This is our old blog. It hasn't been active since 2011. Please see the link above for our current blog or click the logo above to see all of the great data and content on this site.
«
»

Wearing out young pitchers (?)

Posted by Andy on June 10, 2010

These days there always seems to be lots of attention put on the issue of whether young pitchers' careers can be ruined by having them throw too many pitches early in their careers.

I know this issue has been studied a lot. Just out of curiosity, I did a search to find pitchers with the most starts throwing 100+ pitches within their first 50 career games. I limited the time period to 1986-2005 so that we could be a few years removed from the period (to see what happened to these guys as they got older) and also to prevent going too far back into days when pitchers were used quite differently.

Anyway here are the leaders:

Rk Player #Matching W L W-L% ERA GS CG SHO SV IP H ER HR BB SO WHIP
1 Randy Wolf 41 Ind. Games 16 10 .615 3.85 41 1 0 0 271.0 253 116 30 118 232 1.37
2 Mark Prior 40 Ind. Games 21 8 .724 2.49 40 4 1 0 278.2 235 77 22 70 336 1.09
3 Cal Eldred 39 Ind. Games 25 10 .714 2.82 39 9 2 0 293.1 237 92 23 87 198 1.10
4 Mike Mussina 38 Ind. Games 23 7 .767 2.28 38 11 6 0 307.2 243 78 23 64 172 1.00
5 Kerry Wood 37 Ind. Games 19 9 .679 2.82 37 2 1 0 255.0 172 80 19 126 315 1.17
6 Wade Miller 36 Ind. Games 19 10 .655 3.84 36 3 0 0 251.0 218 107 37 91 220 1.23
7 Orlando Hernandez 34 Ind. Games 23 5 .821 2.74 34 4 2 0 246.2 179 75 19 91 210 1.09
8 Juan Guzman 34 Ind. Games 21 3 .875 2.28 34 2 0 0 233.1 160 59 8 98 222 1.11
9 A.J. Burnett 34 Ind. Games 16 12 .571 3.47 34 3 2 0 228.1 185 88 18 121 194 1.34
10 Jason Bere 34 Ind. Games 18 6 .750 2.79 34 1 0 0 226.0 164 70 17 116 217 1.24
11 Aaron Sele 33 Ind. Games 11 9 .550 3.02 33 2 0 0 220.2 203 74 12 92 180 1.34
12 Barry Zito 32 Ind. Games 15 9 .625 2.70 32 4 3 0 210.0 158 63 14 87 194 1.17
13 Dontrelle Willis 32 Ind. Games 16 5 .762 2.43 32 2 1 0 211.1 188 57 14 58 185 1.16
14 Noah Lowry 32 Ind. Games 17 9 .654 2.98 32 2 1 0 211.1 178 70 17 72 182 1.18
15 Bobby Jones 32 Ind. Games 13 10 .565 2.91 32 2 1 0 238.0 221 77 14 74 135 1.24
16 Livan Hernandez 32 Ind. Games 14 11 .560 3.25 32 9 0 0 243.2 235 88 28 93 176 1.35
17 Shawn Estes 32 Ind. Games 17 8 .680 3.16 32 2 2 0 216.2 169 76 11 103 197 1.26
18 Kris Benson 32 Ind. Games 17 9 .654 2.65 32 4 1 0 237.2 189 70 15 87 177 1.16
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 6/9/2010.

For what it's worth I count 7 guys in here who had serious arm injuries: Wolf, Prior, Eldred, wood, Miller, Bere, and Benson. That's 7 out of 16 guys. (I am ignoring the two Hernandezes as their starts in MLB were not really the beginning of their respective careers.)

When talking about such a small number of players, I'm not sure the results are all that meaningful. The injuries could have occurred for other reasons, plus I don't know the baseline frequency of serious injuries among starting pitchers.

