Average Pitches by Inning and Complete Game - High School

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I've seen several posts about the new pitching guidelines resulting in more players pitching.  It got me thinking about what the averages are, and secondarily what is the common approach towards an individual pitcher's work load.

 I hope you understand that what the averages are and what approach is common depends entirely on each situation.

 Our high school team has two primary starters and the goal is for each of them to throw a complete game, and to do so with fewer than 100 pitches. They are usually only throwing once a week (maybe four days rest if they throw Saturday and then Thursday).  The coach does not appear to staff pitchers to meet the highest demand, but rather is looking at 4-5 other players to fill in around the #1 and #2.  Area play is a normally a two game set on consecutive days (Thursday/Friday as an example) and playoffs are best 2 out of three over a weekend with a the next round the following weekend.  This approach seems to provide decent coverage, especially during the more important area games and playoffs.  We did have some poor showings during the spring tournament that showed our lack a depth, but was wondering if the complete game once a week was a common strategy.

 I’d think a goal of a starter throwing a complete game in less than 100 pitches is a great goal but one that isn’t met very often. If you look at the pitall10.pdf attachment for our team’s pitchers, you’ll see we’ve only had 4 complete games out of 22 starts and only 2 of them were less than 100 pitches. Our opponents have thrown 4 complete games and 3 of them were less than 100. That’s 8 CGs out of 44 games with 5 being less than 100 pitches.

 Since we normally play more than 2 games a week, there’s no way we could get by with only 2 primary starters.

 If you have any good data, please provide the "normal" pitches for a game and maybe how many batters are thrown to.  Average pitches per inning and average strikeouts would be helpful (our high school seems to work towards contact versus strikeouts in an effort to manage pitch counts and thereby increase available innings).

 I’m not quite sure how average pitches per inning and average Ks would be helpful, but you can get that on the pitall2.pdf attachment.

STATS4GNATS - It looks like the pitcher with the highest workload is a contact pitcher with a a very low K/Inning (0.34) but also a very low pitches/batter (3.0) and pitches per inning (13.6).  Looks like he is averaging 6 innings per start.  Was wondering if this is the target (do they call pitches to contact as opposed to working the count towards a strikeout) or does it simply occur naturally (maybe coach does not call pitches).  If you compare him to the #2 KO leader, they threw identical outs (107) but the one guy threw 122 fewer pitches to get that same number of outs.

We have more than 2 starters, but the #3 and #4 are generally expected to go 4, maybe 5, innings tops.  Not saying #1 or #2 always get a complete game, just saying that the coaches have a pitching strategy designed to meet that target.  Really like the layout of pital2.pdf.  Not sure what all our coaches keep up with, just know that they don't share a whole lot.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

STATS4GNATS - It looks like the pitcher with the highest workload is a contact pitcher with a a very low K/Inning (0.34) but also a very low pitches/batter (3.0) and pitches per inning (13.6).  Looks like he is averaging 6 innings per start.  Was wondering if this is the target (do they call pitches to contact as opposed to working the count towards a strikeout) or does it simply occur naturally (maybe coach does not call pitches).  If you compare him to the #2 KO leader, they threw identical outs (107) but the one guy threw 122 fewer pitches to get that same number of outs.

 In all honesty, I haven’t got a clue what the pitching philosophy is. The guy that calls the pitches is not the HC, but rather the father of one of the players. I’m not now nor have I ever been a fan of coaches calling pitches for amateurs for any reason. To me, the most important things about amateur pitching are to throw pitches with confidence and to learn. Learning won’t take place without making mistakes, and pitchers will more likely have confidence in a pitch they want to throw than a pitch they’re being told to throw without reason.

 We have more than 2 starters, but the #3 and #4 are generally expected to go 4, maybe 5, innings tops.  Not saying #1 or #2 always get a complete game, just saying that the coaches have a pitching strategy designed to meet that target.  Really like the layout of pital2.pdf.  Not sure what all our coaches keep up with, just know that they don't share a whole lot.

 What’s that strategy and how do they execute it?

