OT: LA Dodgers Pitcher Ross Stripling Pulled While Throwing A No-Hitter
It's stupid. Another 20-30 pitches isn't going to make a difference. And if you're really worried about strain on the arm then skip his next start to give him extra rest.
Pitch counts are one of the many reasons baseball annoys me. They are 100% arbitrary.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
It's especially stupid because they throw well over that number when you include warmups and at the start of the inning etc. It's different every game even if you pitched exactly 100 that counted.
Then again one could certainly argue that it's arbitrary to care about a no-hitter. If it gave them the best shot to win the game, so be it.
but this is the new managerial method. Later in the season if the game is critical he probably stays in. Now with so many variables as yet unknown, playing it conservative returns more value down the stretch.
If people want to argue that using pitch counts is inherently stupid, fine. But I think every team uses them, regardless of their manager. If you believe in them, it's stupid to leave the pitcher in. He's a rookie in his his first start. The manager and pitching coach.don't have a good feel for how long he can go yet.
The kid had a MLB no hitter going. Throw that and you are in an elite cadre of pitchers. It's a forever thing that is among the highest achievements in sport.
People need to re-read The Natural or see the movie. Sport is about good vs. evil as defined by us vs. them. The issue here is that the them here has nothing to do with the opponent... it has everything to do with the front office. Unfortunately this is how fans are begining to appreciate sport (a la fantasy sports.)
This makes me sad. Somehow I get over it when I see Hobbs hit the final homer.
I'm not arguing pitch counts are stupid. Relative to a no-hitter pitch counting is stupid and in my mind evil. Don't touch it ... it's evil.
Literally none. Pitch counts haven;t returned any benefits--arm injuries are higher now than ever.
That's a fallacy. Pitchers throw harder, more, and from an earlier age (especially breaking pitches, which put the most strain on an arm). We don't have much data to suggest pitch counts aren't helping: you cannot compare across "pitching eras", especially when diagnosis is so much better these days. But logically, fewer pitches = less strain, especially when the arm is already fatigued.
Where I agree with the critics is that 100 seems remarkably arbitrary. It should be tailored to the individual: some guys will reach their diminishing returns around 70 pitches, some at 100, some at 130. Some guys need to be pulled before their 3rd time through the order, no matter what the pitch count is.
Strict pitch limits seem foolish. But I'm all for some kind of limitations, or at least a "warning light" kind of system.
Pitch counts absolutely matter but it's the pitch count early in a pitcher's career that mattered according to the study. They looked at a 20 year sample of MLB pitchers and used pitches thrown/time. It showed pitchers that threw less early in their career (before 20?) actually showed lower amounts of injuries and longer careers.
Nolan Ryan threw little at the beginning of his career. He had a break when he was in the army then came back. He was the name that sticks with me for longevity. There were others too. Type of pitcher had no correlation to longevity.
Agreed. A lot of high school and college coaches like to ride their best arms, so talented guys are criminally overused between 14 and 22. That's before your muscles and bones are done developing, and damage can be permanent.
Pitch limits are a great idea for most pitchers, and I cannot stand the "pitchers back in the day didn't need it" argument. That's like saying "women back in the day didn't need epidurals to give birth."
Back when I used to follow this, most analysts claimed that age 25 was when pitchers, particularly starting pitchers, reached maturity.
I'd be cautious with the older studies. I also remember Nolan Ryan being the poster boy for careful use early in his career. That's true for the majors, but he did throw 200 innings as an 19-year-old in A-ball. He also got 31 starts that year, which is almost impossible for a minor leaguer in this day and age. Anyway, I doubt the earlier studies had access to minor league data, which can change the picture.
"Some guys need to be pulled before their 3rd time through the order, no matter what the pitch count is."
<cough>Rick Porcello<cough>
At least when he played for the Tigers.
Talking to the pitchers of the 60's and 70's, they think that pitch counts harm pitchers more than help them. They aren't able to build up the stamina their arm needs. Not sure how true it is, but it does seem to me that pitchers now are pussies.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
confuse these events.
Older MLB pitchers will tell you that the pitch counts are stupid.
The development pattern is wrong.
By the time a pitcher reaches a pro contract their arms have likely been over used and abused by pushy dads, Rec, travel ball, middle school, high school, showcase, college and "all-star select" coaches who don't care one bit about the long-range development of the player.
The pro coaches now operate in a culture of protectionism to compensate or over compensate for each individual's historical report card.
It takes years to develop a major league pitcher...100 pitches vs. 105 pitches is indefensible as well as is illogical.
It's pretty much that 100's a big round scary number.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
So stupid that at 98 and 99 they are like OK, things are good. And then pitch 100 comes around and its first class ticket to Oh Shitsville.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
To your point, the 100 - whixh is 10 x 10 in a base 10 world, if we used a base 9 or 11 system, the 100 would be 81 and 121, respectively.
/feel free to neg the math geek in me
If you're a math geek, you've probably already read this, but: http://xkcd.com/1000/ I love the second character's comment!
A number has to matter eventually... if you say officer she was 17 years and 364 days, so it's okay... and people keep realtionalizing it from the there... where the hell does it end?
Give the kid a chance to finish.
He'll be fresh for the playoffs come October.
He's not in the rotation in the playoffs if they are even there.
Sarcasm right? Cuz 20 pitches back in April?!
The guy had a good chance of throwing a no hitter in his MLB debut? During a meaningless April game? And they pulled him?
Not saying I agree with pulling him, but April games matter as much as September.
Giants fan here... Not meaningless at all! ;)
How much are wins in April worth? Is it less than one, now? I missed the rule change.
Is there science behind 100 pitches being too much stress on the arm for a grown man? I think they should have let have a chance at it. For kids I get pitch counts not in this situation.
He's coming off Tommy John surgery, but 100 pitches is a completely arbitrary number. There's no science or anything that says 100 pitches is better or worse than 80 or 120. It's just a nice, dumb, round number that fucked up some kid's shot at a no-no.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Completely arbitrary.
I'm watching the Dodgers broadcast and Orel Hershiser is calling the game. FWIW, he wholeheartedly agreed with manager Dave Roberts' decision.
Taken out of context and with hindsight 20/20, it doesn't make much sense. It is not so much about the 100 pitches, but the fact that in the 8th inning, the pitcher had just walked the tying run onto base. It was a walk that didn't even look like a battle. Roberts assessed that his pitcher was struggling and that, along with the fact his pitcher is in his debut and hasn't ever gone this deep in a while, the manager went to the 'pen. As the Giants just won the game, it was clearly the wrong call, but at the time, it was a correct call.
as Orel Hershiser.
Do not confuse former players with current events.
of the other posters on this board arguing for leaving him in has any idea how the kid was actually feeling. Maybe 100 pitches is arbitrary, and then again maybe he was already getting tired, stressing his mechanics, on a path to injury at 85 pitches and this was 15 pitches too late.
No-hitters are so commonplace that no one remembers who throws them at all (there were 22 in the last four seasons). 10 years from now any rational player would rather have played through 2 or 3 contracts and made $50M than have a no hitter and a 2 year career.
Pitchers throw hundreds of pitches in practice situations that mimic game time throws. Yet in a real game, it's time to yank them when they get to 100+ pitches.
Also, old-school pitchers used to pitch high numbers consistently and on fewer day's rest. Nolan Ryan, arguably the GOAT, would go over 170 pitches in a game, and averaged over 120/game in his 40s. Clubs are too afraid of losing their $million arms so they baby them with regards to pitch count.
GOAT? No way. He had a career winning percentage of 0.526. I'd take Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Sandy Koufax, Randy Johnson and Bob Gibson over Ryan, and that's just guys from the past 50 years or so.
I mean, he's defintely not the GOAT, or even close to it, but wp% isn't really the best indicator.
Old-school pitchers used to pitch more, but they also did not pitch as well. They could not throw the ball as hard consistently, which is in part why their strikeout totals were much lower than they are now (the other part is hitters becoming more selective and hitting for power rather than contact).
Nolan Ryan is the exception that proves the rule. And he was also a reliever for the early part of his major league career, so his initial pitch counts were actually pretty low.
During his time, no pitchers had pitch counts--they were unknown (until his later years). There were tons of power pitchers then too. (There are more now though)
Let me clarify. Ryan WAS the exception given his ridiculous strikeout rate. Most other pitchers did not throw nearly as hard back then. In good old 1975, the average strikeout rate per nine innings was 5.0; in 2015 it was 7.8. I know there are a lot of variables here, but there is a strong correlation between fastball speed and strikeout rate.
Don't get me wrong; I don't think throwing harder means pitching better. And I also think the pitch count focus can go too far. But if teams are going to push their pitchers to throw harder, than extra attention to fatigue - especially with younger pitchers - makes sense.
Or we could just make it easier for everyone to obtain steroids again, which can really help with muscle recovery.
I agree with taking him out. There is a lot of baseball left with one out in the eighth.
It's also customary to pull guys earlier in the first week of the season. Zimmerman was pulled after 100 pitches throwing a two hitter for the Tigers this afternoon. In July you probably see him go at least for the eighth.
I get he is coming off of Tommy Johns surgery (sp), but that's not a convincing argument given his ability to take a team deep in the game without any walks/runs...let the kid finish, build his confidence!
Not let him finish? He still had another inning and a half. That could mean another 20-30 pitches or more. Nothing like wearing your guy's arm out right at the beginning of the year. If it was later in the season, maybe.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Completely arbitrary. There is literally no science that says 20 extra pitchers means anything at all.
You're definitely fond of your stance, but for the most part you're wrong. Is 100 arbitrary and did it cost this kid? Absolutely.
On the other hand, don't argue that 20 more pitches to major league hitters when you're already tired isn't significant.
April 10th, 2016 at 11:53 AM ^
However, I not arguing that 20 extra pitches when you are already tired doesn't make a difference--sure it does. I'm arguing that pitchers get taken out all the time regardless of whether they are tired or not, when they hit a certain, arbitrary number. That's what is completely unfounded.
on how he was feeling.
If he felt strong, was showing no decline in speed or control, and wanted to finish. If the decision was based solely on 100 pitches then it was a stupid decision given the opportunity to make history that his grandchildren would be proud of.
It was completely the right move. The guy has TJ two years ago and going that long this early in the season is not a good idea. The end result sucks and extremely unfortunate, but no reason to keep a pitcher out there just because of a no-hitter this early in the season. Now if this happened 4 or 5 starts into the season then I'd be saying otherwise but not his 1st start. 100% correct decision.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I'm fine with it. Those last 6 outs are hard to come by and get through. I think it was a good move.
could have been 15-20 more pitches.
Stupid move to pull him.