Assume there’s gonna be 140 pitches in a game. Why not spread those pitches out equally between 2 pitchers, rather than one pitcher throwing 120 and the other 20? What sense does it make to give more time to the kid who needs it the least, unless of course it isn’t about development at all, but rather winning at whatever the cost. In my experience, its because folks like yourself aren’t as capable at development as they claim, and I don’t mean that as an insult, but rather to state in no uincertain terms how difficult it is to develop pitchers.
I have found that development starts with the throwing routine in between starts. It’s a process and pitching live is only a part of the process. There has to be a time to fail and try new things. Would I stake the entire development process on his results on the mound and leave them at that? Absolutlely not. Based on his prior outing the routine would be designed to attack his weakness and formulate a plan for the next outing. Winning should never be a part of the equation when development is end goal, competing has to be taken out of the equation. However, our discussion hasn’t been about development. Based on what I infer from your comments is that the pitch count is the answer to negating overuse. My argument is that overuse occurs more times than not from being underprepared and more emphasis on the magic number versus how did he get to that number and what variables led to the number.
It seems you’re hung up on the temperature as factor. It certainly is a factor, but not nearly as important as if its raining. You make it out to be that if perhaps its 120, under pitch limits coaches would allow the pitchers to keep throwing until they reached the limit, and that’s patently absurd. Why would a coach be more inclined to do that?
Hung up, no. Why? Because it seems like that pitch counts seem to be the answer and that the Magic number is the cure all to our country’s arm problems. According to SouthPaw:
"“In short, when multiple variables are in play, a particular variable is not diminished by the mere presence of the other variables. “””
And that’s why pitch counts have become what they have. You’re staking a players health on the fact that you can’t possibly be wrong in assuming a fatigued player can’t throw at the same velocity as a rested one. You don’t care if a pitcher’s throwing the ball all over the place, he’s complaining about arm pain, or anything else that might indicate fatigue. You’re putting all your eggs into one basket.[/color]
I don’t care about a player complaining of arm pain??? The gun becomes the decision maker when there are no noticeable differences in the kids performance and the gun tells me differently. I am not the coach that thinks every problem on the mound is a mechanical deficiency. Some release point problems does not mean the kid should alter his mechanics, maybe adjust reference points. Some coaches preach make mechanical adjustments while on the mound, I think more often its reference points, I guess I am the minority. The key is communication and when kids struggle to communicate, the gun doesn’t lie. Again, I haven’t had as many pitchers on my staff that are able to implement speed changes and variations of the fastball as you mentioned with “most” pitchers. So therefore, without complaints or results, I leave the decision to measurable feedback.
Big difference in a kid who “prepares” to pitch by showing up at the park and pitching versus the pitcher who prepares to pitch by establishing a routine in between outings.
I wouldn’t waste my time looking because you’d find some way to never accept it.
[color=blue]The bottom line here, is that a great change in attitudes and understanding has taken place, where folks like yourself were in the majority, but are now thankfully in the minority.[/quote]
It comes as no surprise that Nolan Ryan is leading the charge to do away with pitch counts. Ryan has outlawed the use of the pitch count in determining how long a pitcher stays in the game throughout the Rangers organization in regards to starting pitchers. He has, however, introduced a year-round fitness program for the starting pitchers in order to “establish a foundation” for them.
Ryan said he “had to develop stamina because my intent was to pitch a lot of innings” and that he wants his pitchers to do the same. He is trying to change the culture in the organization and has passed on this message to pitching coach Mike Maddux. Says Maddux:
“You don’t need a pitch count to know when your day is done. The hitters will let you know that. 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.”
Good luck with your beliefs on pitch counts being the answer. We obviously disagree with preparing kids to pitch by throwing and establishing a routine and instead using a number that is universal for all kids regardless of variables and routines. The majority believe that pitchers are fragile and should be treated in that fashion. We prep these kids for injury by not preparing them. The majority understimate the amazing, complex machine called the body and fail to realize that the body will adapt and actually make structural changes based on its needs. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071004084045.htm The majority tell kids to not throw past a certain distance, the majority tell kids they need to take time off between starts to rest their arms, the majority tell kids that when you miss high that you should make an adjustment to their mechanics mid game. I understand what the majority think and am proud to be on the other side. It’s amazing what a little common sense can do along with some measurable feedback, it seems that the majority don’t understand. So, yes I am in the minority and thank you for recognizing that.