Now that's what you call a Major League Debut!!!!

[Aceshigh24]

Anyone else have a good Major League Debut like this? I've seen pitchers go 10 innings before but not 11!!!!!

[rjl518]

wow...talk about stamina

[Aceshigh24]

I was watching the game play out and i was pissed they kept him in the 9th but i think he had 79 pitches going into the 9th inning. His stamina is 18 i think?

[Cras]

11 innings but still only 125 pitches. Very economical.

[Aceshigh24]

Hahahahaha, can't wait to see how he does in his 2nd start.

[Jabez54]

Unfrigginievable !!! ... ... really mixes up his pitches ...

[packersfan]

I suppose it wholly depends on your Trainers' abilities. It is quite surprising because most of the minor leaguers (at least in the MLB quickstart) have low stamina, even starters. But I actually quite often have my pitchers going complete games +...for some reason my manager has an incredibly long leash!!! Really irritating actually because games go from me up 10 runs to a 7 or 8 run inning and my starter is STILL in!!! Take him out, JEEZ.

[mm7607]

cmon guys it wasn't that long when 125 pitches was middle of the road. I'm not that old and I can still remember. I HATE the pitch count. It was designed for the little leagues so as not to hurt they're little girly arms. Then the majors got it and 100 pitches and they might hurt they're girly arms.

[oman19]

Originally Posted by mm7607

cmon guys it wasn't that long when 125 pitches was middle of the road. I'm not that old and I can still remember. I HATE the pitch count. It was designed for the little leagues so as not to hurt they're little girly arms. Then the majors got it and 100 pitches and they might hurt they're girly arms.

I hate pitch counts too. A couple of guys on local radio the other day were talking about a study where they found them to be more harmful than good. It wouldn't suprise me at all.

[mm7607]

Originally Posted by oman19

I hate pitch counts too. A couple of guys on local radio the other day were talking about a study where they found them to be more harmful than good. It wouldn't suprise me at all.

That's correct. Pitch counts limit arm strength. If a guy is only custom to throwing 110 pitches he will never build up enough strength to go 130. Same principle as never lifting more then a 100 pounds and then one day trying to lift 200. You need to build up the muscles.

[Raidergoo]

Were you playing OOTP at work?

[EvilGenius]

Too little is known about the effectiveness of pitch counts. Some players are definitely inhibited by them and don't develop arm strength. Just as many have naturally fragile arms and any attempt at stretching them out will permanently damage them (a la Kerry Wood and Mark Prior).

The one thing everyone agrees on is that not all pitches are the same. Fastballs don't strain the arm the same as a curveball. A pitcher doesn't strain his arm as much when he has a comfortable 4 run lead as when he does when it is a tight game.

Gone are the days when a pitcher could sacrifice a few mph off his fastball to go a few extra innings. The batters are so juiced that anything less than a Plus Plus fastball isn't going to get it done.

Everyone talks nostalgically about how pitchers used to go all 9 innings no matter what. Pitchers back then (dead ball era) didn't have to pitch under pressure until a runner reached 2nd. That's a LOT less stress on the arm. Since then, the mound has been lowered, the strike zone is the size of a postage stamp, and the outfield walls are within arms reach of home plate.

More than that, the deciding factor on pulling a pitcher is if the guy in the pen is better than then guy on the mound. If so, arm strength isn't a factor. If I've got Mariano Rivera sitting in the pen, no way I'm letting my starter go all 9!

[Groucho Marx]

I think my problem is that I like the really old school baseball (1871-1940) but use modern managing techniques and I don't know if I would have left him in that long.

Great game, though.

[Groucho Marx]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

Were you playing OOTP at work?

Ohhh, how I wish I could.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by EvilGenius

Fastballs don't strain the arm the same as a curveball.

On that point, are there any successful major leagues starting pitchers (knuckleballers excepted) who don't throw a curveball or slider (in real life I mean, I assume there are in OOTP)?

Say someone who throws a 4 seamer, a splitter and a changeup (or any other combo, I just chose that because they're the pitches I know how to throw in RL, admittedly at like 50 mph and quite wildly, but still)?

[Aceshigh24]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

Were you playing OOTP at work?

Yes sir i was!!!!

Originally Posted by Groucho Marx

Ohhh, how I wish I could.

