HS pitcher throws 191 pitches

....pitch counts and days rest, total innings for season, year,  long toss/no long toss, take four months off from overhand throwing/throw year round, ice/no ice, curve ball / no curve ball, run/don't run, throw heavy balls / don't throw heavy balls, radar gun / don't radar gun, PO / two way...

I'm sure I missed some.

by the way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI004CYz_lM

http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/15826

Not even a sr pitcher,no one should EVER pitch that high. I doubt a pitcher would be in state championship pitching if he weren't good enough to play at next level.

as a parent of a pitcher it's my job to protect sons arm. I've told him he needs to speak up or I will. 

HC is an idiot and obviously doesn't care.  Sure it will happen again or close to it if someone doesn't call him on it. Who cares what he thinks of a parent. All the pitchers parents need to speak up.

There are just some things that you can't even come up with a reply for......and this is one of them.

This seems to happen somewhere in this country at least once a season. It could be as simple as someone with a pencil and paper tallying pitches. Maybe even invest in a cheap click counter. Either way, coach is liable if kid's arm falls off,

I'm going to assume you mean "liable."

Exactly! Long day in the sun. Please forgive for such brain farts. I'm a baseball guy, not a genius.

There are pitch counts and then there are pitch counts.

http://mnhopper1s.wordpress.co...igh-school-baseball/

Unintended quote of the year

This is a good resource if for no other reason than it puts all of the relevant studies together in one argument. I would only have two bones to pick with it. First, it treats every piece of research as if it they were equally important to the analysis, including outdated studies that have been surplanted (mainly the ASMI studies) by more extensive research from the same people. Second, the quiz it gives coaches starts with preconceived notions of what factors affect injuries and then quizzes coaches on their knowledge of those factors grading them basically on whether they agree with the conclusion of the study. I'd also mention, but won't harp on, what I believe is a problem with using the fact that arm and shoulder surgery rates have increased over the years as proofof anything other than that surgeries have increased (and not proof of ACTUAL injuries which in the past mostly went untended to and unreported).

What I was intrigued by was the conclusion that the biggest factor in arm injuries is pitching while fatigued. I whole-heeartedly agree with this. This is where the problem lies. As the survey pointed out, the vast majority of high school coaches rely on their own experience when setting pitch counts. This indicates that most coaches believe their own judgment of fatigue and mechanical breakdown is superior to preset pitch counts based on general tendencies. This is something I am behind. I guess the problem is that when a coach is mistaken about his own abilities in this area there are injury problems.

This brings up the question of which is better - to let the coach make decisions based on his experience or to concrete the matter with preset pitch counts? I think there will always be problems with either method. In allowing coaches to make the decision you will have problems with coaches that either have no experience to rely upon or are greatly undereducated in this manner or coaches who simply THINK their experience and education is sufficient. With preset counts, I believe there is the danger of coaches relying on them too much and often pitching kids well beyond fatigue simply because they are still within pitch count limits, never using their own judgment to intervene.

Personally, I prefer to use my own knowledge of my individual pitchers. However, I recognize that 1) I may be one of those that only THINKS he knows what he is doing and 2) how would you ever distinguish the proficient in this area from the idiots? On a case by case basis, with guys who have coached a lot it isn't that hard. Simply look not at the pitch counts, but at the coach's success rate in the area of keeping pitchers injury-free. On the other hand, there are grizzled veterans who absolutely ruin arms even at the upper levels.

My conclusion would be that, despite my own concerns of over-reliance on pitch counts by many youth coaches, preset pitch counts are still the best system we have, flawed as it may be.

Regarding "back then" when pitch counts were higher, many of you know that sons pitching coach for two seasons was Dennis Martinez.

The story goes that after pitching, they hit the bottle, others pills, steroids, etc. to dull the pain and to try to recover until the next outing. Dennis Martinez is a recovering alcoholic and if you read his book its there as to why.  You threw that many pitches because you were getting paid and you had to, not because you wanted to.

