Mooney44Cards;1172498 wrote:77,000 individual examples is a small sample size? They don't need to study pitchers with 1 to 2 days rest, because it rarely if ever happens. It would be like studying the effect of eating paste on 3 year old albino Italian children. How would you study it, and if you did, why would it matter since there are very few if any real world examples of it?

pnhasbeen;1172496 wrote:I'm sure you could have assumed to have kept my beer example going, but it doesn't really matter.

But what I think really matters is the short rest. The long rest isn't going to happen in the majors. What would the ideal situation be for a MLB club? Having less than 5 starting pitchers. The four(or three) best starting every so many days. You can't say that because a pitcher does well on 5 or 10 days rest he will do well on 3. I'm sure skipping starts will be easier on a pitchers arm, but going on short rest is the key.

pnhasbeen;1172500 wrote:The small sample size he is referring to the short rest.

Why does it matter that this study says that pitching on 5 days rest doesn't change performance? How does that change the "babying" of pitchers? The study is using what is already done and saying that it works. That's what it sounds like to me.

Mooney44Cards;1172503 wrote:
What the study DOES tell us is that if you had to, throwing a pitcher on 3 or 4 days rest will not have a negative effect on his performance in that game.

Mooney44Cards;1172505 wrote:I don't know what to tell you at this point, I don't think you understand the study, or its purpose, or its findings.

Mooney44Cards;1172498 wrote:77,000 individual examples is a small sample size? They don't need to study pitchers with 1 to 2 days rest, because it rarely if ever happens. It would be like studying the effect of eating paste on 3 year old albino Italian children. How would you study it, and if you did, why would it matter since there are very few if any real world examples of it?

Mooney44Cards;1172511 wrote:The main purpose of the study was pitch counts, not days of rest.

Pitch counts have declined a ton over the 21 years included in the study, so to act like "this is the way they already do it in baseball so it just proved they were right" or whatever it is you're saying is just plain wrong. The difference in the way pitchers are protected between 1988 and 2009 is huge. THIS STUDY was trying to see if the TREND of LIMITING PITCHES had any basis in reality when it comes to future performance and injury prevention. They found that the trend indeed does not have any basis in reality.

pnhasbeen;1172508 wrote:It's telling us that a pitcher can pitch on short rest sometimes and still be as effective as they normally are? But pitching on short rest all the time will wear down the pitcher?

I feel like that was already known.

chicago510;1172512 wrote:No, but I'd be interested to see a distribution of how many of those are no rest, 1 day rest, 2 days, etc.

I also haven't read the full paper so I can't really comment.

pnhasbeen;1172445 wrote:Help me out here: Their study is trying to refute the practice that they studied? How can they say the pitch count benchmarks don't matter when the people they are studying follow those benchmarks? See where I'm getting confused? And I could be wrong, probably am. Just kind of confused about this study.

Footwedge;1172563 wrote:Yes indeed you are confused. I would suggest that you reread what was posted slowly. Decipher what was actually said, and then come back here so that everyone can explain it to you 8 more times until it sinks in.

Mooney44Cards;1172611 wrote:Correlation does not equal causation, you are correct in that. LACK of correlation almost always means NO causation. I'm not sure how that isn't completely obvious if you think about it logically but I have been pretty surprised so far with the direction of the thread.