really only go 70 pitches (very hot or cold days, maybe they stayed out partying too long the night before, their name is Andy and their eyes look a little glazed over, etc) and there are going to be days when they can go 130. If you auto take them out after x pitches, then you're probably either under or over-using them too much, which hurts your team either way.

[Rizon]

Didn't Kruk also say that Wins is the most important stat for a pitcher?

[Skipaway]

Originally posted by kq76

Easy, JP Ricciardi, Carlos Tosca... Don't get me wrong, I think JP is the best thing to happen to the Jays in a long time, but I don't think he gets everything right. Listening to him you'd think that a player's arm might actually fall off if they make 1 more pitch. Or am I just over-reacting because our bullpen would let someone with a mere scratch bleed to death? I definitely think a pitcher should take himself out if he feels something and I understand one's ego might get in the way and so you want to keep a close eye on him, but taking them out automatically after x pitches just seems wrong to me and so does probably the best pitching coach today (Mazzone) getting labeled as a pitcher abuser (I believe Neyer did that when Mazzone let a young pitcher pitch 121 pitches or something like that). As for younger pitchers, I agree with many that say you need to watch them much closer as you can't really trust that they know what is best for themselves yet, but you should still use your eyes more than your fingers.


But you have not proved that that is the case. There are going to be days where a pitcher can really only go 70 pitches (very hot or cold days, maybe they stayed out partying too long the night before, their name is Andy and their eyes look a little glazed over, etc) and there are going to be days when they can go 130. If you auto take them out after x pitches, then you're probably either under or over-using them too much, which hurts your team either way.

Never fall into hypes created by talks. You know how many teams got lower PAPIP numbers than the Jays last year? 14. The Jays are pretty middle of the road when it comes to pitch counts.

And I think you failed to realize that even with Mazzone's great eyes, he never let his pitcher go above 131 in the past three years!!!! And only 12 times above 121!!! What you said about "somedays 130" is pretty much baseless and meaningless.

[kq76]

Originally posted by Skipaway
Never fall into hypes created by talks. You know how many teams got lower PAPIP numbers than the Jays last year? 14. The Jays are pretty middle of the road when it comes to pitch counts.

It does not matter if the Jays are middle of the road. That could just mean they are not the worst at this. Now if someone showed me variation data to show that the Jays don't use pitch counts, then I'll concede that they don't, but I'll still argue that they're pulling them too early.

And I think you failed to realize that even with Mazzone's great eyes, he never let his pitcher go above 131 in the past three years!!!! And only 12 times above 121!!! What you said about "somedays 130" is pretty much baseless and meaningless.

Arguing with you is so frustrating sometimes as you don't seem to get the point and/or base yours on things that don't matter (e.g. averages without variation data). The point is not the specific numbers I provided, but the whole idea that pulling a pitcher should depend on the entire situation, not just the pitch count.

Nevermind. If you want to believe that pitchers should be pulled at some magical # no matter what else, go ahead and believe that. I've had enough.

[Skipaway]

Heh, I never said "no matter what else".

I'm just pointing out those who do not believe in magical numbers in fact still follow the same patterns. You should realize it's not about the process, it's about the results. We observe, and we make our theories to fit what we see. Not the other way around.

And I think arguing with you is so frustrating sometimes as you don't seem to get the point or base your things purely on what you "think" instead of providing evidences. What actually supports your speculation on those 70 and 130 numbers?

Right now, there is not enough data to really prove or disprove this "121" number, but I'm sure it's already better than anything else you might have.

[Skipaway]

dola,

I should have said that I got your points. I just think that's mostly baseless speculations and baseball cliches.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by Skipaway
Remember how people used to wonder how the Braves keep their starters healthy?

I'm assuming this was in like 1993, before Steve Avery and John Smoltz blew their arms out?

Jason

[clarnzz]

I played first base for the Phillies, this makes me an expert on how teams should manage a pitching staff.

Signed,
John Kruk