Rip....I don't think anyone is saying that!
How about this one... On Saturday we opened against a team that we probably shouldn't have played. Their first pitcher who wasn't bad, was one bad play away from getting out of the first with one run allowed, facing maybe 5 hitters having thrown maybe 20 pitches. Unfortunately for him, we proceded to bat around almost twice and I'm thinking he threw 70 or more pitches in that inning.
It was cold out, and I was told it was the first time outside for that team. I think this is the kind of thing that we are talking about.
ps the kid came out for the 2nd inning.
quote:Originally posted by 2bagger:
I have to ask and I don't want to stray from the subject, but how is that Wisconsin Red wearing up there today after that basketball game yesterday?
Sorry rz1 I couldn't resist, I really pull for any Midwest team.
The best part about an NCAA home team loss means it's now baseball season.quote:Originally posted by 2bagger:
Sorry rz1 I couldn't resist, I really pull for any Midwest team.
The Badgers have no such silver lining. They don't have a baseball team!
FBDad, That hurts...........almost as much as out of State tuition to an IL college. 
We do have the Madison Mallards as a college summer team which is still college ball but played in warm weather and pitch counts are closely monitored there.
It's kind of funny that when it becomes a developmental summer leagues (Northwoods) versus a NCAA team that the coaches from the college team set some pitch count maxs for their pitchers on the summer team that they may not subscribe to during the NCAA season.
I guess coaches might sing a different tune when wins and losses are not part of the equation. All of a sudden pitch counts become relevant. I think this mentality is more previlent when talking "select" vs HS where there may be more abuse when HS coaches have something on the line and less depth at the pitching position than a "select" coach has.
The question comes up again. Does winning/losing dictate the amount a pitcher is used/abused?
We do have the Madison Mallards as a college summer team which is still college ball but played in warm weather and pitch counts are closely monitored there.
It's kind of funny that when it becomes a developmental summer leagues (Northwoods) versus a NCAA team that the coaches from the college team set some pitch count maxs for their pitchers on the summer team that they may not subscribe to during the NCAA season.
I guess coaches might sing a different tune when wins and losses are not part of the equation. All of a sudden pitch counts become relevant. I think this mentality is more previlent when talking "select" vs HS where there may be more abuse when HS coaches have something on the line and less depth at the pitching position than a "select" coach has.
The question comes up again. Does winning/losing dictate the amount a pitcher is used/abused?
Sorry to bore my esteemed colleagues of the HSBBW.
For those interested… I broke down the average pitch count numbers. BP only has data back through 1988.
The average number of pitches per start thrown by all 2006 MLB starting pitchers is 88.6 or 89 (all data, 303 pitchers regardless of PAP)… 1988 = 89.02
The average number of pitches per start thrown by 2006 MLB pitchers with the top 100 PAP is 98.6 or 99… 1988 = 100.04
The average number of pitches per start thrown by 2006 MLB pitchers with the top 50 PAP is 100.96 or 101… 1988 = 104.5
The average number of pitches per start thrown by 2006 MLB pitchers with the top 10 PAP is 105.98 or 106… 1988 = 113.1
Simply stated in 2006 the average number of pitches thrown by a MLB starter in 2006 was 89 and 89 in 1988.
The average number of pitches thrown by a MLB starter in 2006 with the 10 highest PAP numbers or, in other words, threw the most pitches per start, did the most work, was 106 and 113 in 1988.
I get two bits of objective info from this;
1 - MLB organizations, on average, limit starting pitchers to 89 pitches per start, well under 100. This is trend is flat… 89 versus 89.
2 – MLB organizations in 2006, on average, permited their “work horse” pitchers to throw 106 pitches. This trend is decreasing over the last 12 years from 113 to 106.
Another interesting observation… in 1988 the maximum number of pitches was higher and the number of pitchers allowed to throw high numbers of pitches was higher.
2006 – highest max = 138 pitches… only 23 pitchers, 7.6% (out of 303), had a start with a max of 125 pitches or more (range 125-138).
