USC game

You should read Keith Law on college coaches -- thinks most of them ruin pitchers.  Says any kid drafted out of HS -- but especially pitchers -- who gets at least 6 figure signing bonus, should sign and forgo college.  He says in the pros they will take care of you, regard you as an investment and will do nothing to hurt you.  In college, on the other hand, they have huge incentive to win.   And there is always, he says, another kid coming along to be abused.    

 

Don't know if I'd go as far as him.  But he is a smart baseball guy, if a bit caustic, who knows what he is talking about. 

A lot of times these conf championship tourneys, or late season games don't really matter, IF the coach thinks their post season seed is already set.  They want to rest their rotation, and sometimes throw guys that are not in the starting rotation.  It could be he thought since the reliever hadn't thrown many pitches this year (low mileage), he would be fine.  The problem I have with it, is that you need to train for work load, and relievers train for their workload much different than starters.  IMO I don't think that most pitching minds would consider this a wise move.  Add to the equation, that the pitcher was shaking his arm (unless that is part of his normal routine), I'd really question it.

I do not agree that in the pros they will do nothing to hurt you.  I can give you two examples of a team that has overused their relievers since the beginning of the season, one needs TJS and the other most will as well.

 

A 6 figure signing bonus really can be a no brainer for most HS pitchers. 

 

 

A quote from a Keith Law Chat a couple of years back.  

 

I do not think "all" college coaches abuse pitchers, but you have to be delusional to ignore the clear incentives they have to push pitchers beyond what is reasonable for their long-term development. There are programs that do a good job of developing kids - Vanderbilt does, UVA usually does, even LSU outside of the Gausman thing has been very good with this - but if my hypothetical son was drafted high enough for a solid 6-figure bonus, I'd have him sign.

I think Dan Hubbs the HC of USC, and was the pitching coach at Cal for several years is an outstanding coach.

 

I don't think he would do anything to hurt a player on his team. He cares for those boys.He is a breath of fresh air for that program.

 

 

Keith Law doesn't know nearly as much as he thinks. He sure never played. He just read a bunch of books, so take what he says for what it is worth. 

Well he did work for the front office of the Toronto Blue Jays.  And he does do a lot of scouting and write for a pretty prominent organization.  So he must know something.  But his opinion of himself does seem to be, well, very very high.  

I checked this site today and USC is listed once?

http://www.boydsworld.com/data/pitchcount.html

 

Does this make the coach or the program disgraceful?Keep in mind the threshold he is allowing for listing is 120 or repeatedly over that #.

 

People should do their homework before they go ripping into programs and HCs.

For HC abuse, look over the schools each year on this site when your pitcher is being recruited.  Watch who repeats continually. You will most likely see more of the smaller programs.

 

In most college programs pitchers train together, the only thing that changes is the side work. In college my pitcher started, relieved and closed.  He was never abused, there is a difference between abuse and pitching management so that come to playoffs or regional placements by resting your starters, and using those that can contribute means you are using your staff wisely. Unless you have been down the road to OMAHA, it is an incredibly difficult time and coaches do go out of the box, but in this case I don't see the abuse?

 

Sluggerdad,

jemaz is right, Keith Law never played, he never managed or coached a team. He is a writer, that means its his opinion, he is ok, but I know people who cant stand him. I do agree about not giving up six figures, but I think he would say this player was not abused.  Its not fair of you guys to make blanket statements without having information.

I do not agree with what you said he said (there is no quote there from his) about MLB. The incentives to WIN are HUGE! How long ago was this article written?  ML teams are running their young players out there earlier and earlier, ex. Jose Fernanadez. 

 

JMO

Slugger,

That's a pretty ridiculous statement.  Because someone "works for" an organization and "does do a lot of" anything does not, by extension, mean they are good at it or are knowledgeable.  Maybe he knows something or maybe he doesn't, but your logic for concluding he does has no basis.

I know Keith Law a little bit. He knows a good deal about the game, and provides good insight at several different levels of it. He is also extremely polite and welcoming in person, since I know someone might bring up his "smugness" on the internet.