 Glad you like that particular report. You can see all the regular pitching stats I generate here. =====> https://www.infosports.com/sco...mages/pitching17.pdf

 Don’t feel as though your coaches are any better or any worse about sharing their thoughts than any other coaches. It’s not that they don’t want to share their thoughts. It’s more likely they don’t understand what they’re doing or why they’re doing what they’re doing in great depth. That’s not to imply they’re stupid! It’s just that there aren’t a whole lot of original thinkers out there, so unless they’ve had the good fortune to learn under someone who did understand and passed that information on, they’re repeating what someone else has told them works without really understanding why. When they get quizzed about why they do something, it can get embarrassing. Not because they’re doing something wrong, but because often people don’t trust someone who can’t explain what they’re doing.

I do have to come to the defense of our coaches (I don't always).  I think one reason is that they limit conversation and let parents know they run the show and the parents can request a meeting with their kid in attendance - but still they don't provide after the season either.  There have been, and still are, lots of fireworks at the lower levels and way too much Daddy ball.  There is no baseball in middle school, so these kids sometimes go from Daddy ball to high school and the Dads sometimes think they are part of the program (and therefore should get to offer regular advice).  Coach tells them when field work day is and how to request a meeting and that generally helps cut the cord.

Our pitching coach calls 100% of the pitches and IMO this does help teach the pitchers how to pitch.  I think the pitchers are generally on board with the strategy behind the pitch calls and so they have to "learn" how to locate and learn how to appropriately "miss".  They understand why a pitch is called as they have "learned" this aspect already.  Mistakes are made in execution and these often result in hard hit balls.  The pitch calling is often done in concert with some defensive positioning (mostly outfield).  The pitching coach is quite knowledgeable and comes from a coaching family (Father and Uncle are former/current D1 coaches).  I don't think that he is necessarily driven by statistics, but he seems to come up with valid game plans to stretch what pitching he has without abusing their arms.

The differences in pitching style I mentioned on your team is even more intriguing now that you tell me some parent is calling pitches.  The difference in "approach" seems rather significant.  I'd love to watch these two pitch back to back games.

I think you might learn to appreciate the coach calling pitches.  Assuming they discuss pitching (our coach actually sits down with the pitchers during the week to go over the opponent), the kid and the coach should generally be on the same page and the calls sometime simplify the game for the pitcher (and catcher) as well as ensure any defensive positioning is appropriate.  My kid doesn't like the fact that he cannot shake off any pitch (not even once during a game), but for the other 99%, he is on board.  I think the coach calling the pitches actually helps in development when done as part of a season long discussion.

The state of GA limits the amount of pitches for Varsity at 110 per game and JV is 90 per game.

Varsity only had two games where there was one pitcher, I don't know the pitch counts.

JV had none. 

From what I saw the coaches were putting in the starter, expecting him to go 4-6 innings and then bringing in a closer or two.  Starters went once per 7 day cycle.  We typically had 3-4 games per week with two being on Friday night.

CaCO3Girl posted:

The state of GA limits the amount of pitches for Varsity at 110 per game and JV is 90 per game.

Varsity only had two games where there was one pitcher, I don't know the pitch counts.

JV had none. 

From what I saw the coaches were putting in the starter, expecting him to go 4-6 innings and then bringing in a closer or two.  Starters went once per 7 day cycle.  We typically had 3-4 games per week with two being on Friday night.

Same 110 here for varsity, JV is same rules.

Two varsity games a week.  Coach has two starters.  And they are expected to finish the game.  There are a few very weak teams in district.  For those teams, I think they throw others.  But real games, he expects the starter to finish.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

…Our pitching coach calls 100% of the pitches and IMO this does help teach the pitchers how to pitch.  I think the pitchers are generally on board with the strategy behind the pitch calls and so they have to "learn" how to locate and learn how to appropriately "miss".  They understand why a pitch is called as they have "learned" this aspect already.  Mistakes are made in execution and these often result in hard hit balls.  The pitch calling is often done in concert with some defensive positioning (mostly outfield).  The pitching coach is quite knowledgeable and comes from a coaching family (Father and Uncle are former/current D1 coaches).  I don't think that he is necessarily driven by statistics, but he seems to come up with valid game plans to stretch what pitching he has without abusing their arms.

 I guess I don’t understand having “to "learn" how to locate and learn how to appropriately "miss"”. I’ve never seen only a pitch type called without a location.

 If pitchers know why a pitch is called, why do they need a coach calling it for them rather than the catcher or themselves?

 Yes, mistakes in execution can certainly result in a hard hit ball, but so can perfect execution. The reverse can be true as well where a mistake can get the best result. Those things can and do happen because there’s a live hitter up there.

 This “concert with some defensive positioning” is something accepted as a truism in baseball. I’d have a lot less trouble accepting it myself if I hadn’t so often seen fielders set, then pitches called that are opposite of what that defense would be best set for.

 I don’t think a coach’s ability to teach mechanics and mental approach has a lot to do with pitch calling. It’s too bad we can’t talk directly to this pitching coach so we could learn the process he uses to come up with his “valid game plans”. That’s something that could be sold!

 The differences in pitching style I mentioned on your team is even more intriguing now that you tell me some parent is calling pitches.  The difference in "approach" seems rather significant.  I'd love to watch these two pitch back to back games.

 When I say parent, it’s not like it’s some bozo in the stands. This guy is the team’s pitching coach. Personally, I don’t think he really understands what he’s doing, but it’s not my call. The HC doesn’t have a strong pitching background, so he’s chosen someone he feels is better at the job than he would be.

 I think you might learn to appreciate the coach calling pitches.  Assuming they discuss pitching (our coach actually sits down with the pitchers during the week to go over the opponent), the kid and the coach should generally be on the same page and the calls sometime simplify the game for the pitcher (and catcher) as well as ensure any defensive positioning is appropriate.  My kid doesn't like the fact that he cannot shake off any pitch (not even once during a game), but for the other 99%, he is on board.  I think the coach calling the pitches actually helps in development when done as part of a season long discussion.

 Sorry, it’s nothing you’ve said, but I’ll never learn to appreciate coaches calling pitches.

Stats I guess I'm confused. Where have you seen amateur catchers calling a game, especially at the highest levels?  Every D1 game I watch, the game is called from the dugout. I'm not saying it is right or wrong or even challenging your statement, I'm just stating that that is not the way it works no matter what you or I think. 

younggun posted:

Stats I guess I'm confused. Where have you seen amateur catchers calling a game, especially at the highest levels?  Every D1 game I watch, the game is called from the dugout. I'm not saying it is right or wrong or even challenging your statement, I'm just stating that that is not the way it works no matter what you or I think. 

 Although I know the vast majority of pitches are called from the dugout, you’d be surprised at how many teams don’t do that, at least all the time. Keep in mind there are somewhere around 30,000 HS teams and upwards of 900 college teams. And although I don’t spend any time at all personally watching travel/select ball, going by what people on these baseball boards say, it isn’t at all unusual for those teams to leave the duties to the batteries.

 I don’t watch many college games, but I know the pitching coach of one of the most successful college programs in the state. He says for the most part the only signs coming from the dugout are defensive signs, unless they have a very good “book” on a player, which doesn’t happen very often. Their catchers don’t get put behind the plate in games unless they’ve shown they know how to call pitches. I’ve never been able to get outta him how that’s determined, but evidently they have their ways.

 Many HS teams have certain combinations of P/C where they leave them alone for the most part. Usually it’ll be where the combination has a lot of experience in that system.

 To me, it isn’t so much that it’s a coach making the calls I don’t care for. Heck, there’s not gonna be much difference in what’s called if the coach takes the time to teach the catcher how to call pitches using the philosophy of the team, or the coach just calls the pitches himself. One of the things that bothers me most is how much time it takes to get it done. Just a few seconds more on 200-300 pitches in a game adds up.

 Something else that sticks in my craw is how there are so many who lament at how “soft” this generation has become, then demand the pitches are called from the dugout and say one of the primary reasons is to take pressure off of the players!

 I also don’t like pitches called from the dugout because to me it means the coaches don’t know how to pass on whatever knowledge they have. Is it some kind of secret? I don’t think so. So why not just teach it?

 In the final analysis, what are the chances the called pitch and location will be well executed, and if they were what are the chances the batter won’t knock it into the next city anyway? For that matter, what are the chances that a poorly executed pitch and location won’t get waved at and missed by the best hitter on the team?

 So let me be clear here. If calling pitches from the dugout took no extra time and couldn’t be done away with because it was so difficult to teach and grasp by the student, it wouldn’t be an issue with me.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I've seen several posts about the new pitching guidelines resulting in more players pitching.  It got me thinking about what the averages are, and secondarily what is the common approach towards an individual pitcher's work load.

Our high school team has two primary starters and the goal is for each of them to throw a complete game, and to do so with fewer than 100 pitches.  They are usually only throwing once a week (maybe four days rest if they throw Saturday and then Thursday).  The coach does not appear to staff pitchers to meet the highest demand, but rather is looking at 4-5 other players to fill in around the #1 and #2.  Area play is a normally a two game set on consecutive days (Thursday/Friday as an example) and playoffs are best 2 out of three over a weekend with a the next round the following weekend.  This approach seems to provide decent coverage, especially during the more important area games and playoffs.  We did have some poor showings during the spring tournament that showed our lack a depth, but was wondering if the complete game once a week was a common strategy.

If you have any good data, please provide the "normal" pitches for a game and maybe how many batters are thrown to.  Average pitches per inning and average strikeouts would be helpful (our high school seems to work towards contact versus strikeouts in an effort to manage pitch counts and thereby increase available innings).

I believe that you could pour through data for our team over the past 3 years that I've been scoring and find that what you can pull from that in terms of trends is exactly nothing. Each kid is so different not only from each other, but each is different from himself from year to year, month to month, and even week to week.  I don't discuss strategy etc. with the coaches, but from what I see they work with what each kid brings to the table as best they can in that context.  For example, the guy who is  5 on the totem pole and gets spot work at best, throws maybe 80 but has FB with significant tailing action.  During this, his first year on varsity, they seem to be making some progress on getting him to control that movement and put the ball where he wants it, as early on he seemed to have no idea where it was going, so his pitch counts have been dropping.  

We have 3 fairly equal guys at the top of the rotation and they are so different.  For example, of the three, only one has what I would call really good control.  The others are always struggling with BB's and HPB and to throw a lot of pitches. The control guy threw a CG yesterday - 3 hits, 1 BB, with under 80 pitches - second time he's done that. The guy who is technically #1 has a very hard time getting through 4 innings under 80 pitches.  Apples and Oranges.  Or just HS kids. Both are true.

We have 3 fairly equal guys at the top of the rotation and they are so different.  For example, of the three, only one has what I would call really good control.  The others are always struggling with BB's and HPB and to throw a lot of pitches. The control guy threw a CG yesterday - 3 hits, 1 BB, with under 80 pitches - second time he's done that.

I guess a more focused question might be - does the coaching staff approach the game - where the control guy is pitching - in a fashion that support a CG as a goal, or is it simply his pitching style (and the coaches don't do anything to disrupt)?  Are the coaches calling the pitches, type and location?  My initial question left out an assumption that the pitchers had some level of control where they can work toward a single quadrant (low and outside for instance).  Our coach may have a pitcher pitch around a big hitter (not walk him but nothing down the middle) but move back towards the middle with strikes to make the lesser batters swing and put the ball in play.  From the pitch count you mentioned, it would seem this kid pitches to contact - you did not mention KO total but I suspect he had 4 tops, probably fewer (I'm guessing 2).  I personally think my 2017 could have collected more KO's, but in the process would have pitched fewer innings and fewer CG's (assuming contstant pitch count).

JCG posted:

I believe that you could pour through data for our team over the past 3 years that I've been scoring and find that what you can pull from that in terms of trends is exactly nothing. Each kid is so different not only from each other, but each is different from himself from year to year, month to month, and even week to week.  I don't discuss strategy etc. with the coaches, but from what I see they work with what each kid brings to the table as best they can in that context.  For example, the guy who is  5 on the totem pole and gets spot work at best, throws maybe 80 but has FB with significant tailing action.  During this, his first year on varsity, they seem to be making some progress on getting him to control that movement and put the ball where he wants it, as early on he seemed to have no idea where it was going, so his pitch counts have been dropping.  

We have 3 fairly equal guys at the top of the rotation and they are so different.  For example, of the three, only one has what I would call really good control.  The others are always struggling with BB's and HPB and to throw a lot of pitches. The control guy threw a CG yesterday - 3 hits, 1 BB, with under 80 pitches - second time he's done that. The guy who is technically #1 has a very hard time getting through 4 innings under 80 pitches.  Apples and Oranges.  Or just HS kids. Both are true.

 Unless your 3 years data is far different than my 14 years of data, I’m gonna guess there are trends, but they may be somewhat obscure. FI, unless a pitcher is throwing 60%+ strike percentage, unless he’s on a team that’s pitching poor he isn’t gonna get a lot of work. The truly “successful” pitchers will likely be much like what I see and be at 64% or better for a strike percentage.

 The best pitchers I have, have a batters per walk over 12 too. The best pitchers are also 5 or less pitches per out and pitches per batter less than 3.5. Pitches per run is at 11 or more too. Batters per inning for the top pitchers seems to less than 4.5. And runners per inning pitch seems to be less than 1.7.

 My point is, I’m sure the trends are there, but what those trends mean is questionable.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I guess a more focused question might be - does the coaching staff approach the game - where the control guy is pitching - in a fashion that support a CG as a goal, or is it simply his pitching style (and the coaches don't do anything to disrupt)?  Are the coaches calling the pitches, type and location?  My initial question left out an assumption that the pitchers had some level of control where they can work toward a single quadrant (low and outside for instance).  Our coach may have a pitcher pitch around a big hitter (not walk him but nothing down the middle) but move back towards the middle with strikes to make the lesser batters swing and put the ball in play.  From the pitch count you mentioned, it would seem this kid pitches to contact - you did not mention KO total but I suspect he had 4 tops, probably fewer (I'm guessing 2).  I personally think my 2017 could have collected more KO's, but in the process would have pitched fewer innings and fewer CG's (assuming contstant pitch count).

 I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone set a CG as a goal. Getting the pitcher to throw as many innings as possible yes, but complete games are so unlikely these days, it doesn’t seem like a reasonable goal.

 Assuming 15 pitches per inning is still the “gold standard”, that’s 105 pitches in 7 innings where most states make 110 the max allowed. Since other than a fluke the only pitchers who average less than 15 per inning are the very best pitchers, setting the goal as a CG for pitchers who aren’t among the very best seems anti-productive.

 Setting the goal as having the starter throw as many productive innings as possible does seem like a reasonable goal though. It’s really tough to make many sweeping statements about such things. I’m fortunate in that I’ve got data covering a lot of years.

2017 - Coaches call pitches and location. I have noticed that the guy with  the CG's tends to shake off pitches more often than the others.  This kid is tall and throws over the top, probably 70% FB.  If he keeps it up or down in the zone, few kids catch up to it. If he throws it belt-high, he gets hammered. It's still in process but he's kinda really figuring things out right now after struggling mightily before and it's fun to watch.  So if you look at his numbers over his past 5 games vs. last year or even earlier this  year you see a different picture.  Kind of the same with #1.  His MO in the past has been to get strike 1 and maybe strike 2 by nibbling with his FB, and then getting hitters out with a really filthy changeup. This year seems like his FB has picked up a few MPH and he's been going to it more, but unfortunately his tendency to nibble with it has caused him to get a lot of deep counts, which limits his ability to get outs with the change.  Again, these kids are always developing so they're not consistent enough  for the numbers to tell a story.

Pre season I developed pitching plans for every opponent based on their individual stats from last year.  We went over them and I let the catcher call the pitches.  After the first game, I tore up all those plans.  The stats that I got from last year didn't tell me anything of real value.  The hitters were nothing like I thought they were.  The guys with the most power had weak previous years but now had put on some weight.  The best hitters actually had trouble hitting a slowish fastball but could adjust to an even slower curve.  

My son threw a few CGs in HS.  He did this mostly by inducing ground balls early in the count.  Also, follow some basic rules.  Never let the hitter keep fouling off 2 strike pitches.  Never throw waste pitches outside (that stops working at 10U).  Don't be afraid of solo home runs.

Some hitters are easy to strike out on 3 pitches - hitter pulls the first pitch into the dugout, throw the same pitch again to quickly get him 0-2.  Another hitter jams the plate, throw it over the middle.

JCG posted:

2017 - Coaches call pitches and location. I have noticed that the guy with  the CG's tends to shake off pitches more often than the others.  This kid is tall and throws over the top, probably 70% FB.  If he keeps it up or down in the zone, few kids catch up to it. If he throws it belt-high, he gets hammered. It's still in process but he's kinda really figuring things out right now after struggling mightily before and it's fun to watch.  So if you look at his numbers over his past 5 games vs. last year or even earlier this  year you see a different picture.  Kind of the same with #1.  His MO in the past has been to get strike 1 and maybe strike 2 by nibbling with his FB, and then getting hitters out with a really filthy changeup. This year seems like his FB has picked up a few MPH and he's been going to it more, but unfortunately his tendency to nibble with it has caused him to get a lot of deep counts, which limits his ability to get outs with the change.  Again, these kids are always developing so they're not consistent enough  for the numbers to tell a story.

 Things vary so much from coach to coach and player to player, I’d say it was impossible to even consider shaking off pitches as anything meaningful. FI, my son was yanked from 2 games for shaking off a pitch more than once in the game. His coach didn’t believe in any leeway. A very successful coach I scored for for 8 seasons wouldn’t yank a pitcher because he’d call number of shakes in with the signs. Other coaches allow the pitcher to shake anytime, some allow some pitchers to shake but not others, and others teach fake shakes . IOW, how a coach treats shaking off signs is all over the place, so the only way to really know what’s going on is to ask.

 I think it’s fun to watch every pitcher with the knowledge of his past performance because “most” pitchers improve, some more than others.

 I don’t want to start a war here because there are those who will take what I’m about to say as saying all HS pitchers couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. But I have to ask anyway.

 When you say “nibble”, are you saying he’s trying to hit a specific spot say the size of a softball? Personally, my experience tells me that rather than the pitcher trying to hit some precise spot, what’s happening is his mechanics aren’t precise enough move from one pitch type or location to another very well and it comes across as nibbling.

Stats4Gnats posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I guess a more focused question might be - does the coaching staff approach the game - where the control guy is pitching - in a fashion that support a CG as a goal, or is it simply his pitching style (and the coaches don't do anything to disrupt)?  Are the coaches calling the pitches, type and location?  My initial question left out an assumption that the pitchers had some level of control where they can work toward a single quadrant (low and outside for instance).  Our coach may have a pitcher pitch around a big hitter (not walk him but nothing down the middle) but move back towards the middle with strikes to make the lesser batters swing and put the ball in play.  From the pitch count you mentioned, it would seem this kid pitches to contact - you did not mention KO total but I suspect he had 4 tops, probably fewer (I'm guessing 2).  I personally think my 2017 could have collected more KO's, but in the process would have pitched fewer innings and fewer CG's (assuming contstant pitch count).

 I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone set a CG as a goal. Getting the pitcher to throw as many innings as possible yes, but complete games are so unlikely these days, it doesn’t seem like a reasonable goal.

 Assuming 15 pitches per inning is still the “gold standard”, that’s 105 pitches in 7 innings where most states make 110 the max allowed. Since other than a fluke the only pitchers who average less than 15 per inning are the very best pitchers, setting the goal as a CG for pitchers who aren’t among the very best seems anti-productive.

 Setting the goal as having the starter throw as many productive innings as possible does seem like a reasonable goal though. It’s really tough to make many sweeping statements about such things. I’m fortunate in that I’ve got data covering a lot of years.

Let's assume you do not have much depth at pitching - you have some pretty good starters but not much left over for relievers, especially for more than 1 inning.  Assuming your starter is "good" and can execute his pitches with good control.  Can you think of any strategies in pitch selection (regardless of who is deciding on what pitch to throw) that might result in more innings each start?  JCG talks about their #1 nibbling on corners trying to get a strike.  What if you could throw a fastball strike, keeping it low and maybe locate outside a bit.  With good placement in the strike zone, you increase your chances for a strike as well as increase the probability of weak contract (i.e. towards end of bat).  As I said, my 2017 could have racked up more KO's if he worked the corners and thrown more offspeed/breaking balls/junk off the plate, but the coach needed his starters to go deep (oftentimes CG) and, for the sake of the team (see other thread on playing time in HS - gotta support the team) he increased his contact rate which resulted in a good percentage of groundouts and pop flys, very few walks, but not the KO numbers my kid might have hoped for.

As for 15 pitches an inning, I would say that is a decent goal but could be managed even lower through strategic pitching (again, increase contact rate).  I always tracked to around 12, but never really got concerned until a specific inning reached 20+ as there always seem to be some really low innings that offset.  I've seen plenty of innings under 10 - have seen a few innings with 3 pitches, one that included a hit.  If you track to 15/inning, am comfortable with a particular kid going 105, and the kid can throw 105 productively, then why wouldn't your goal/expectation be complete game?  Not saying you send the kid out in the 7th if he is throwing meatballs, just saying the numbers I used seem reasonable.  If the team has lots of good pitching, then this approach may not be necessary and bringing in a fresh arm in the 6th inning every outing may be the best strategy.  But for a team with depth issues, the approach in actively supporting a CG seems highly productive.

hsbaseball101 posted:

Pre season I developed pitching plans for every opponent based on their individual stats from last year.  We went over them and I let the catcher call the pitches.  After the first game, I tore up all those plans.  The stats that I got from last year didn't tell me anything of real value.  The hitters were nothing like I thought they were.  The guys with the most power had weak previous years but now had put on some weight.  The best hitters actually had trouble hitting a slowish fastball but could adjust to an even slower curve.  

 Unless you had access to accurate types and locations of pitches along with results, you were fighting an unwinnable battle. ML teams can do it because they have access to those kinds of numbers.

I think nibbling in high school is throwing to a spot about the size of a basketball, with maybe half the basketball being outside the strike zone.  If you throw a strike, it is a hard ball to hit.  If you throw a ball, it isn't missing by much (a good catcher earns his keep catching these pitches on the margin).  In high school, weak pitchers have neither velocity not command, good pitchers have one or the other and great pitchers have both.

2017LHPscrewball, what you said about your son is interesting and shows the difference in thinking many people have. Most want to see a lot of Ks.

 Most coaches preach pitching to contact but I’ve found that a difficult thing to define.

 I’m not sure what you mean by “tracked”.

 The problem with using only the # of pitches as a guideline is that if you believe not all pitches are equally “stressful”, a 12 pitch inning may well be more stressful than a 20 pitch inning.

 We could discuss this topic for hours and hours and I’d be happy because I think it’s interesting. But let’s focus on depth for a minute and forget number of pitches. How does a team improve its pitching depth?

 To me there’s really only 1 way to do that, and that’s to get as many pitchers in games as possible. Bullpens and pitching lessons are great training, but there’s nothing like facing hitters who are trying to do everything they can to not make outs. So while it may be that a pitcher could finish a game with no ill effects, to me it makes sense to pull the starter and give other pitchers opportunities.

 I guess I could describe our team as one having pitching depth issues, and I’d generally describe our coach as having the same philosophy as you. We’re in the position of having to win all 4 of our remaining league games to get into post-season play. We play yesterday and today against 1 team and 2 games next week against another. The pitcher who has been by far the most successful this season at 5-1 with 2 complete games started yesterday. He threw 100 pitches and won the game. But here’s the rest of the story.

 The team we played was 0-18 and we were ahead 11-3 in the 5^th inning when he had only thrown 72 pitches. To me, he should have been replaced in the 6^th and one of our pitchers who hadn’t seen much work could have thrown. I know what was going on. Our HC wanted to have our pitcher looking as strong as possible for post season awards, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But to me, being named to the all-league team doesn’t compare to doing everything possible to develop pitchers for the future.

 And that’s what makes baseball the most discussed sport in this country. Everyone has their own philosophies about the game.