1988 – highest max = 163 pitches… 166 pitchers, 46.2% (out of 251), had a start with a max of 125 or more (range 125-163).
Clearly the trend at the MLB level is trending toward lower pitch counts. It is what it is… Why? That’s a subjective.
rz1 please click on the link below… watch out for the snake!
http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
For those interested… I broke down the average pitch count numbers. BP only has data back through 1988.
The average number of pitches per start thrown by all 2006 MLB starting pitchers is 88.6 or 89 (all data, 303 pitchers regardless of PAP)… 1988 = 89.02
The average number of pitches per start thrown by 2006 MLB pitchers with the top 100 PAP is 98.6 or 99… 1988 = 100.04
The average number of pitches per start thrown by 2006 MLB pitchers with the top 50 PAP is 100.96 or 101… 1988 = 104.5
The average number of pitches per start thrown by 2006 MLB pitchers with the top 10 PAP is 105.98 or 106… 1988 = 113.1
Simply stated in 2006 the average number of pitches thrown by a MLB starter in 2006 was 89 and 89 in 1988.
The average number of pitches thrown by a MLB starter in 2006 with the 10 highest PAP numbers or, in other words, threw the most pitches per start, did the most work, was 106 and 113 in 1988.
I get two bits of objective info from this;
1 - MLB organizations, on average, limit starting pitchers to 89 pitches per start, well under 100. This is trend is flat… 89 versus 89.
2 – MLB organizations in 2006, on average, permited their “work horse” pitchers to throw 106 pitches. This trend is decreasing over the last 12 years from 113 to 106.
Another interesting observation… in 1988 the maximum number of pitches was higher and the number of pitchers allowed to throw high numbers of pitches was higher.
2006 – highest max = 138 pitches… only 23 pitchers, 7.6% (out of 303), had a start with a max of 125 pitches or more (range 125-138).
1988 – highest max = 163 pitches… 166 pitchers, 46.2% (out of 251), had a start with a max of 125 or more (range 125-163).
Clearly the trend at the MLB level is trending toward lower pitch counts. It is what it is… Why? That’s a subjective.
rz1 please click on the link below… watch out for the snake!
http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
Maybe it is a self fullilling. the less you let them pitch, the less the can pitch. Since the trend is to pitch less, are there less injuries?
Smoky,
Not boring at all! All very good data, and I for one appreciate it, thanks.... But I still don’t understand what it really means in relationship to number of injuries.
I don’t believe the intent is to have the starting pitcher throw 89 pitches. This figure would include those starting pitchers who didn’t get out of the first inning and threw less than 40 pitches. For each time that happened the pitcher has to throw more than 89 to get that average.
Also, baseball tends to get more and more reliever minded. Now days, the trend is get 5 or 6 innings out of the starter, go to mid relief, go to the set up man, and finish with the closer. This has a tendency to keep pitch counts and IPs down a bit. Those with the most innings are skipping the middle relief and even set up man in many cases. Complete games are kind of rare these days compared to 20 years ago. In 1988 Hershiser pitched 15 complete games to lead the NL and Clemens pitched 14 to lead the AL. In 2006 Aaron Harang had 6 to lead the national league and Sabathia 6 to lead the American League.
Innings pitched leaders have dropped also over the past 20-30 years. And they have been dropping significantly and steady since the 1800s.
Then again... Games started has stayed amazingly close to the same over a very long period of time.
So… Over a long period of time… It appears that MLB pitchers have about the same number of starts, have thrown less innings, have lowered the pitch counts, and yet there are more arm injuries than ever!
One could actually make the assumption that as IP, # of pitches and complete games go down the arm injuries seem to be going up! (could that make any sense?)
The one thing about numbers is you can make them say darn near anything depending on how you want it to turn out. I’m not trying to argue, just trying to give another point of view to a very confusing topic. And a very interesting one!
I think all the points made in this thread are good. Hope no one minds someone bringing up things that go against the grain a little. Once again, I’m truly an advocate of pitch counts and sufficient rest and good conditioning.