My neighbors brother is Chichi Rodriguez. He played with Roberto Clemente and other  players from this country during winter ball in PR. All I can say is WOW!

Stats hit the nail on the head, the coach lost the game for not having other pitchers to come in and take over.

One of the reasons we all know that ML teams develop relievers and closers is to protect starters arms. While I know that HS rosters are smaller you have got to develop guys to come in and help the starters. 

That story has repeated itself here over and over during the years. The coach ought to shame himself as well as the parents.

I agree that every pitcher has his own threshold of how many pitches he can throw before he becomes fatigued to where he is at risk for injury.  I also agree that some coaches are better at this than others, whether that is because they just don't see the signs, or because they ignore them for some reason.

However, I don't think ANYONE can go 191 pitches and not be fatigued at some point WAY before they got there.  And there is a HUGE difference between a HS pitcher doing this and a professional getting paid to do it.  If a fully grown adult like Tom Seaver had a pitch count of 135, how can a HS kid throw that many more pitches and it not have some kind of effect on him?  

Whether you believe pitch counts are the way to go or you think that fatigue is the guideline, 191 pitches is way too many and clearly abusive and stupid.

I agree with that. However, as to Tom Sever, I'd be willing to bet you he exceeded 135 pitches many, many times. If you simply look at the number of innings he logged per season, it seems unlikely that they held to this "non-mandatory" count. If nothing else, a coach who throws a kid 191 pitches should not be shocked at what happens next. Even if he is 100% confident in his decision and 100% right in his analysis that it isn't dangerous, he would be an idiot to think he's going to get much support. For that alone, it was a very risky move.

I think comparing MLB'ers to HS kids, in most cases, is like comparing apples to oranges...

And ridiculous!

You just can't do it.  Grown men vs. kids.  Even the most fully developed HS seniors have a lot more growing and maturing to do.  

I don't think anyone is. It's a process argument. The assumption being that the process would be the same writ small. The discussion has, as many posts do, split into different sub-topics. The point is that the same arguments are going on at the mlb level and many of the same points apply even if the standards (# of pitches) is different. As to the OP, if the topic is nothing beyond should a high school coach let his sp go 191 pitches, there isn't much argument and the topic would be quickly closed. Heck, probably not even any need for a response. The OP can stand on its own. However, as with any story thrown up on this board, the idea is that it lead to a wider discussion of the topic in general. In this case, pitch counts. Is that really a problem? In fact, has anyone read any of my posts as saying what the guy did was smart, admirable, or even OK? My only real reaction was to throwing around the phrase "child abuse." Am I wrong to think that may be an over-reaction?

IMHO, Yes...

Fair enough. I'm going to put you in the state legislature. You propose a bill"

It is child abuse or child neglect when the coach of a high school team allows a pitcher under his care to throw ____ pitches in a high school game.

Please fill in the blank for me.

roothog:  it is child abuse, anytime an adult charged with the well being of a child, knowingly uses poor judgement, resulting in endangerment.  If he pleads he did not know 191 highly increases likelihood of injury, he should not coach, otherwise it meets the definition.

Its it wrong to make a funny while discussing baseball?

My old mom (bless her heart) will phone me and ask how the family is. And then we will talk about a Wildcat living in her barn, Coyotes are thick this year, and old man Jacobs got a new truck.....I think this is called conversation. Is it truly a bad thing if a thread finds a new path and interested posters still want to respond.

We are talking about a ligament here.  A ligament that only needs to be in top shape in order to play MLB.

doc - you lost me on that one.

sultan:  add to the ucl, the rotator cuff, labrum, etc.  do we need those, or are they expendable?

Sorry!!

What I'm saying is I don't mind a topic straying a little if there are people interested enough to post. As long as the OP is fine with roam it has reached.

OK, so ignore the # 191 for a moment. What number of pitches meets that definition? And is there a difference between a kid who throws 95% 90mph fastballs and a kid that lofts up nothing but 60 mph stuff? How about curve balls? Is it child abuse for a coach to have a kid throw 75 curves in a row? How about 25?