 

His lack of a playing career has nothing to do with his knowledge of the game whatsoever. Many of the best and brightest in the game of baseball never played. You don't need to play in order to know how to analyze and evaluate. I don't really know why people insist that a past playing career is necessary in order to excel in any capacity in the industry beyond, well, playing.

 

I will agree with the idea that Keith can be very stubborn with his opinions and has a "my way or the highway" feel about him. Some people have classified this as "elitism" to me in the past. He's treated me well in my interactions with him, but I can certainly see this viewpoint when reading his material.

 

As for Keith's "go pro or bust" approach, that may or may not have merit. I think it's a broad generalization of a decision that is a personal one. I also don't know if it necessarily applies in this example. 

 

I wouldn't go so far as calling the coach of USC disgraceful, but I certainly think it's fair to question his judgment in this particular situation. 125 pitches is a lot of pitches no matter how you slice it, and this pitcher likely had not prepared appropriately for the workload. The ASMI guidelines are not perfect, but they're the best thing we have right now, and I am a believer that more coaches should listen to them.

 

JH,

 

Great post on all fronts.  

I am not a huge keith law fan but to say take the six figures and sign is really a no brainer. Stating college coaches ruin arms isnt exactly all true.
I just dont think that his comments  really dont apply particularly in this case.

JH do you agree with KLAW's statement that "you have to be delusional to ignore the clear incentives they [college coaches] have to push pitchers beyond what is reasonable for their long-term development."  And do you think the same incentives hold in major league organizations? 

 

I agree with the premise, but not the wording or the strong accusation of ignorance. College coaches are not in place to develop professional prospects, they are in place to win baseball games. At the same time, there is a natural responsibility that all coaches have to be aware of the well-being of each athlete that plays for them. Crossing the proverbial line, which Keith alludes to as "reasonable", is subjective in nature. No one actually knows what this "line" is.

 

Speaking from a prospect's perspective, sure, Keith's stance has some merit. Minor league pitching rotations are generally more structured around arm care than college pitching rotations. As I mentioned above, however, no one truly knows what the "line" is. 

 

I believe Major League organizations have a very strong incentive to care for arms during the minor league phase of their careers. However, I'm surprised at the low innings counts of some pre-arb eligible pitchers in today's game. Given the heavily front-loaded nature of the CBA, I would think organizations would attempt to maximize value in pitchers while they have the most economic control over them. But that's a topic for another day...

 

I do not understand why any HS pitcher that can go in the top 45 picks goes to college.  Marginal upside and huge downside.  In the top 20 you have to take the money unless you don't need it.

 

In the late 1st to mid 2nd round it is a high 6 figure to 7 figure bonus.  After taxes you have anywhere from $400k to $1mm in your pocket.  Set $150k aside for school and invest most of the rest....if the game doesn't work out after 4 or 5 years come back go to school and start your life at 26 or 27 with no college debt and a decent bankroll. 

       
       


When drafted, it is possible to enroll in the MLB Scholarship Plan, so often times players do not have to pay to go back to school.

Which means even less incentive to go to college if you get drafted high enough. 

 

 

I speak with high school kids about the drafting process regularly. Make no qualms about it, the lower levels of the minor leagues are a far different experience than a high level college baseball program. There are lifestyle concerns that go along with turning pro out of high school. If a player feels strongly enough about those lifestyle concerns, and he feels as though the financial opportunity does not outweigh other aspects of the decision, college might be a better option.

 

My responsibility in that particular situation is to educate a player on the pros and cons of each side. I would never attempt to sway a player one way or another based on my personal benefit. If a kid wants to go to school, he should go to school. But while he understands everything he's getting into, he should also understand everything he's giving up. Same thing applies in a vice versa situation.

 

I don't know the current numbers on those using the college scholarship plan. A few years back, it was less than 10% of those with the ability to use the plan actually do.

Looked at from a different perspective, how many 18 year old HS graduates are ready for life in Milb?  I was recently talking with someone who is  good friend of a recent high pick out of HS.  After his first full season of Milb,after all the press and hoopla died down the kid was thinking seriously of quitting.