Not boring at all! All very good data, and I for one appreciate it, thanks.... But I still don’t understand what it really means in relationship to number of injuries.
quote:1 - MLB organizations, on average, limit starting pitchers to 89 pitches per start, well under 100. This is trend is flat… 89 versus 89.
I don’t believe the intent is to have the starting pitcher throw 89 pitches. This figure would include those starting pitchers who didn’t get out of the first inning and threw less than 40 pitches. For each time that happened the pitcher has to throw more than 89 to get that average.
Also, baseball tends to get more and more reliever minded. Now days, the trend is get 5 or 6 innings out of the starter, go to mid relief, go to the set up man, and finish with the closer. This has a tendency to keep pitch counts and IPs down a bit. Those with the most innings are skipping the middle relief and even set up man in many cases. Complete games are kind of rare these days compared to 20 years ago. In 1988 Hershiser pitched 15 complete games to lead the NL and Clemens pitched 14 to lead the AL. In 2006 Aaron Harang had 6 to lead the national league and Sabathia 6 to lead the American League.
Innings pitched leaders have dropped also over the past 20-30 years. And they have been dropping significantly and steady since the 1800s.
Then again... Games started has stayed amazingly close to the same over a very long period of time.
So… Over a long period of time… It appears that MLB pitchers have about the same number of starts, have thrown less innings, have lowered the pitch counts, and yet there are more arm injuries than ever!
One could actually make the assumption that as IP, # of pitches and complete games go down the arm injuries seem to be going up! (could that make any sense?)
The one thing about numbers is you can make them say darn near anything depending on how you want it to turn out. I’m not trying to argue, just trying to give another point of view to a very confusing topic. And a very interesting one!
I think all the points made in this thread are good. Hope no one minds someone bringing up things that go against the grain a little. Once again, I’m truly an advocate of pitch counts and sufficient rest and good conditioning.
Nice to see people thinking about this.
My question is is erring on the so called safe side not in fact a possible contributor to injury ?
The 100 year old analogy would apply but we are only trying to get to 40-50. There are too many of these guys.
My question is is erring on the so called safe side not in fact a possible contributor to injury ?
The 100 year old analogy would apply but we are only trying to get to 40-50. There are too many of these guys.
Smokey,
I like that song and will give it a 9.5. It's got a nice beat and is easy to dance to.
btw- nice stats also. The only issue I have is
In a 6 inning start that's a difference of under 2 foul balls per inning. Is that significant? Do we look at 100, or for that matter any number as an abuse point.
We are a "benchmark" society where we say "X" is an ave income, "X" is a median priced home, or we have "X" number of kids in a family. These are all defined numbers using a defined denominator. I think we have to be careful when saying a pitcher is being abused because a pitchers ability to maintain effectivness varies pitcher to pitcher. Instead, I think that abuse should be determined after an outing has occurred and should be measured with next day soreness/"deadness", the ability to recover in a set time, and the effectivness at the next outing. This data can be converted into a pitch count for that pitcher.
One thing that we have not really discussed was the pitch counts between a starter and a closer. They are not the same, Why? maybe because every pitcher is different. I still a stern believer of pitch counts, but after reading these posts I don't think that anyone can go out and say that anything, within reason, over "X" number of pitches constitutes abuse. I think you start a year at a number for all pitchers, and then adjust that number according to a pitchers effectivness during an outing to determine you have a new max.
But what do I know, I liked Smokey's song
I like that song and will give it a 9.5. It's got a nice beat and is easy to dance to.
btw- nice stats also. The only issue I have is
quote:MLB organizations, on average, limit starting pitchers to 89 pitches per start, well under 100.
In a 6 inning start that's a difference of under 2 foul balls per inning. Is that significant? Do we look at 100, or for that matter any number as an abuse point.
We are a "benchmark" society where we say "X" is an ave income, "X" is a median priced home, or we have "X" number of kids in a family. These are all defined numbers using a defined denominator. I think we have to be careful when saying a pitcher is being abused because a pitchers ability to maintain effectivness varies pitcher to pitcher. Instead, I think that abuse should be determined after an outing has occurred and should be measured with next day soreness/"deadness", the ability to recover in a set time, and the effectivness at the next outing. This data can be converted into a pitch count for that pitcher.