Also, does it have to lead to actual damage or is it enough to make such an accusation/charge based on perceived possibilities of future damage?

Here's my problem. I'm in court day-in-and-day-out. I see a lot of REAL child abuse and to accuse someone of child abuse based on his coaching decisions sort of insults me. You think he should be fired based on being a bad coach and not paying enough attention to the care of his pitchers' arms fine, but throwing the term child abuse out there is something else.

Having said that, I respect your contributions to the board more than 90% of what's on here.

Most state statutes will be similar to this (from Colorado):

Physical child abuse is described as: “Any case in which a child exhibits evidence of skin bruising, bleeding, malnutrition, failure to thrive, burns, fracture of any bone, subdural hematoma, soft tissue swelling, or death and either: Such condition or death is not justifiably explained; the history given concerning such condition is at variance with the degree or type of such condition or death; or the circumstances indicate that such condition may not be the product of an accidental occurrence;”

Psychological child abuse:  “    Any case in which a child is subjected to emotional abuse.  As used in this subparagraph (IV), ‘emotional abuse’ means an identifiable and substantial impairment of the child’s intellectual or psychological functioning or development or a substantial risk of impairment of the child’s intellectual or psychological functioning or development.”

The second might be a little more problematic for some coaches.

Now here is one that could put the parents in jail if that is how you read it:

Failure to Protect: "

A parent or caretaker fails to protect a child when he or she knowingly allows someone else to harm or neglect the child.  Failure to protect could also occur if a parent or caretaker knowingly allows the child to be unsupervised or inadequately supervised around someone who is known to have abused or neglected children previously, or is known to be dangerous."

 

It's a slippery slope. I'd love to see the DA's face on these charges whe you say "Coach let him throw 191 pitches."

I think you guys are making this way too complicated, and typically when I see a thread going that direction, I know it is time to bow out. 

When we get into the minutiae of these discussions, it becomes more of a personal crusade to prove one's morality versus someone else.  Nobody wins, and there is no end game to those discussions.

To debate whether a ucl, or other body part is not "that" important, therefore it should not be considered "that" dangerous, OR that endangering a child's health is insulting in this case, because it is not comparable to egregious examples of extreme child abuse, is quite silly.

This dude put a kid in danger....nobody can argue with that.

I'm out!

OK counselor, maybe this isn't 'child abuse' by your terminology or the letter of the law - I apologize to you and anyone else that is offended by my phrasing or effected by an abuser... But THIS is an abusive act/behavior by the coach towards his player... It should be examined and dealt with so similar abusive acts/behaviors won't happen again.

I'm willing to put it to bed. I've made my point the best I can. I understand the concern, I only took acception to the hyperbole.

Roothog - I understand what you're saying, but just because there are horrendous acts of abject child abuse doesn't mean that only those acts meet the definition... Right?  But to your point, whether it's legal child abuse or not... 191 is absolutely irresponsible, negligent behavior for a coach... As I think you'd agree.

So you're asking "what's the magic number" of pitches that is too much?  I don't have that answer.  But to me it's more of a common sense thing.  If a pitcher is going along effectively and unlabored, I'm probably not paying overly close attention until he gets to ~80 pitches.  Thereafter, I'm watching him more closely for mechanical breakdowns, velocity drop, labored delivery.  And I'm talking with him about how he feels.  If he's cruising along smooth and sound, then I don't know... 100-110 or so pitches is good by me.  After that, even if he's still throwing well... there are other guys to give the ball to. Why push things for a HS or travel ball win?  

I wrote earlier that if it's a championship game type scenario... or the no-hitter/perfect game scenario... Then you have to weigh that.  What I meant was, say a Sr is pitching a no-no and he's at 97 pitches with two innings to go.  If he's heading to throw for a college team next year or has a shot in the draft, then its an easy call... he's done, or maybe was done an inning earlier at 83 pitches.  If he has no interest or expectation of moving beyond HS ball... then why not let him go for it?  There's risk of injury, but this is the kid's biggest baseball moment... Let him have it. And same for other scenarios short of a no hitter... Maybe it's just going for a CG win against the big rival.  Those types of moments and accomplishments can last a lifetime... Right along with the twinge in the elbow.  Just my $ .02

While I see your point about child abuse, it is pitcher abuse and many coaches and managers have lost their jobs over it.