While it is certainly not the dollars of a 1st or 2nd rounder, the BA Milb transactions this week reported on a HS kid who chose to accept $85,000 last summer, after going un-drafted out of HS. He signed  rather than follow through on  his college option.  Without ever playing a single game in Milb, the Red Sox released him last week. Might be more to the story but it shows an aspect of Milb/MLB we would have to dig to find..

 

 

Speaking of life in the minor leagues.  I am currently reading the book,  Where Nobody Knows Your Name.  Quite an eye-opener. 

JH - You are correct....I guess my lens of having had to grind hard for 30 years with 15 more to go colors my glasses.  If I could have shortened that by a decade or two by playing pro ball it would be a no brianer for me. 

 

Besides there's got to be a bunch of Susan Sarandan's floating around out there in the bus leagues. 

Quote

"but it shows an aspect of Milb/MLB we would have to dig to find.."

 

infielddad, you dnt have to dig.You know)

 

I gotta ask how do you think Fernandez was ruined? He was the ultimate example of a pitcher babied on pitch counts from the day he was signed. he's the example making these guys scratch their heads. Certainly not ruined by overuse, but perhaps you mean in some other way?

Fernanadez was drafted in 2011 @18 he threw 4.1 innings ( I don't know how many innings that he threw the first 6 months of his draft year or the year before in HS).

In 2012 he pitched 134 innings @19 in milb.

In 2013 he pitched 172 innings in MLB.

 

What I did say was that ML teams are bringing their players up sooner and the incentive to win is just as HUGE as college programs.

Although he made the transition well and a genuine phenom, most teams these days bring up their pitchers first as relievers. Gives them time to adjust.  But when you have a brand new stadium to fill and getting no one to come, I guess you got to bring some excitement to sell tickets.

JMO

 

For the record I never said that JF was ruined. 

While it isn't going to be ASMI certified, the Verducci effect could be applied to the Fernandez situation. When we compare the innings progression listed by TPM and apply it to young pitchers and the Verducci assessment, perhaps regression or in this case, injury, was a heightened risk.

The Verducci effect summarized:

 

"One small part of such understanding is monitoring the innings of young pitchers from one year to the next. More than a decade ago, drawing on the advice of pitching coach Rick Peterson, I developed a rule of thumb that pitchers 25 and younger should not increase their workload by more than 30 innings. It's the same theory as training for a marathon: you risk injury by jumping from a 10K to the marathon instead of incremental increases. I called it the Year After Effect because the wear and tear often was followed by regression or injury the next year."

Thanks for posting, I was going to do it, but I thought that I  would just get another challenge.

 

 

You were correct. 

 

The "Verducci Effect" is literally the opposite of being correct. It has been debunked many times over. Verducci knows it has been debunked and still keeps up with the narrative. Your guess is as good as mine as to why that happens. Folks, please understand that there are many theories out there (such as the "Verducci Effect") that come as a theory. Rather than researching, journalists publish their thoughts as the truth. And, in instances like this, even more irresponsibly continue to preach their theory as the truth despite every shred of evidence to the contrary. http://www.baseballprospectus.....php?articleid=19497

 

Sorry to sound so contrarian, it just really bothers me when the general public take a theory from a piece of utterly irresponsibly journalism and think it to be the truth. The "Verducci Effect" is NOT a real thing.

 

Agree JH.  For some reason there is now a very strong urge by all to "figure" this out.  What has everyone scared, is that Matt Harrvey, and Jose Fernandez (add Ranger's Perez) to this list, all have very sound mechanics,....if you break them down frame by frame, they are exactly what House, Wolforth, etc. advocate as safe mechanics...if the injuries are not mechanics related, these "experts" have to come up with some plausible theory to account for them.

 

I have said before on here,....it has been said that with today's strength training, and elite mechanics being taught, more pitchers are throwing harder than ever before.  Add to that, the requirement to light up the radar to be noticed.....Could it be that although many more can live mid 90's and above than in years past,.....however not many were "meant" to throw that hard?  Maybe that small ligament is genetically limited except for the very few genetically gifted....

 

That very well could be a contributing factor. ASMI came out with a position statement today that was posted in another thread, basically reiterating that the #1 cause for injury is overuse and pitching while fatigued at youth levels.

 

As a fan, I feel like a little piece of my heart gets ripped out when young pitchers go down with injury. As a professional working in the industry, it makes me more aware of the necessities surrounding every warning sign. As a fellow member of the "Four-Inch Scar Club," I just hope these guys are prepared to work through a heck of a yearlong mental battle.

 

I don't think there is a such thing as "perfect mechanics" and if there is, we haven't discovered it yet. But I do believe we're making progress. Things might get worse before they get better but knowledge is power and the more information that gets out there the better. Eventually, slowly but surely, it'll get better.

 

There is probably a combination of things creating a perfect storm in these young pitchers that are contributing to injuries. I am on John Smoltz's side in his theory that young players/pitchers(especially) don't THROW enough, mostly when they are younger. Not pitching enough , but throwing. Just playing catch. Throwing the ball. This is something Greg Maddux has said was a staple of his growing up. Playing lots of extended games of catch. The other former pitcher who advocates throwing a lot,again not pitching a lot, is Nolan Ryan. With all the importance on pitching in front of people to show what you can or cannot do, is, in my humble opinion, leading to youg pitchers pitching way to much at an early age. It might not even be overuse as we think about it. Maybe what we think is a safe workload, again pitching from an elevated mound which tears down an arm, isn't so safe in this climate of showcase after showcase and radar guns. Just my thought.

JH,

The description of "could" and "possibly" were used for a reason....discussion.

To me, they don't equate to the "truth." They open some discussions of what is truth.

Heck, the reference included Madison Baumgarner as the one of the lead pitchers. The Verducci effect did not "effect" him, and, being a Giant's fan,  I am very happy about that!  

The answers are elusive, for sure.

Mike Krukow regularly raves(knock on very hard wood and lots of it) that the health of Giants pitching over a long period is associated with Dave Righetti, the pitching coach, Mark Garner, the bullpen coach,  the training staff and strength and conditioning guys. Even Kruk cannot point to anything more specific other than the lack of arm injuries over a long period and "Rags" and Garner coaching the pitching staff over a similar period.  For me, that is more "could" and "possibly" but I ain't saying it is the truth.

 

infielddad- Unfortunately, I think most of us are in the same boat as Krukow. Recognizing a successful program, but not entirely able to pinpoint to exactly what makes it so successful. He seems to be very right in his assessment - that pitching staff is relatively healthy - but as you mentioned, he can't be sure. Unlike the "Verducci Effect," we really aren't able to prove or disprove Krukow's observation. It seems to be valid, but no one can be sure at this point in time.

 

The Verducci Effect doesn't include a "could" or a "possibly." It's wrong. It's a black and white equation. Again, I don't mean to sound contrarian, but Verducci's theory is like saying the world is flat. There's no truth to it. "Could" and "possibly" originally existed when his theory came out. Unfortunately, he published it without actually finding out if it was the truth. And now, he keeps it up. It boggles my mind, honestly. 

 

 

So Jenny McCarthy is not likely to be appointed surgeon general????

 

Exactly. 

I was never fond of  science or statistics in school.  Now I know why. Bring on the "Verducci effect!"

The ASMI statement says "Pitchers with high ball velocity are at increased risk of injury."  I wonder if you can't explain the relative health of the Giants staff by the fact that nobody on the team throws very hard, at least in 2014 terms.

I sure can't take a different view for this year.

  Where I might  diverge is that I work from the cumulative wear and tear approach, over more than one year.I wonder what Jenny might think?

If we do that, Lincecum has been well over 200 innings for 5 years and was 95mph for a similar number of years.

Cain has been 92-94 and again a 200 plus inning guy for an even longer period of time.

Baumgarner is still getting to 94 but you are right that he is now 90-91. Again, though,  he pitched a lot of innings from 2010 to 2013 when he was higher velocity and is very much a picture of the anti-Verducci theory, to date.