It is the greatest thing in the world, i never want to call out sick.

[hfield007]

Pitch counts are there to avoid injury. Remember, an arm pitching a long time doesn't cause injury... a tired arm pitching causes injury.

While you can make the case that it builds arm strength there are studies that show a higher risk (stress factor some call it) of injury after so many pitches for the average pitcher.

And that data includes before the majors became so pitch count crazy.

Baseball Between the Numbers is a good read I'd suggest to anyone on these types of topics.
But like has been mentioned by someone here, not every pitcher is built the same. And certainly some people don't want to over work their star pitcher too much to find out if he can handle the load or not.

[Charlie Hough]

Higher risk does not mean guaranteed injury. And 'higher risk' factors have been widely reported for countless activities and behaviors, but often the increase in risk is relatively low. The problem is that human perception and reasoning often overvalues the risk because people are incredibly prone to bad reasoning, fallacies, and emotional responses.

There is no doubt from everything I have examined and seen that baseball's pitch count obsession is a classic overreaction to risk data, and it's paranoid and irrational.

You have to do real risk management and determine how much you want to sacrifice performance and success for the sake of minimizing risk.

In business, you cannot achieve success without risk. And I have seen companies frightened by the 'risks' of certain investments, strategies, or considerations. They paralyze themselves into indecision or they hinder their potential success by playing to the risks rather than the potential rewards. This despite the fact that the rewards almost always outweigh the risks of a calculated decision or action.

But there is only one thing that is certain: if you risk nothing, you will gain nothing.

To me, the obsession with pitch counts is crazy. Yes, beyond a certain number of pitches, there is increased risk of injury. This is no different than the increased risk of injury from a running back getting more and more carries in football. But you don't see football coaches falling into the paranoia that baseball managers have.

In football, star running backs are going to get 25 to 35 carries in a game unless the score gets out of hand or the results aren't there. And, yes, running backs tend to get hurt, and they don't tend to have long careers of sustained stardom. But that doesn't stop coaches from using them as much as possible, and it doesn't stop running backs from wanting the ball as much as possible.

The idea is to WIN and to get as much as you can out of your talent. Even for the running backs, they need to get as much as they can out of their bodies because a professional sports career is finite. You DON'T want to leave money or opportunity on the table for the sake of avoiding risk. It's understood that you're going to take punishment, get hurt, and face the risk of serious or career-ending injuries. But you DO NOT back down from carrying the ball or wanting it as much as they will give it to you.

Baseball pitchers should be handled no differently, and they should demand the same. The only real risk to a pitcher is an arm injury. Other injuries are far less frequent or serious. And arm injuries continue to take place at significant rates, just like they always have. They still happen very frequently despite pitchers being kept on strict pitch counts throughout their careers.

From a physiology and anatomy standpoint, throwing a baseball repeatedly at high speed and with spin is risky. It's unnatural, it puts tremendous strain on the arm, and if you really want to avoid the risk of an arm injury, you should NEVER engage in this activity.

But we're talking about baseball here, so you HAVE to engage in that activity. Arm injuries, however, are not the end of the world, and they're not the end of a career like they once were. Look at the litany of players who have had successful arm surgeries and repairs. Guys go on the DL and come back all the time. And they come back with a frequency and at a higher rate of success than they ever did in years past.

Look at the guys like Frank Tanana or Jamie Moyer, who can come back from major injuries and learn to pitch after losing much their arm strength. Look at the advancements in physical rehabilitation, training, and conditioning.

In light of all the considerations, it seems obvious to me that the approach that baseball has taken just doesn't make sense. To my knowledge, this level of concern and obsession is not seen in any other sport. Star NBA players play 40 minutes of every 48-minute game. They play 82 games per season, plus playoff contests, and they collide with other players, dive for balls, and get fouled. It's a vastly more physical game than baseball, and it brings serious risks of far more types of injuries than pitchers face.

Basketball stars get injured sometimes. It's all part of the risk, but you don't see NBA coaches limiting star players to 25 minutes per game to try and keep them healthy. Statistically, this would automatically reduce the risk of injury, but the idea is to WIN. You keep your best players on the court for as long as possible while giving them occasional rest to keep them fresh.