For a comparison that is equally marred by questionable significance, let's look at the starters over the same period with the most games featuring 80 to 99 pitches:

Rk Gcar Player #Matching W L W-L% ERA GS CG SHO SV IP H ER HR BB SO WHIP
1 Jeff D'Amico 32 Ind. Games 13 12 .520 4.57 32 0 0 0 181.1 182 92 36 60 119 1.33
2 Brett Myers 30 Ind. Games 11 11 .500 4.65 30 0 0 0 182.0 204 94 27 55 117 1.42
3 Brian Tollberg 29 Ind. Games 8 10 .444 4.23 29 0 0 0 174.2 195 82 27 46 102 1.38
4 Kip Wells 28 Ind. Games 12 9 .571 4.84 28 0 0 0 148.2 161 80 21 78 107 1.61
5 Dan Haren 27 Ind. Games 10 10 .500 4.86 27 1 0 0 153.2 172 83 17 44 107 1.41
6 Zack Greinke 27 Ind. Games 7 16 .304 5.26 27 2 0 0 155.2 180 91 21 34 94 1.37
7 Jeff Francis 27 Ind. Games 9 10 .474 6.51 27 0 0 0 142.1 178 103 27 63 102 1.69
8 Jason Davis 27 Ind. Games 6 11 .353 5.83 27 0 0 0 156.0 185 101 25 57 90 1.55
9 Matt Clement 27 Ind. Games 10 9 .526 4.63 27 0 0 0 153.2 152 79 15 78 110 1.50
10 Jeremy Bonderman 27 Ind. Games 9 14 .391 5.15 27 0 0 0 155.2 159 89 26 59 127 1.40
11 Carl Pavano 26 Ind. Games 8 6 .571 4.21 26 0 0 0 154.0 153 72 14 42 110 1.27
12 Chris Nabholz 26 Ind. Games 12 8 .600 3.62 26 0 0 0 159.0 131 64 8 68 111 1.25
13 John Lackey 26 Ind. Games 11 8 .579 4.69 26 0 0 0 149.2 166 78 22 51 102 1.45
14 Chris Holt 26 Ind. Games 6 11 .353 3.99 26 0 0 0 160.1 169 71 15 50 77 1.37
15 Bob Wolcott 25 Ind. Games 9 9 .500 4.77 25 1 0 0 145.1 165 77 25 48 84 1.47
16 Josh Towers 25 Ind. Games 11 10 .524 4.22 25 0 0 0 164.1 185 77 30 25 79 1.28
17 Jae Weong Seo 25 Ind. Games 4 11 .267 4.45 25 0 0 0 139.2 158 69 21 37 83 1.40
18 Aaron Harang 25 Ind. Games 8 8 .500 5.21 25 0 0 0 133.0 159 77 12 43 88 1.52
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 6/9/2010.

Presumably these guys were worked a little less as youngsters, but I'm not even sure of that conclusion. As for major injuries, I count D'Amico, Francis, Pavano, and Holt. That's 4/18, which might or might not be statistically-significantly-less than the 7/16 from the "high pitch count" group.

I'm not sure much of anything can be learned from this...did it mostly out of curiosity.

Your thoughts?

Related posts:

    Young Starting Pitchers Off To A Hot Start Since 1996
    K/BB ratios for young pitchers
    Teams Developing Young Winning Pitchers
    Young & Hot
    Most QS By Young SP Last 3 Seasons

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 10th, 2010 at 10:44 am and is filed under Game Finders. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

24 Responses to “Wearing out young pitchers (?)”

  1. john Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 11:03 am

    1. Look at the pitchers with the fewest 100 pitch games?
    2. I notice that the worst ERA in group I is 3.85. The best ERA in group II is 3.62.

  2. largebill Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 11:14 am

    Wonder how "abuse" at college level plays into this equation. Have heard stories of some coaches riding a stud pitcher into the ground.

  3. Matt in Toledo Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 11:19 am

    Isn't Lowry recovering from a pretty serious arm injury?

  4. CUBBIES Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 11:29 am

    UNRELATED:what is the difference between WAR and adjusted batting runs?

  5. CUBBIES Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 11:29 am

    *adjusted batting WINS

  6. DavidRF Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 11:36 am

    Can you scan by age? Some rookies are 21 and others are 25.

  7. Deacon Drake Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Uhhh... Livan Hernandez was 21 when he came up with the Marlins, 22 when he contributed. His Cuban days were no different than Prior's days at USC.

    Probably a fair assessment exclude El Duque, though.

  8. Andy Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 11:46 am

    In the back of my mind, I thought I had that wrong when I wrote it. Thanks for correcting.

