Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Wells was first used as a starter in 1990 hitting 133 pitches as a peak. In 1993 he reached 141, 1994 he had a 141 & a 133. 1995 he reached 157 (8 2/3 IP 4 H 1 R 5 BB 7 SO - wouldn't think that would add up to 157 pitches). That's it for 140+ games - there were a few more 130's. So yeah, I could see why he'd say 'so what' to 100 pitches.
But why bring up a book like Moneyball in discussing an unrelated subject?
I see SPs that look like #### forced through 4 IP of 100 pitches b/c the bullpen has no long man. I can guarantee that's worse for the pitcher than throwing 130 pitches in a CG shutout where they have great mechanics and are blowing people away.
But how is 110 any less silly than 100?
I’ve just recently written quite a bit on this subject in The Diamond Appraised baseball column, including my utter dissatisfaction with the current practice of pitch limits and how I believe most teams would be better off to just stop this practice and return to the days of relying on the pitcher’s self-report and the observations of manager, pitching coach, and catcher to determine when to pull a pitcher. Even at the player development level where I strongly encourage teams to exercise care with pitchers in their formative years, I am pleased at the acceptance of the basic principle but am appalled at what most teams think is in line with that principle. In their actual practice, I think they are preventing pitchers from building durability while also employing a strategy that I believe raises the risk of damage to the shoulder, even though they think they are doing the opposite.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (8 members)
Page rendered in 0.8348 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed