I need some help. Managers these days are driving me crazy with 5- and 6-inning starts and pulling a guy tossing a 3-hitter in the seventh inning because he is at 90 pitches.
I'm also driven crazy by the Tony LaRussa copy cat 1-inning limit on relievers. I think I know where the saberists stand on that because I've read a few articles on it.
But what is the consensus on the 100-pitch limit being enforced these days? I'd put Strasberg on a 100-pitch limit and maybe anyone younger than 25. But let Vicente Padilla pitch a complete game shutout for crying out loud.
Is the sabermetric consensus that a 100-pitch count is optimal for a pitcher or could it be increased to 120 pitches without worrying about damaging a guy's arm. Seems to me a guy is going to blow out his arm one way or another. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen.
But guys like Bret Saberhagen might have been spared if hadn't pitched so many innings early on. What's the consensus on pitch counts? Could they go higher or do they need to stay where they are?
Lacking specific sabermetric evidence on the subject, the consensus of things I've read (particularly articles by Will Carroll) seems to be that every pitcher is different. Some guys can handle larger workloads, while some guys can't. 100 pitches seems to be the effective "limit" because it's a nice, round, big number. And while pitchers have said that there are days when they're really laboring, and 70-80 pitches seems like a struggle, there are also times when they can be just cruising through a game and can go 120, 130 pitches.
Also, with the new bullpen usage patterns we've been seeing lately - i.e. increased specialization and decreased IP/appearances - 100 pitches just seems convenient. This is a generalization, of course, but 100 pitches will generally carry a pitcher through 5-7 innings, at which point the manager can feel comfortable going to his designated late-inning setup. So they can look at the 100 or so pitches that a pitcher's thrown in the game, be seduced by the crushing weight the number seems to hold, and call for his setup guy or whomever.
Personally, I'm as frustated by it as you are; while I do feel that young pitchers should be protected, to set an arbitrary limit that is supposed to apply for every single pitcher out there seems ill-founded to me. Quick case study - I'd trust Roy Halladay or Tim Lincecum to throw 100+ pitches on a regular basis; I could not say the same for, say, Mark Prior.
Tim Kurkjian wrote a pretty good article for ESPN on pitch limits. In the article, the managers pretty much put it on the pitchers. I think that is total nonsense. It is obviously coming from the managers. The Rangers enforce the 100-pitch count limit as a pretty hard count, and I've seen at least three of their young pitchers who were visibly POd when they were taken out while sailing along.
Derek Holland pitched 8 2/3 and had a three-hitter working but reached 118 pitches with a walk and Washington came tearing out to the mound like his ulnar nerve would fray with one more pitch. Holland said: "You aren't going to let me finish it?'' Washington shook his head and vigorously patted him on the back for a job well done and in came the reliever.
The most legitimate reason for the smaller pitch counts is the sustained ability of hitters in lineups. Smaller ballparks also have influence on this, but the 7 and 8 hitters aren't as bad as they were even 30 years ago. Any dropoff in stuff or command is magnified with the greater ability of hitters.
Given that, incidents like the Holland game should not happen. Hitters can become more confident seeing anyone else besides someone who dominated them. Pitching beyond 100 pitches is not something that can be learned in the majors though. Players get some experience with that in HS/college, but it's immediately ended in the minors.
There are quite a few advantages to having pitchers going longer, and the Rangers are going to be watched closely under Nolan's new philosophy to stretch out pitchers in the minors. It's going to take a couple more years to take full effect, but it will be interesting to see if it will work.
As a follower of the Rangers, I don't think the Rangers are going to have much to offer here. Ryan definitely doesn't like the current thinking on pitching but he isn't getting anywhere. He had to fire most of his pitching coaches last year because they ignored him. At the beginning of the year, the Rangers were letting their pitchers pitch through the seventh according to Nolan's decree.
But that idea seems to have been slowly abandoned as the season has gone on. And the heavier innings and higher pitch counts have been blamed for Millwood going down the tubes in the second half. So I think we may have seen the last of Nolan's philosophy. I don't really see any difference in the Rangers use of pitchers at all over the last two years other than letting Millwood pitch a little more which seems to have been deemed a failure.
McCarthy had a complete game where he threw some pitches early on and then had an arm problem which it was also suggested might be due to Ryan's philosophy. But physical problems are the norm for McCarthy. Feldman has also struggled to get through the seven but he put down the first two the other night and out stormed Washington. Feldman did a double take and had a look of shock on his face and in came O'Day to pitch to one guy.
I don't think you have to teach a pitcher to throw more than 100 pitches. You just have to let them do it. I think pitchers are willing to do it especially if they have to turn their potential win over to a shaky bullpen.
But the Rangers are definitely babying their young pitchers with 100 pitch counts so I don't see it happening. They let Holland go over 100 once to try to get his first complete game shutout but that's about it.
First, the pitching past 100 pitches means being able to keep command, even if you lose velocity. Guys can go past 100, but they lose significant ability. It's going to take a couple years in the minors, if they are doing it, to see if you can increase the effective pitch limit of a pitcher. If they can increase a player's limit 15 pitches throughout the 3-4 years in the minors, that's a full inning, and 1 less mediocre pitcher in the bullpen.
I frankly don't know how sabermetricians have anything to say on this topic, unless it's to observe a correlation between Pitches Per Game and Seasons Played.
In many ways, it strikes me as a George Burns Made It To Be 100 kind of question. George Burns (the comedian, not the two baseball players by that name) smoked cigars for at least 80 years of his long life...probably more than that, actually...and lived to be 100. Every doctor in the world will tell you that's not typical. There are 100 smoking-related ailments he should have got, but he didn't.
Now let's look at pitchers back in the deadball era, who quite often not only were left in for the whole game, but in fact stayed in to pitch the second game of a doubleheader.
Cy Young did a lot of that kind of thing - and in his 22 years in baseball, he pitched 82% of the games he was in as complete games. He pitched 8.09 innings per game in those 22 years. Warren Spahn pitched 21 years and 50% of his games were complete games. He pitched 6.91 innings per game. So as far as the "he's going to blow out his arm" argument goes, you fiddle while George Burns. Cy Young could do it. Warren Spahn could do it. I'm guessing on pitch count, but it would have to be way over 100 per game for both on them. ["Iron Man" Joe McGinnity only pitched 10 years (not because he blew his arm out, but because he was a rookie at 28 years old). But in those 10 years he won 246 games.]
Another way I could characterize this is as a Would We Solve This Problem Even If We Wanted To? kind of issue. Maybe teams might prefer a few years of having dominating pitching than many years of having a dominating pitcher pitch for six innings only to watch the bullpen blow their Win. In 1970, Sam McDowell was 20-12 with the Cleveland Indians. He led the league in Innings Pitched with 305, and 19 of his 39 games were complete games. Why did Alvin Dark leave "Smoking Sam" in all those games? Because there were no relievers in the pen...to speak of, particularly. McDowell "only" lasted 15 major league seasons, and perhaps he could have had five more if they had "preserved his arm"...but the Indians needed him to stay in those games. They didn't have anyone else.
Also, I'm watching the Red Sox-Royals game right now, and they took out a masterful Zack Greinke, who completely owned the Red Sox tonight...and Jamey Wright, who has been near the Pitcher's Version Of The Mendoza Line for most of his career, is now trying (emphasis on the word trying to keep Greinke's lead). Maybe the lead is high enough for the Royals that this will work out - but if I'm a Royals fan, I want Greinke finishing every game he starts. He is their staff.
Zachary Klaas;4969 I frankly don't know how sabermetricians have anything to say on this topic, unless it's to observe a correlation between Pitches Per Game and Seasons Played.
I also played in college and still play amateur ball. I threw over 100 pitches in basically every start, my first start of the year was 142 pitches, and I had 3-4 outings over 120 pitches. Obviously, I'm facing non-pros and I don't have quality arms waiting in the bullpen, but I learned how to adjust to what I had that day and how to set up hitters for more than 3 at-bats.
I think it's possible to extend a pitcher's effective limit, but it probably takes 3-4 years to notice the results. Part of the process is learning when/if it's possible to not throw a pitch full effort and still be effective. Throwing a fastball 3-4 mph slower than normal in a fastball count can be the best pitch to throw. That's what pitchers could do in Spahn/Young's day, but are scared to do now.
Jamesian;4972 That's why I asked the question and you didn't.
Was this meant as a dig? If so, I'm confused as why it would be one...obviously you're going to ask a question about which you think sabermetricians could have something useful to say, and obviously I wouldn't if I don't think they could.
LeeTro> This question did make me reflect on why more wasn't done to save Sandy Koufax's arm, though. It's true a lot of earlier pitchers did have to learn tricks to extend their effectiveness in the late innings, as you suggest, but I wonder if - when everyone in the world knew how much Koufax's arm hurt after every game - it might have made sense to bring in the Dodger bullpen staff more often. Looking over the people in the pen during Koufax's glory years (particularly Ron Perranoski), I can't help wondering if Koufax could have pitched past 1966 if that bullpen were relied upon more. Judging from the numbers, they probably would have done a good job.
But then, I suppose, the question turns to how long the relievers could have pitched - whether they would have had the endurance to come in more often than they did. And perhaps it wasn't so much a question of how long Koufax pitched so much as what he was trying to get his arm to do. Maybe it only took a few innings per game to cause that damage to his arm, and the problem wasn't merely that he pitched most of each game.
Koufax hurt his arm early in '64, when he was around 1450 career innings. The prior season was 311 innings in 40 starts, which will never be done anymore. Looking at a couple YouTube videos of his mechanics, I see he literally pushed off the rubber with his left foot, which puts more stress on the arm. I think he just had a blessed, but faulty, elbow. The workload was not enormous before the injury, and he almost destroyed his body trying to pitch those last 3 years.
Nobody is going to pitch 8 innings a game in a 4-man rotation anymore. If a team can go from starters averaging 5.5 IP/G to 6.5 IP/G by teaching/letting them pitch deep in games, that's a huge difference in roster structure. If you have a guy who physically tires after 90, but is really good before that, you'll have rested arms to finish it out. I hope the Rangers have started their efforts with this, because it would be fun to see the results.
I think Padman Jones pretty much nailed this. I've pieced a few things together from sabermetricly-oriented people online and as best I can tell, the answer to my question is:
"We don't know, but we think pitch counts are useful and it is probably best to err to the side of caution and limit pitch counts."
That number is now set at 100 for the most part and seems to be edging down slightly.
Baseball managers being the way they are fix on a number and it becomes set in stone. The last thing they want is to pitch a guy too much and get fired for it and never be able to get another job.
Bill James provided about the best summary I could find discussing 4-man rotations:
I think it is plausible that that could happen and could succeed. I would explain my feelings about it this way: that between 1975 and 1990, two changes were made to reduce the workload of starting pitchers in an effort to reduce injuries. First, we switched from a four-man to a five-man rotation. Second, we imposed pitch-count limits on starting pitchers, starting at about 140 and then gradually reducing that to about 110.
I think it is clear that at least one of those changes was unnecessary, and accomplished nothing. It is possible that both of them were unnecessary and accomplished nothing, but the better evidence is on the side of the pitch limits. I think it is possible, based on what I know, that the starting rotations could go back to four pitchers with no negative consequences.
I didn't find it anywhere but saw accounts that James currently thinks pitch counts are probably too low.
Apparently there is no statistical evidence to back pitch counts one way or another. Obviously, some guys need them more than others. But they are all getting them.
If we could trade 100 pitch limits for a few 4-man rotations that might be a fair tradeoff.
While we're at it, some guys really need pitch counts. Éric Gagné leaps to mind. His count should have been around 30 max. :) Devastating reliever for most of his career, but pretty darn bad as a starter. I don't know about damage to his arm, but his effectiveness was certainly affected by pitching more than a couple innings.
I'm really straining to find some mechanism that could make any discussion of pitch counts "scientific" in the way Jamesian seems to be seeking. 100 pitches is easier on the arm than 110. Probably it's possible to demonstrate that people who only pitch 100 pitches end up being healthier than people who pitch 110. But it's also probably true that people who pitch 90 pitches are healthier than those who pitch 100. And 80's better than 90, and 70's better than 80, etc., etc. Personally, I haven't done any pitches at all and look at me, I'm healthy and rarin' to go. :) (Well, except for being 43 and having a slight paunch.)
It will be protested that what Jamesian is looking for is in the other direction - "How many pitches does it take to blow out an arm?" is the essential question. Like Mr. Owl's "How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?" the proper answer is "The world may never know." There are just too many pitchers from the old days with 20 year records who pitched complete games or near complete games most of the times they appeared and had 300+ innings per year. The real insight on what causes blown out arms seems to be "It depends on the player." Some can pitch over the long haul, others need to take more of a break.
The comment about Koufax was interesting. This is how Wikipedia describes Koufax's mechanics:
"Whereas many left-handed pitchers throw with a three-quarter or
sidearm motion, Koufax threw with a pronounced over-the-top arm action.
This may have increased his velocity, but reduced the lateral movement
on his pitches, especially movement away from left-handed hitters. Most
of his velocity came from his strong legs and back, combined with a high
kicking wind-up and long forward stretch toward the plate."
I will freely admit to not knowing enough about the mechanics of pitching to understand why Koufax did this, or why it worked. But there are two questions I'd like to know the answers to for the purposes of this topic:
(1) Does pitching as described above significantly increase the risk
of blowing out your arm?
(2) Was Koufax's choosing to pitch as described above pursuant to
following Norm Sherry's famous 1961 advice to "take something off the
fastball" and thereby gain more control - advice which he had been
following ever since?
If both (1) and (2) are true, then it's probably beside the point how many pitches Koufax normally threw in a game, because this style of pitching was going to get you sooner or later...and Koufax wasn't about to stop pitching this new way, because it was winning ball games. (For the record, the day of Koufax's injury is listed in Wikipedia as April 22, 1964 - and Koufax pitched 1 inning in that game. So there wasn't a pitch count issue, at least that particular day. The best argument for the pitch count thesis is that whatever popped in his arm that day did so after many previous games of overwork. But even that theory is tenuous to forward for a game so early in the season.)
With Koufax's mechanics, arm slots are natural. Trying to change arm slots of pitchers is a great way to hurt them. If he was told to change arm slots, then that would be a contributor of the injury. The long stretch forward is partially due to pushing off the rubber, causing arm lag and injury. He probably threw a whole lot of curveballs, which won't help anything either. The April injury was probably due to the 311 innings the prior year. If that injury would have been today, he would have been shut down and the arthritis may not have developed so early.
Another factor may have actually been the lack of use in early years. He only pitched 1133 IP (none in the minors) through age 26, which is comparable to current-day starters. That's where that jump to 311 really took its toll. What happened after that day only made retirement sooner, but it probably was not going to be a long career after that fateful April day, no matter how much they babied it.
I did a quick websearch on "arm slots" owing to my knowing very little about this topic. This article is quite interesting.
The article confirms that overhanded deliveries, rather than 3/4 deliveries, tend to shorten careers because of additional strain on the arm. Doesn't sound like a surprising conclusion given how difficult that delivery looks, but I really had no specific knowledge about whether a particular kind of delivery had a noticeable effect on arm strain.
So question (1) that I asked before is a resounding "Yes." But question (2) I'm still wondering about. I'm not sure what Koufax's delivery was in his pre-Norm Sherry days - perhaps he also delivered overhand before that point. That's irrelevant to the "shorter career" thing because whether he started doing it mid-career or was always doing that, it probably was what caused the arm problem that ended his career.
However, if he actually switched to the overarm delivery as part of his post-Norm Sherry changes, then that would mean that he ruined his arm in 3 years (from pre-season 1961 when he made the changes to early 1964 when he experienced his arm injury). Not 20, not even 10...just 3, and specifically because he chose to pitch in a way that gets lots of people out but is murder on the arm.
Does anyone remember how Koufax pitched in his pre-glory years? That's a smidge before my time, and I'm not even sure where I'd look for the information...
LeeTro;4982 He probably threw a whole lot of curveballs, which won't help anything either.
This part was definitely part of the post-Norm Sherry change, so at least that supports the theory that how Koufax chose to pitch after 1961 was likely part of what contributed to wrecking his arm.
Zachary Klaas;4983 I did a quick websearch on "arm slots" owing to my knowing very little about this topic. This article is quite interesting.
The article was interesting. However, any older person watching little kids develop at play, can observe motions [like throwing] that are natural to the individual child. This may sound like a silly observation, but it is critical.
A child of 8 or nine has probably not yet either observed enough professional baseball to become imitative, or has a youngster's natural distracted interest in almost anything observed to become imitative in any one of them. Thus, there is a natural foundation that one must give due deference, so well-meaning would-be coaches don't start tinkering with that which is not broken but is totally natural.
The article confirms that overhanded deliveries, rather than 3/4 deliveries, tend to shorten careers because of additional strain on the arm. Doesn't sound like a surprising conclusion given how difficult that delivery looks, but I really had no specific knowledge about whether a particular kind of delivery had a noticeable effect on arm strain.
I'd suggest that if the delivery is natural to the player, it should be preserved. Most people I've observed warm up with arm movements that are circular and at least at some point, overhand. Among lefties only, Warren Spahn, Billy Pierce and Carl Hubbel come to mind - all of whom tended to come from over-the-top.
So question (1) that I asked before is a resounding "Yes." But question (2) I'm still wondering about. I'm not sure what Koufax's delivery was in his pre-Norm Sherry days - perhaps he also delivered overhand before that point. That's irrelevant to the "shorter career" thing because whether he started doing it mid-career or was always doing that, it probably was what caused the arm problem that ended his career.[
From 1955-1961, Koufax had severe control problems and very nearly quit baseball prior to opening day of 1961. Sherry advised Koufax to ease up; not try to blow it by every batter he faced, and let the easier fluid motion support control of his pitchers.
FWIW, my father's brother came out to see me pitch a summer exhibition game in Oyster Bay, NY @ 1949. After WW I, he had been taken on for two seasons as an adjunct to the coaching staff, as a bullpen cathcer.
His single advice to me made this teen-ager cynical: "Throw with the same motion and vary the spin and speed of the ball."
He wasn't concerned about dirt-biting sinkers or hair-raising curveballs; he was concerned about deceivingly same-looking delivery and control.
I don't believe that the slot of the delivery matters nearly as much as exaggerated torque applied in the delivery. That's what hurts arms [and also "telegraphs" pitches].
My Dad [offered a player-contract by the Cubs after WW I] taught me the curve, out-drop and sinker, also emphasizing the rotation on the ball rather than the cranking of the arm.
However, if he actually switched to the overarm delivery as part of his post-Norm Sherry changes, then that would mean that he ruined his arm in 3 years (from pre-season 1961 when he made the changes to early 1964 when he experienced his arm injury). Not 20, not even 10...just 3, and specifically because he chose to pitch in a way that gets lots of people out but is murder on the arm.
He didn't change his slot. He adapted to Sherry's cautions about pacing and work efficiency.
Does anyone remember how Koufax pitched in his pre-glory years? That's a smidge before my time, and I'm not even sure where I'd look for the information...
What undid Koufax was arthritis of the elbow. It's true his profession made him more a sitting duck for eruptions; but it can also be argued that his career was abbreviated by a pre-existing condition.
As to strictly structure pitch counts and specialization, I believe the final product will prove to be ruinous from two perspectives:
1. the old "use it or lose it" syndrome for starters who will learn to pitch down to limited innings expectations;
2. the burning out of pitchers who are constantly reminded that 1 inning is capacity and 2 is pushing it.
3. the middle and set-up guys may be the only beneficiaries, allowed/expected to go 2-3+ innings in relief .... but even there, among the good ones, how many would be better used in rotations of extended expectations.
Lee> Interesting remarks, and they do get to the crux of my questions.
Is it the consensus view of those who actually saw Koufax (instead of read about him, like me) that his curves involved that "cranking of the arm", then? The pictures I've seen certainly seem like his arm is "cranked", but it's hard to tell in a still picture. It may well be that he had arthritis before any of this, but certainly "cranking" the arm under those conditions would dare the Fates.
While we're chewing this subject over, gang, can anyone think of any pitchers that either pitched in a way that seemed hard on the arm but lasted a full career (15-25 years)? Or the other way around, any pitchers that pitched in a seemingly reasonable way but nevertheless blew their arm out after only a few years? It seems to me that sort of thing is the real tests of Jamesian's initial question. (Not that he necessarily cares, since he seems to have gone to sabermetrics folks he trusts more for answers, but the question actually still interests me.)
If the real story is that "people who throw weird shorten their career, regardless of pitch counts", that's a very different answer than the one Jamesian regaled us with.
Oh, and I doubt anyone here ever saw Cy Young pitch, but the pictures I've seen of him show that same overhand delivery...so maybe he's the flip side of the Sandy Koufax example. (And maybe I'm fiddling while George Burns, because Cy Young could play until he was 100 throwing like that. :D )
Zachary Klaas;4991 Oh, and I doubt anyone here ever saw Cy Young pitch, but the pictures I've seen of him show that same overhand delivery...so maybe he's the flip side of the Sandy Koufax example. (And maybe I'm fiddling while George Burns, because Cy Young could play until he was 100 throwing like that. :D )
Cy Young's legacy [IMO] has been hugely discounted when it comes to lists of best pitchers:
1. When he broke in, old rules prevailed, the mound being 50' from home plate; and the foul ball, ball & strike and K and BB rules still to be refined to what we see in the modern game;
2. The mound was moved back 16'6" in his third season [I believe]' and he adjusted to that without missing a beat;
3. He continued through the first decade of the 20th Century, still an ace for the most part.
Longevity and adaptability? He was the poster boy. Possible reasons:
-he came up not having been over-coached and tinkered with;
-he had a natural delivery [for him] and nobody tampered with it;
-he arrived at the MLB level knowing how to pitch with command & control ~ a redundancy, but npt always perceived as mutual;
-he, by reputation, threw all his pitches with the same basic motion, spin imparted to the ball more than work-intensive torque;
-he was fluid in his motion
The following attempts to identify differences between/among otherwise similar pitchers with possible nuances affecting careers:
Power
Contrast between Don Newcombe and Bob Gibson:
Newcombe was awesome and intimidating to watch. He had magnificent control and flat out knew how to pitch, with changing speeds; but every pitch was preceded by a dramatic pumping motion, leg kick and delivery that oozed effort and hard work. Furthermore, he liked his drink before getting sober, a possible impairent to longevity.
Gibson, on the other hand, was Spartan, icy, aloof and worked into animus against the opposition on game day eve and game day itself, and seemed to take the mound pre-purged of taxing physical effort. His size and motion were similar to Nwek's; but the ease, pacing and fluidity were notable.
The Kinetic Guys
Three dominating [but short-lived, career-wise] guys come to mind here as examplars for the herky-jerky OR unusual/odd/unnatural/strenuous motions that immediately send up OH!OH! flares to the observer:
-Dontrelle Willis - I loved his effectiveness and hitting but could hardly bear to watch him pitch: his lagging, jerking-whip arm just screamed INJURY!
-Ewell [the Whip] Blackwell, tall, lean, long-armed side-armer, who seemed to be whipping the ball from 3rd base across the batters' line of vision was dominant for a short while; but that whip motion [like Dontrelle's, but exaggerated] could have given fans sore arms.
-Mark Fydrich - It wasn't his talking to himself or the ball that did him in; but it was his kinetic motion to the plate.
Stuff Guys
Stubby Overmire stood around 5'7"; and had a huge dropping curveball that broke half his height. A trailing fastball was his change-up; and he also had a screwball to deceive hitters mesmerized by the curve. My Dad loved to take me to Yankee Stadium on Overmire starts, just to see the Yankee power hitters hit very high, very shallow pop-ups. He had exquisite form; but he cranked some of his larger-breaking deliveries. That took its toll.
Ed Lopat was the mirror image of Stubby Overmire in style and pitch mix; but Lopat was more fluid, with less break and more emphasis on speed changes. That fluidity marked the differences in the two careers.
Billy Pierce, like Lopat, was a lefty with a fluid delivery; but he seems naturally have thrown a pitch that broke down and away from right-handed hitters, like a screwball but without the work effort for added torque to the ball. Long, effective career.
When I read about Little League aged kids undergoing Tommy John surgery, I see the transparency of the big lie: Young kids are being carefully nurtured by more intelligent coaches. Nah, they are more likely exploited by too much adult supervision, transference of frustrations, need-to-win competitiveness that exposes kids to hazards they never would have risked on the sandlots.
When kids supervise kids' games, there is an instinct at work that brings out the best and rests the worst.
Much coddling today, I believe, is a kind of overkill penance for earlier abuses that lose sight of youth, strength, resilience, adaptability and willingness to work that comes naturally to the young.
I know it's general, but it really depends on the guy. How violent is his delivery? What's his injury history?
Example: Kazmir's had a good amount of little DL stints. If I'm Mike Scioscia and he hits 105 pitches after 7 innings with a 4-2 lead, do I really want him pushing it?
In turn, Tim Lincecum's throwing motion has been summarized by smarter people than me as preserving his shoulder and elbow, relative to others. Am I okay with sending him out there for the 8th to get to Wilson? Probably more so than sending out Kazmir to get to Jepsen in the 9th.
its not that far fetched that he could consistently reach 100 mph. he easily creates enough torque from his mid section and his pure physical stature is suitable for those speeds. His long arm swing can easily be compared to a hitter with a long swing or when a hitter is able to extend his arms. its no coincidence that their power is generally increased notably. walter johnson hitting 100mph is by no means something that couldn't be expected.
JoeR43;5039 I'm just amazed you can generate so much velocity from such a minimal motion.
Old newsreel footage might be deceiving. I've seen some of Walter Johnson warming up; and it's not that he became a grunting dray horse during actual games; but early warmup motion and intense game movements will be different.
I'll say one thing as an eyewitness, though. In the 1940s at Yankee Stadium after both their active careers had ended, I saw Johnson pitch to Babe Ruth [from the actual mound], with that same liquid motion. Johnson obviously wanted to make Babe look good for the crowd; and Ruth hit at least one over the 344' marker in right-center. My father remarked, "He [Johnson] can still bring it."
lee;5048 Old newsreel footage might be deceiving. I've seen some of Walter Johnson warming up; and it's not that he became a grunting dray horse during actual games; but early warmup motion and intense game movements will be different.
I'll say one thing as an eyewitness, though. In the 1940s at Yankee Stadium after both their active careers had ended, I saw Johnson pitch to Babe Ruth [from the actual mound], with that same liquid motion. Johnson obviously wanted to make Babe look good for the crowd; and Ruth hit at least one over the 344' marker in right-center. My father remarked, "He [Johnson] can still bring it."
You've been a fan since the 1940's and you're a fangraphs user?
