NFT: Interesting NY Times article on pitch counts.

I'm here for the show!

I thought the article was long on anecdotal arguments and short on empirical ones; shrug emoji.

Finding very good pitchers is hard and time consuming so a better formula is just to find players who throw hard and are effective in short bursts?

For sure it’s not the best thing for pitchers, particularly very talented pitchers, but that’s not the concern of a GM or whoever. They just want a formula that helps them win.

Having Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz is a good idea but that’s unlikely to happen. Much easier to find guys who can throw hard, work them in short bursts and keep churning through them.

One, you don't have to throw your hardest every pitch or even at all.

Two, throwing more often was something he had great success with but the mentality is to rest rest rest. Starting pitchers throw once between starts. Why not throw more? Train your body.

I'd love to sit down with Mazzone, Glavine, Smoltz, and Maddux just once and listen to them talk.

I've been an advocate for length from starters for a long time. Go back and look at the pitching staffs from the 50's and before. 4 man rotations, and scores of complete games.

In comment 14251881 Mike from SI said:

Quote:

I thought the article was long on anecdotal arguments and short on empirical ones; shrug emoji.

This. It also had just as many anecdotal arguments for pitch counts (basically Mets entire 2018 staff) as against them ('randomly' selected SPs over 30+ years).

A guy whose command was as good as anyone who ever took the mound.

Leo Mazzone went to the Orioles after the Braves. He was somewhat less successful there.

if the author wasn’t writing like such an arrogant douche. To wit:

“Pitching is all about WHIP and FIP (I’d explain the definitions, but then our heads would hurt)”

Actually, they’re not that hard to explain and nobody’s head hurts discussing them.

to see more inclusive stats.

But it does argue against the type of year that DeGrom had; leading games continually, only to have the BP lose the games for him.

In comment 14251899 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

A guy whose command was as good as anyone who ever took the mound. Leo Mazzone went to the Orioles after the Braves. He was somewhat less successful there.

Rodrigo Lopez, Bruce Chen, Eric Bedard, Dan Cabrera, Sidney Ponson and Kris Benson. Check their careers after Mazzone was let go in Baltimore.

I think there are some valid points in the article. You've got to wonder if a guy like Maddux, who never posted a strikeout per inning even in the minors would sniff the majors today. Maddux also threw 220+ innings for 14 straight seasons. Same goes for Glavine.

It's the chicken and the egg. Were these guys simply extraordinary talents or were they at least in part products of pre-analytics and pre-designer PED's where they were free to throw and throw and they weren't being measured by strikeout per inning?

Some years back, I was at dinner where Tom Seaver spoke and answered questions, one of which was his view on pitch counts. His response was very direct saying that an arbitrary 100 pitch limit didn't make sense in his opinion because the stress of a curve ball far exceeds that of a fast ball so that the mix of pitches should affect the count that's allowed. He went on to say that when he pitched he did ask the catcher to keep track of his count so that he'd know when he had to ration his curves in which case he's stick to the fast ball against the bottom of the order.

In comment 14251899 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

A guy whose command was as good as anyone who ever took the mound. Leo Mazzone went to the Orioles after the Braves. He was somewhat less successful there.

As was reading it came from Mazzone, I thought the same thing. The orioles pitching staff was not as good as the Braves, or even close.