  9. Djibouti Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 11:55 am

    From what I understand, the question isn't number of pitches so much as pitch total differences from one season to the next. Maybe a better (but more difficult) study would be young pitchers with the largest pitch total differences. You'd have to factor minor league data into this and to be totally accurate you'd probably need college data as well (or wherever they pitched before they were drafted). Taking into account the amount of raw talent these guys had to have to make this many appearances, the long term results are pretty bad. Most of the guys in the first list either flamed out or succumbed to injuries

  10. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Cubbies, WAR is an estimate of how many wins a player contributed over a replacement-level player in all parts of the game -- offense and defense.

    Adjusted Batting Wins is an estimate of how many more wins than a replacement-player a player contributed just as a hitter.

    One could use Adjusted Batting Wins in computing a version of WAR. But the WAR shown on B-R uses a somewhat different formula for its offensive calculations.

  11. Charles Saeger Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    The gap in performance between the two groups is huge. The top group went 321-150 and had a 2.91 ERA; the bottom group went 164-183 and had a 4.74 ERA.

    Is this total performance in the first 50 games, total performance in the first 50 games started, or only performance in the games used for the count? It looks like the last one, which means only the good games for the top group and the not-so-good games for the bottom group count.

  12. Andy Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    It's performance only in the games listed, meaning for example what Randy Wolf did in his 41 games with 100+ pitches.

  13. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Correction: Batting Wins is actually compared to an average player, not a replacement player.

  14. Thomas Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Is there any way to make two tables, one of guys who we know have had major arm injuries vs guys without major arm injuries and see what their early start pitch count averages are?

    I don't know how viable or easy that would be... but that might make slightly more sense. For ex: we know Mussina didn't have injuries, so what was his average pitch count in his first x starts vs. Wolf's.

  15. Zachary Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Those are, frankly, insignificant differences. I sincerely hope Nolan Ryan helps convince the baseball world that this coddling nonsense doesn't do a damn bit of good.

  16. Thomas Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Using one player as an example doesn't mean anything. Because I could come back with look what happened to Kerry Wood... obviously pitchers can't be used that way anymore. Or I could say, well Ryan seems pretty coddled too compared to Walter Johnson or Cy Young.

    I don't know who said it, or where I heard it... but someone said, the number of pitches don't matter it's the four days of recovery time... I seem to think that might be truer. But, I'm just a guy at a computer...

  17. Andy Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Aren't we all, Thomas...aren't we all...

  18. Zachary Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    I was referring more to Ryan's attempt to push the stamina of the current Texas Rangers staff.

    Gonna go on a bit of a rant - this is very closely related to my area of research - so please excuse me.

    I just don't see why in this age of advanced year-long training and dietary plans that pitchers who should be FAR more fit than their predecessors are throwing 50+ fewer innings. Pitchers were capable of handling it 50 years ago, and modern athletes should be even better suited for matters of conditioning. Sure, some pitchers got injured back then, but the vast majority of injuries - then or now - are going to occur no matter what. Injuries result almost exclusively from mechanical flaws, exceedingly few of which are more dangerous upon repetition than on singular performance.

    Most big league pitchers are going to have mediocre careers. That's just the way definitions work. For them to be legitimately valuable, they have to pitch often enough that the replacement level talent doesn't get too much playing time. All that abstract pitch counts - rather than pitch counts personalized to performance tendencies - do is limit positive contributions. For a pitcher to be worth anything, he has to be throwing; teams should be doing everything they can to maximize time on the mound, and this 5-man rotation and 100 pitches nonsense simply runs counter to that goal as it limits innings without demonstrating any positive effect on injury control. If you want pitchers to stay healthy, the only thing you can or should do is ensure that they have fundamentally sound biomechanics. If they do, you will not injure them by asking them to repeat the motion.

    Fatigue can, but will not always, increase the likelihood of mechanical flaws creeping in, but that risk can be substantially lessened through good conditioning and a throwing motion that is well away from the red flags. There's no reason that a pitcher couldn't throw 300 innings or 150 pitches if he is sufficiently strong with a sufficiently good motion. Of course, he'd have to be lucky enough to be blessed with good genetics to have a long career - you know, the same as now. Obviously these things can't be changed overnight, but a dedicated organization could change the way pitchers are viewed.

    Thanks for letting me get that out.

  19. Butch Cassidy Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Carl Pavano's injuries came from everything EXCEPT throwing too many pitches.

  20. Thomas Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    First off, I'd forgotten entirely Ryan's current status with the Rangers.... sorry about that...

    I wonder if it's not that there's too much training of some kind going on. Because that seems to be the only difference. X pitcher from a hundred years ago worked in a coal mine during the offseason and then came out and threw a complete game every 3 days... well the only thing he's doing different then Randy Wolf is not-training. I don't know if that makes sense but maybe theres just too much training going on. Maybe pitchers arms are getting worn out in the weight room. Or x amount of hours lifing (or whatever) is equal to x number of innings pitched (roughly) so all that workout is actually negating playing longevity.

  21. nightfly Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Excellent comment, Zachary.

    I can't tell you how often, in my High Heat Baseball days, I wanted to move to a four-man rotation... but apparently there was no way for the game to simulate that a pitcher can adapt to an increased workload by getting used to a four-man rotation in the minors. All my minor leagues went four-man rotations, but in the majors I couldn't do it because the pitchers would not recover their stamina before that fifth day unless they had gotten knocked early from the box the previous game (thus not working hard). I'm not talking about stretches of twenty games in twenty days, either, but just a routine homestand with a day off in the middle and a getaway day. I still tried to skip the fifth guy whenever I could if there were a lot of days off.

    Still a great, great game, and ahead of its time in some ways - there was a rough EqA calculation, for example - but I wish I could have managed the four-man rotation.

    @Andy - I think you may be looking at some form of survivor's bias by sorting for number of pitches. The guys who performed much better in their games were more likely to pitch deeper into them, hence the number of 100-pitch starts for some guys. That's why all the ERA's and such are better for the first group instead of the second. (Though it is kind of cool that the most successful of any of those pitchers, Mike Mussina, had the lowest WHIP, most shutouts, most innings, and tied for the lowest ERA among the returned samples.)

    I think a sort of innings per year or even starts per year might be more informative. You would get some of the same effect no matter what, I think, but those would account for bad as well as good starts. As a result you might get more results and thus a better sample size.

  22. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    Zachary, a few comments:

    I'm certainly no physiologist, but isn't it possible that while athletes are better trained/conditioned/stronger than in the past, those advancements wouldn't necessarily apply to pitching? The pitching injuries occur to the elbow and the shoulder, both joints, one of them very complex. Perhaps being more athletic does not necessarily mean the shoulder and elbow are any more "fit." I know that sometimes pitchers try to avoid shoulder surgery by strengthening the muscles around the rotator cuff. Perhaps those exercises should be done more regularly, even before injury occurs? And is there anything that can be done to make the elbow more resilient (improved mechanics aside)?

    I don't think there's any question that many current pitchers _are_ capable of the workloads of the past. We just don't know who they are, because the evolving orthodoxy is conservative in trying to keep everyone healthy, rather than promoting survival of the fittest.

    We cannot directly compare the number of innings pitched now to those pitched in the '60s, or the deadball era, because pitching is harder now. When anyone in the lineup can take you deep, there is less opportunity to conserve energy. Every pitch becomes more stressful, and it takes more pitches to complete the same number of innings when there is more scoring. Also, it's possible that the style of pitching causes more injuries or simply wears one down faster. There are more strikeouts now; that's partially due to a change by batters, but I think it is also a change by pitchers. Are they using more violent, damaging deliveries to produce pitches which are harder to make contact with?

    The reduced workloads is also a strategic choice. Even if your pitcher is cruising along, does it make more sense to let him pitch a 9th inning, facing batters for the 4th time, or bring in a reliever? In most cases, the relief pitcher is the better option.

    Are there current pitchers who can identify as having superior mechanics? Are there pitchers who have not gotten hurt yet who have troublesome mechanics?

  23. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    who you* can identify...

  24. Bryan Mueller Says:
    June 10th, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    A little comic relief...here are some reasons why pitchers get injured besides pitch count and mechanics:

    -Strained elbow while flipping sunflower seeds (Greg Harris)
    -Trying to tear a phone book in half (Steve Sparks)
    -Stabbing yourself with a knife while attempting to open a DVD (Adam Eaton)...I will agree that those are not easy to open!
    -Getting bit by your mother-in-law's dog (David Cone)
    -Getting an infection from a tattoo (Jeff Juden)

    I am sure there are many more that I don't know about but I hope you got a laugh!

«
»