There are guidelines established by ASMI for ages under HS, so why would anyone argue about what is or is not appropriate?

Please, stop comparing yesterdays ML pitchers to HS players.

First and foremost, I'm not saying there is nothing wrong with letting a kid throw 191 pitches. It's wrong and stupid for a lot of reasons. I was simply putting it in context with "child abuse." My example was simple meant to make it obvious that it's hard to put a number on this that makes it objective. Some, for example (and a lot more than you might realize) would point to your scenario of 100-110 pitches in a no-no as abuse. I've seen plenty of kids I thought were fine at 100 pitches. I've also seen kids that, 40 pitches in would be taken out by any competent coach because they are laboring.

When you throw legal terms around, you move out of the sphere of subjectivity. For example, if a parent throws their kid in a scalding bath that causes damage, it isn't subjective. We don't go looking for some magical temperature that is a line between abuse and non-abuse. We go by actual injury. Throwing pitches is the same way, though much harder. I'm willing to cry "dumbass." I'm just not willing to cry "criminal!"

More controversial would be my opinion that throwing 191 pitches in a game as an isolated event is not necessarily going to harm the kid. It might. It might not. It's still a risk. Repeatedly doing so, or even close to it? That's different. If he did this once a week (or even, say 115 pitches every four-six days), I'd say with 99% confidence that damage is being done.

Another question not asked. This was a Senior? If he's 18, does he have the right to take the risk if he so chooses? Should the coach be under some legal obligation to pull him? As a side note, I could answer yes to that question if certain conditions existed.

I just had another train of thought occur to me concerning the high pitch counts of older major leaguers and today's Japanese pitchers. The argument (and I've made it many times before) is that by throwing a heavy load from a young age up, these pitchers are conditioned in a way that allows them to throw more pitches.

I was reading an article that talked about how many pitches Japanese youth players throw. I figured that was probably the same with American youth pitchers prior to, say 1980. Could it be simply that the way youth pitching was handled simply eliminated many pitchers early and simply left major league spots to those who made it through the high pitch meat grinder because they were genetically fit for high pitch counts? I could see that. There could have been a large number of pitching injuries in youth ball that we simply don't recognize because it wasn't something as doculented as it is today. Maybe a lot of today's mlb pitchers would never have made it through youth ball 40 years ago.

Not to be picky, but the items highlighted in red could potentially apply to allowing a pitcher to stay in too long.  

Root, now that I know you're a lawyer, your perspective seems to make more sense. 

You're right, it could. But, I would absolutley hate to be the DA standing in front of the judge making that case.  

As to hypotheticals, though, let's assume that this kid ended up with arm troubles a few weeks later. Let's further assume that he is a legitimate mlb draft prospect. How do you think a suit against that coach (and school) would go? I actually could see a civil suit. I don't know that I could get a jury to go along, but it'd be fun to try.

To answer my own question, you'd have to get around governmental immunity, but that could possible be done.

You're right, it could. But, I would absolutley hate to be the DA standing in front of the judge making that case.  

 

As to hypotheticals, though, let's assume that this kid ended up with arm troubles a few weeks later. Let's further assume that he is a legitimate mlb draft prospect. How do you think a suit against that coach (and school) would go? I actually could see a civil suit. I don't know that I could get a jury to go along, but it'd be fun to try.

 

To answer my own question, you'd have to get around governmental immunity, but that could possible be done.

A start would simply be to bring into evidence the ASMI (the leading expert/authority on pitching) pitch limit recommendations.  They recommend a limit of 105 pitches per outing for 17/18 year olds.  While it is understandable that number may be exceeded from time to time, I would say that double that number is negligent and if it led to any of the conditions for abuse, possibly criminal.  If the coach didn't know about pitch limits/recommendations, in this day and age, he should have.