One thing that we have not really discussed was the pitch counts between a starter and a closer. They are not the same, Why? maybe because every pitcher is different. I still a stern believer of pitch counts, but after reading these posts I don't think that anyone can go out and say that anything, within reason, over "X" number of pitches constitutes abuse. I think you start a year at a number for all pitchers, and then adjust that number according to a pitchers effectivness during an outing to determine you have a new max.
But what do I know, I liked Smokey's song
quote:By rz1... I think we have to be careful when saying a pitcher is being abused because a pitchers ability to maintain effectivness varies pitcher to pitcher.
The often disrespected radar gun can tell you a lot. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve known a pitcher was pretty much running on fumes while his coach didn’t realize it.
When you are setting there gunning pitches and all of a sudden a pitchers fastball and other pitches for that matter have lost 5-8 mph velocity… He is usually tired and at risk. However, sometimes these same pitchers gut it out and sometimes even get lucky by getting outs despite the fact they’ve lost their velocity and their breaking balls not as sharp. It takes an exceptionally good coach to recognize this without the gun around.
The one thing that stands out is… some guys maintain their velocity for 7 innings, while others might lose it after 2 or 3 innings. As rz stated… they are not all the same! But unless a pitcher is intentionally throwing with less velocity, when the gun readings consistently drops 5 mph or more he should be out of the game! JMO when that velocity drops that much, they are in a potential danger zone! They are usually working harder to throw slower! They are struggling physically whether they know it or not.
To me, radar can be an important tool and it is used by many to determine a pitchers effective pitch count.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
One could actually make the assumption that as IP, # of pitches and complete games go down the arm injuries seem to be going up! (could that make any sense?)
The only way that you could make that statistically significant is if you were to have the data on what the pitchers pre pro baseball stats were to IP and pitch count.
The other side of the coin is Bobbleheads argument.
With the limitation on the data we have, it's impossible to know.
It's funny when we talk about breaking balls and arm injuries. The only time my son ever felt a twinge of pain, was elbow when he was a HS soph. His delivery was over the top and the pitch that his elbow didn't like was a 2 seam fastball. After tests and docs, he rested and threw 4 seamers the rest of the year. The next off season, his pitching coach moved his arm slot to high 3/4's, it improved the lateness of his break on his curve, gave him a change that broke late down and away from lefties, improved his locating the ball, and his arm has felt great ever since.
The doc did mention that he needed to strengthen all the compenents of his pitching elements. He said most of his problem derived from the fact that he was physically immature for the kind of velocity he was able to generate. Although very strong now, and physically maturing, he still is far behind the normal 18yo male for physical maturity. I bring this up, because it brings another free radical into the equation of explaining latent damage.
BHD's arguement of less is harmful is interesting to say the least. I don't believe so. While limiting a pitcher to less in a game, that pitcher is still doing his pen work, getting in his long toss etc. and getting extended work each time out. At the same time, a coach who takes this approach really obtains several benefits for the team. More kids playing is one. However, what you're also doing is building a staff that is game ready for a run at post season. When we throw in this manner, we call it "throwing by committee." We will do this a couple of times in a year. We play in a tournament where we also plan to use committee. It saves all of our arms for our conference schedule. Then, when post season comes, we have serveral pitchers that have logged enough quality innings that we feel prepared for what's ahead. JUST ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT KEEPING THE PITCH COUNTS LOWER EARLY ON. JMHO!
CPLZ my son stayed away from the 2 seamer. Not sure why because his coaches all wanted him to throw it. I guess he needed every MPH he could muster.
CoachB25 the problem is no one knows the right amount of pitches an individual can handle. My son has had great coaches including Ron Davis the former NY middle reliever, Jim Ridley the former Jays head pitching scout now with the Twins, John Gledies former T Ranger pitching coach, co author of the Pitchers Edge series, Don Colpoys the longest reigning D1 NCAA coach, and many others. We followed their instruction and yes there were limits but they were high and they pertained to actual pitching on the mound. He always got 4 days rest, iced jogged after outings. His regular checkups with an expert were extensive and the doctor said he was in exceptional shape in regards to arm shoulder back elbow and told him to keep it up. He checked for bone spurs, chips scaring and shoulder socket tightness. We did not do this blindly. We had more expert help than I can begin to tell you about.