No, you're not going to have your star player play every minute of every game. And you don't need to have your pitcher pitch every inning of every game. But if you're going to pull pitchers based on a strict count, with almost no regard for the score, the situation, or anything else, then this is crazy. And that is what I see happen repeatedly at all levels of professional baseball. It's absolutely unbelievable to me.

[Aceshigh24]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Higher risk does not mean guaranteed injury. And 'higher risk' factors have been widely reported for countless activities and behaviors, but often the increase in risk is relatively low. The problem is that human perception and reasoning often overvalues the risk because people are incredibly prone to bad reasoning, fallacies, and emotional responses.

There is no doubt from everything I have examined and seen that baseball's pitch count obsession is a classic overreaction to risk data, and it's paranoid and irrational.

You have to do real risk management and determine how much you want to sacrifice performance and success for the sake of minimizing risk.

In business, you cannot achieve success without risk. And I have seen companies frightened by the 'risks' of certain investments, strategies, or considerations. They paralyze themselves into indecision or they hinder their potential success by playing to the risks rather than the potential rewards. This despite the fact that the rewards almost always outweigh the risks of a calculated decision or action.

But there is only one thing that is certain: if you risk nothing, you will gain nothing.

To me, the obsession with pitch counts is crazy. Yes, beyond a certain number of pitches, there is increased risk of injury. This is no different than the increased risk of injury from a running back getting more and more carries in football. But you don't see football coaches falling into the paranoia that baseball managers have.

In football, star running backs are going to get 25 to 35 carries in a game unless the score gets out of hand or the results aren't there. And, yes, running backs tend to get hurt, and they don't tend to have long careers of sustained stardom. But that doesn't stop coaches from using them as much as possible, and it doesn't stop running backs from wanting the ball as much as possible.

The idea is to WIN and to get as much as you can out of your talent. Even for the running backs, they need to get as much as they can out of their bodies because a professional sports career is finite. You DON'T want to leave money or opportunity on the table for the sake of avoiding risk. It's understood that you're going to take punishment, get hurt, and face the risk of serious or career-ending injuries. But you DO NOT back down from carrying the ball or wanting it as much as they will give it to you.

Baseball pitchers should be handled no differently, and they should demand the same. The only real risk to a pitcher is an arm injury. Other injuries are far less frequent or serious. And arm injuries continue to take place at significant rates, just like they always have. They still happen very frequently despite pitchers being kept on strict pitch counts throughout their careers.

From a physiology and anatomy standpoint, throwing a baseball repeatedly at high speed and with spin is risky. It's unnatural, it puts tremendous strain on the arm, and if you really want to avoid the risk of an arm injury, you should NEVER engage in this activity.

But we're talking about baseball here, so you HAVE to engage in that activity. Arm injuries, however, are not the end of the world, and they're not the end of a career like they once were. Look at the litany of players who have had successful arm surgeries and repairs. Guys go on the DL and come back all the time. And they come back with a frequency and at a higher rate of success than they ever did in years past.

Look at the guys like Frank Tanana or Jamie Moyer, who can come back from major injuries and learn to pitch after losing much their arm strength. Look at the advancements in physical rehabilitation, training, and conditioning.

In light of all the considerations, it seems obvious to me that the approach that baseball has taken just doesn't make sense. To my knowledge, this level of concern and obsession is not seen in any other sport. Star NBA players play 40 minutes of every 48-minute game. They play 82 games per season, plus playoff contests, and they collide with other players, dive for balls, and get fouled. It's a vastly more physical game than baseball, and it brings serious risks of far more types of injuries than pitchers face.

Basketball stars get injured sometimes. It's all part of the risk, but you don't see NBA coaches limiting star players to 25 minutes per game to try and keep them healthy. Statistically, this would automatically reduce the risk of injury, but the idea is to WIN. You keep your best players on the court for as long as possible while giving them occasional rest to keep them fresh.

No, you're not going to have your star player play every minute of every game. And you don't need to have your pitcher pitch every inning of every game. But if you're going to pull pitchers based on a strict count, with almost no regard for the score, the situation, or anything else, then this is crazy. And that is what I see happen repeatedly at all levels of professional baseball. It's absolutely unbelievable to me.

This always makes me wonder if this is the real Charlie Hough talking about this game!

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Aceshigh24

This always makes me wonder if this is the real Charlie Hough talking about this game!

I think he's been asked if he's the real one before, and I think he denied it lol