Nolan Ryan has told his employees to ignore pitch counts going forward:
Under the leadership of club president Nolan Ryan, the Texas Rangers have embarked on a pitching experiment that could be called "back to the future on the mound." The experiment may also have a major impact on the use of the dreaded pitch count which has been in vogue for perhaps too long in MLB.
Ryan has banished the use of the pitch count in determining how long a pitcher stays in the game through out the organization . . .
. . . "The ceiling is off," said [Mike] Maddux. "This is a mental thing we have to overcome. We have to change the attitude of the starters to want to go deep and believe they can . . . we want guys who want the ball deep in the game," said Maddux. He believes that the results of this experiment will be seen as early as June.
I'm not necessarily opposed to teams moving away from a slavish devotion to pitch counts as long as they have some means in place to monitor a pitcher's stamina and workload. Maybe by closely observing a guy a team can figure out what his "tells" are for when he's getting tired that would actually be more precise than specifying a 100-pitch limit, for example. Maybe such a system would allow guys to go longer in games when they truly are feeling great and maybe it would dictate that they be pulled earlier in games when they simply don't have it, thereby preventing injuries.
Which, it should be noted, does not sound at all like what the Rangers plan on doing. To the contrary, from what it sounds like, they plan on simply having their pitchers get in great condition and then challenge them to "go deep," with the implication that if they don't go deep, they won't be pitching in Texas long. Maybe that worked for Nolan Ryan, but doesn't everyone pretty much agree that Nolan Ryan was essentially a physical freak of nature? Is it a good idea to base a training and usage regimen for everyday mortals on what worked for a once-in-a-lifetime talent? Ryan may say that it worked back in the 70s, but how many young pitchers never made the big leagues in the first place due to arm injuries back in the 70s?
Of course, Ryan probably won't catch any hell for it if the Rangers wind up with multiple damaged arms in the next couple of years. He'll simply say that the guys with the bum elbows simply weren't tough enough, and he's enough of an icon in Texas that no one will think to disagree with him.
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
The problem with the pitch count is not the count itself, but how it is used.
First off, pitch counts just make sense for younger arms. Pitchers under the age of 25 have such a risk of injury, teams need to do everything and anything to decrease that risk. Mark Prior is example "A" of a team ignoring pitch counts and the workload of a young pitcher and how quickly that can blow up in their face.
However, after a certain age, pitchers are able to handle more pitches. This is where the pitch count is misapplied. Thanks to 100 being such a nice round number, far too many teams have applied that as the magical pitch count for even veteran pitchers. That's just crazy. Most veteran pitchers should be able to handle throwing 120 pitches a game consistently, with the occasional spurt above. But even using 120 pitches as a pitch count isn't the best idea.
The best way to handle a veteran pitcher is just to carefully monitor him. If a manager is really watching it starts to become clear when a pitcher just doesn't have it anymore and is fading later in the game.
As much as I hate the Red Sox this is where I have to give them credit. They've been on the forefront of really observing their pitchers. They love to take baseline tests so they know the full abilities of their pitchers. When their pitchers start to falter from that baseline, then they know it's time to either pull them from the game, or maybe even skip a start or give them an extra day of rest. The Red Sox seem to know their pitchers inside and out, so they don't have to resort to arbitrary pitch counts in order to handle them.
Jeebus. I don't even know what to say. At least Dusty Baker is sort of coy about his disregard for pitch counts.
As far as Nolan being a freak of nature, how do you think he got that way? By stopping after 60 pitches when he was a kid? Or by going until it felt like he should quit? My 15 year old son, who has MLB aspirations and the God given attributes to attain that with the right work, regularly goes more than 80 pitches deep, has gone over 100 several times, and has peaked at 130 2 or 3 times. What makes this OK with me is that he has always had coaches that would take him out, even in the middle of an at bat, if he said he needed to come out. His high school coach, who I don't yet trust all that much with my kid's future, will push him a little more than he's used to, but so far has always backed down when given strong objection by his ace. In the event that the coach won't take him out, we have a signal that, when used, will get ME to take him out. That may cause us to have to move to a different district after that if he is going to continue his career, but I feel it's not some coach's place to ruin a career at any level. Maybe that's what the goal is with Nolan's new policy. Listen to the pitchers. After all, who knows their bodies better? Whether or not you're getting paid to play, your goal as a player of any sport, at any position, should be to go full bore until you can't, then don't. If Rangers pitchers can do that, maybe we can see some post season games someplace other than on TV........
Richard:
MLB ran on that philosophy for years and years. Professional athletes are the most competitive people in the world, though, and they tend to underestimate their own fallibility. It's the other side of the coin that gives them supreme confidence in their talents. Baseball history is littered with promising youngsters who blew out their arms by throwing too many pitches too soon.
The switch to a heavier reliance on pitch counts didn't come about to take the fun out the game or to give old timers something to complain about. It came about because research has shown that limiting pitch counts helps prevent injury. This is not really up for debate. Figuring out exactly how many pitches is too many for an individual pitcher, though, has proved tricky. Many people are working on more precise methods for predicting and preventing arm troubles (looking at mechanics, body types, etc.), but none of these has shown itself to be better than simply limiting pitches. Not yet at least. So unless and until somebody figures out another way to simply and effectively reduce the incidence of arm troubles, we're stuck with pitch counts.
I'd love to see Roy Halladay throwing 150+ pitches every time out as much as you would. It would be reckless for the Jays to use him like that, though. Pitch counts have been shown to give you a better chance of having your best pitchers on the field as much as possible. It is silly to pretend otherwise.
Ryan's right. The "pitch count" has done nothing but produce a generation of wusses who can't throw a full game until they're 35. Good for him.
Mark Prior is always used as an example of a pitcher abused by high pitch counts, but what were those counts, 120-130-140? If we do simple math -- a pitcher who averages one base runner per inning is considered extremely efficient, and is generally very successful. That's nine baserunners per game, an average of 36 batters per nine innings.
The most patient of hitters see an average of less than four pitches per at-bat, which would make an average of 15 pitches per inning a very reasonable, and undoubteldy very successful, number. That's 135 per game, which by today's standard is considered abusive -- but in Ryan's time was normal. If 100 pitches continues to be the "magic number," that makes six-plus innings the norm for today's starters, complete games a rarity and shutous virtually extinct.
As far as injuries -- every generation has its share of "blowouts" that don't make it and judging by the disabled list there are no fewer under limited pitch counts than there were before.