BobbleheadDoll, I'm not arguing. Rather I was attempting to explain. We have a trainer and so, I'm more blessed than most. He is very good, has just about enough credits to be a doctor and is at every practice, all home games and some road games. Yes, there isn't a "standard." I know that if you ask me, I'd rather be condemned for not haveing my kids throw excessive numbers of pitches than the other. JMHO!
Yes I know you are not arguing. I just want you to know some of the back ground of the information that I have aquired.
Our years of training have been unbelieveable. One team had 4 hour sessions in a Gym and then in a s****r dome for pitching. One year my son did the 17U workout on Saturday and then went straight over to the 19U pitching session. I still don't know how he did it all. He looked forward to it every day. I always worried about him burning out and asked him every year if he was up to it (before I wrote the cheque) He actually gave me a nasty look when I asked.
Our years of training have been unbelieveable. One team had 4 hour sessions in a Gym and then in a s****r dome for pitching. One year my son did the 17U workout on Saturday and then went straight over to the 19U pitching session. I still don't know how he did it all. He looked forward to it every day. I always worried about him burning out and asked him every year if he was up to it (before I wrote the cheque) He actually gave me a nasty look when I asked.
Here is our pitch count for tonites opener. We threw 6 pitchers.
p1 26 pitches
p2 9 pitches
p3 14 pitches
p4 19 pitches
p5 17 pitches
p6 31 pitches
By the way we got killed bigtime but at least noone will talk about us on the message board.
p1 26 pitches
p2 9 pitches
p3 14 pitches
p4 19 pitches
p5 17 pitches
p6 31 pitches
By the way we got killed bigtime but at least noone will talk about us on the message board.
I give my pitchers a "ten commandments" handout at the beginning of each season. I emphasis first pitch strike and not having "waste pitches." Here is #6:
Get hitters out before three ball pitching counts
"Aim to get hitters out on just four pitches because they add up fast. Here's an example...
• 12 pitches an inning x 7 innings is 84 total pitches.
Now granted, you're not going to be able to get every hitter out on just four pitches. However, if you aim for four, it will give you the very best ability to go the distance and to pitch complete games. It will also give you the ability to save your arm and velocity throughout the course of a pitching performance, season and career."
We do not let our pitchers go over 85 pitches and early in the year, we hold them to 30 pitches. If following the rule, they should be able to give us 2 very good innings and possible 3.
I enforce the rule because I believe in saving their arms. Equally important though, I feel that it forces them to be a better pitcher. I am not saying it is the right way but I feel young men are not always pitchers but throwers. I use this to start their mental transition into becoming a pitcher.
Just my thoughts.
Get hitters out before three ball pitching counts
"Aim to get hitters out on just four pitches because they add up fast. Here's an example...
• 12 pitches an inning x 7 innings is 84 total pitches.
Now granted, you're not going to be able to get every hitter out on just four pitches. However, if you aim for four, it will give you the very best ability to go the distance and to pitch complete games. It will also give you the ability to save your arm and velocity throughout the course of a pitching performance, season and career."
We do not let our pitchers go over 85 pitches and early in the year, we hold them to 30 pitches. If following the rule, they should be able to give us 2 very good innings and possible 3.
I enforce the rule because I believe in saving their arms. Equally important though, I feel that it forces them to be a better pitcher. I am not saying it is the right way but I feel young men are not always pitchers but throwers. I use this to start their mental transition into becoming a pitcher.
Just my thoughts.
I brought some of these issues up about a week ago regarding pitching sensation Matsuzaka and some of the diiferent approaches the japanese players take to throwing. It might make for some interesting reading as sports Illustrated has an article by Tom Verducci regarding some of these issues surrounding this pitcher. I really have enjoyed reading all the different ideas and approaches on this subject. As we discussed it maybe we were a week ahead of SI here at the high school sight. Anyhow interesting reading! Nice that the discussion has also been civil.
Here is our pitch count for tonites game in which we got clobbered again. This time after 4 1/2 innings by the run rule
p1 14 pitches
p2 32 pitches
p3 33 pitches
p4 37 pitches
On saturday I am just going to leave the guy in who does the best and throw these pitch counts out the window!
p1 14 pitches
p2 32 pitches
p3 33 pitches
p4 37 pitches
On saturday I am just going to leave the guy in who does the best and throw these pitch counts out the window!
Just keep your eye on them. Make sure the elbows are at shoulder height and not dropping. After a couple innings ask how they are feeling.
That's what you get for blowing their arms out last year. It had to catch up with them sooner or later. Hopefully you have learned your lesson!!
Horror Story
The above link was posted on the General Forum. It really does relate to the discussion in this topic.
Very intersting reading... For "open minds" only! Note the pitch counts and later in the story the mention of time between starts. He pretty much pitched lots of innings, but usually only once a week.
Once again, studying Japanese pitchers could maybe be valuable. We have the best surgeons here in America and Japan has Major League baseball with the most pitchers with abnormally high pitch counts. Wouldn't it seem like those requiring surgery would be trying to have it here where the most renown surgeons are? Dr Andrews and others should know how many operations they've performed on Japanese pitchers. This is a vital statistic IMO.
The above link was posted on the General Forum. It really does relate to the discussion in this topic.
Very intersting reading... For "open minds" only! Note the pitch counts and later in the story the mention of time between starts. He pretty much pitched lots of innings, but usually only once a week.
Once again, studying Japanese pitchers could maybe be valuable. We have the best surgeons here in America and Japan has Major League baseball with the most pitchers with abnormally high pitch counts. Wouldn't it seem like those requiring surgery would be trying to have it here where the most renown surgeons are? Dr Andrews and others should know how many operations they've performed on Japanese pitchers. This is a vital statistic IMO.
Makes for an interesting read but is he that much different than a Robin Roberts who threw 300 innings plus every year back in his day ??
The problem, as I see it, is that the kids today, here we go again, do not throw like they used to on their own. Until they go back to that they can never do what we are talking about here. You cannot ask a HS pitcher to go to a many inning routine if his arm and physical endurance have not been trained for it.
The problem, as I see it, is that the kids today, here we go again, do not throw like they used to on their own. Until they go back to that they can never do what we are talking about here. You cannot ask a HS pitcher to go to a many inning routine if his arm and physical endurance have not been trained for it.
The Japanese pitcher is unbelievable. The one thing I noticed was the once-a-week start. That would make a difference, but certainly not to that degree.
I still think that every body is different, and I'd bet there aren't many whose bodies could hold up to that volume of work.
There is no question that there is much to be learned and taking a look at The Japanese way of doing it will only add to the discussion.
I still think that every body is different, and I'd bet there aren't many whose bodies could hold up to that volume of work.
There is no question that there is much to be learned and taking a look at The Japanese way of doing it will only add to the discussion.
I'm wondering how much effect expansion in MLB has had on pitching. It seems to me that when MLB goes from 16 teams in 1960 to 30 teams today, there needs to be twice as many pitchers (actually more than twice as many, all factors considered).
Could it have been that only the freaky-armed players (guys who could throw forever) made it? Is it possible everyone threw a ton and most hurt their arms and either gave up pitching (or maybe gave up baseball) with only the fittest surviving?
What kind of impact, if any, did expansion have on pitching?
Mike F
Could it have been that only the freaky-armed players (guys who could throw forever) made it? Is it possible everyone threw a ton and most hurt their arms and either gave up pitching (or maybe gave up baseball) with only the fittest surviving?
What kind of impact, if any, did expansion have on pitching?
Mike F
MikeF,
Interesting concept and all things should be considered. However, the topic of abuse goes much deeper than just MLB. Maybe, also important might be the many more youth teams that play large schedules these days.
The "fittest surviving" happens to a certain extent in all areas of athletics.
The most fascinating thing about this subject is there are so many experts with absolute answers to a question that can't be answered absolutely. That question... What is too much, what is not enough? IMO We are still looking for the answers. We know not enough is safer and too much is more risky (I think). But which has the better chance for reaching peak potential? Obviously there are many variables involved.
Interesting concept and all things should be considered. However, the topic of abuse goes much deeper than just MLB. Maybe, also important might be the many more youth teams that play large schedules these days.
The "fittest surviving" happens to a certain extent in all areas of athletics.
The most fascinating thing about this subject is there are so many experts with absolute answers to a question that can't be answered absolutely. That question... What is too much, what is not enough? IMO We are still looking for the answers. We know not enough is safer and too much is more risky (I think). But which has the better chance for reaching peak potential? Obviously there are many variables involved.
i found this post to be the best one in a long time.i wouldent have seen it if pg didn't let the cat out of the bag. i found this article to be interesting
----------------------------------------------------
Glenn Fleisig, a biomechanical engineer who studies pitching at the American Sports Medicine Institute in Birmingham, Ala., has calculated that about 80 Newton-meters of torque act on an elite pitcher's elbow when he throws a fastball. The ulnar collateral ligament connects the humerus and ulna—two of the bones that come together in the elbow. To test the outer limits of the ligament's strength, Fleisig subjected cadaver elbows to increasing amounts of rotational force. These experiments showed that an average person's UCL snaps at about 80 Newton-meters. Smoky Joe Wood said that he threw so fast he thought his arm was going to fly off. It turns out he wasn't far from the truth. The reason pitchers get injured in the first place is that their muscles, tendons, and ligaments weren't as strong as they should have been.
---------------------------------------------------
i've often wondered if a young pitchers new found velocity was the big reason for arm injury's. an 18 year old's arm that isn't fully developed
may not be ready for 90? any way great discussion.
----------------------------------------------------
Glenn Fleisig, a biomechanical engineer who studies pitching at the American Sports Medicine Institute in Birmingham, Ala., has calculated that about 80 Newton-meters of torque act on an elite pitcher's elbow when he throws a fastball. The ulnar collateral ligament connects the humerus and ulna—two of the bones that come together in the elbow. To test the outer limits of the ligament's strength, Fleisig subjected cadaver elbows to increasing amounts of rotational force. These experiments showed that an average person's UCL snaps at about 80 Newton-meters. Smoky Joe Wood said that he threw so fast he thought his arm was going to fly off. It turns out he wasn't far from the truth. The reason pitchers get injured in the first place is that their muscles, tendons, and ligaments weren't as strong as they should have been.
---------------------------------------------------
i've often wondered if a young pitchers new found velocity was the big reason for arm injury's. an 18 year old's arm that isn't fully developed
may not be ready for 90? any way great discussion.
Here's an interesting idea I thought about the other day as I was watching the Cubs the other day. Professional pitchers get 4 or 5 starts to build their pitch counts before the games "count." No such thing exists in high school. 80 pitches in a gym is much different from 80 pitches in a game. When you add in pre-game and warm-ups between innings, that 80 pitches turns into 120 pretty quickly. My point... what if the first 5 games of the season were "preseason" games and did not count toward section seedings? This way more coaches would ease pitchers into the season and build them up the right way to 80 pitches or 100 pitches or whatever that individual coach decides. In theory they would get 2 appearances before being expected to go 70 or 80 pitches. We would still play a 30 game regular season.
Now I realize that having games "count" right off the bat is no reason to abuse pitchers, but in a way, this would be saving many coaches from themselves and it would probably also set up a lot more fresh arms come regional and sectional time.
Just a thought and I'm sure there are many problems with this, but it seems logical to me.
Now I realize that having games "count" right off the bat is no reason to abuse pitchers, but in a way, this would be saving many coaches from themselves and it would probably also set up a lot more fresh arms come regional and sectional time.
Just a thought and I'm sure there are many problems with this, but it seems logical to me.