Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
May 15, 2012 9:08pm
Published study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. I hope this opens people's eyes and the days of babying pitchers is over.
Abstract: Bradbury, JC and Forman, SL. The impact of pitch counts and days of rest on performance among major-league baseball pitchers. J Strength Cond Res 26(5): 1181–1187, 2012. Although the belief that overuse can harm pitchers is widespread, there exists little evidence to show that the number of pitches thrown and the days of rest affect future performance and injury among adults. The purpose of this study is to quantify the effects of pitches thrown and the days of rest on pitcher performance. We examined performances of major-league baseball starting pitchers from 1988 to 2009 using fractional polynomial multiple regression to estimate the immediate and cumulative impact of pitches thrown and the days of rest on performance, while controlling for other factors that likely affect pitcher effectiveness. Estimates indicate each pitch thrown in the preceding game increased earned run average (ERA) by 0.007 in the following game. Each pitch averaged in the preceding 5 and 10 games increased the ERA by 0.014 and 0.022, respectively. Older pitchers were more sensitive to cumulative pitching loads than younger pitchers were, but they were less affected by pitches thrown in the preceding game. Rest days were weakly associated with performance. In summary, we found that there is a negative relationship between past pitches thrown and future performance that is virtually linear. The impact of the cumulative pitching load is larger than the impact of a single game. Rest days do not appear to have a large impact on performance. This study supports the popular notion that high pitching loads can dampen future performance; however, because the effect is small, pitch-count benchmarks have limited use for maintaining performance and possibly preventing injury.
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 15, 2012 9:09pm
So a 14 year old should throw a hundred pitches tuesday then 110 on thursday?
Edit: Neg me, i suck
Edit: Neg me, i suck
wildcats20
Posts: 27,794
May 15, 2012 9:10pm
Has nothing to do with kids...pnhasbeen;1172381 wrote:So a 14 year old should throw a hundred pitches tuesday then 110 on thursday?
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 15, 2012 9:13pm
So this study applies only to professional ball?wildcats20;1172382 wrote:Has nothing to do with kids...
Is it just saying starters can throw 100+ pitches and come back in a day or three to throw again?
Did I get hit in the head?
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
May 15, 2012 9:13pm
The abstract clearly states "among major league baseball pitchers" and "among adults".pnhasbeen;1172381 wrote:So a 14 year old should throw a hundred pitches tuesday then 110 on thursday?
wildcats20
Posts: 27,794
May 15, 2012 9:14pm
Did you read it? It's in the first damn sentence.pnhasbeen;1172390 wrote:So this study applies only to professional ball?
The impact of pitch counts and days of rest on performance among major-league baseball pitchers.
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 15, 2012 9:25pm
Measured past pitch counts and compared ERA's of the games? I feel like that's not the best way to judge a pitchers performance. Wouldn't they want to measure WHIP or strike:ball ratio?
Are you guys hoping relievers or starters get baby'd less? I can understand relievers. They throw 30 pitches one day, they should be available for the next game.
Are you guys hoping relievers or starters get baby'd less? I can understand relievers. They throw 30 pitches one day, they should be available for the next game.
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
May 15, 2012 9:27pm
Performance was shown to suffer, injury risk is the main point of their thesispnhasbeen;1172412 wrote:Measured past pitch counts and compared ERA's of the games? I feel like that's not the best way to judge a pitchers performance. Wouldn't they want to measure WHIP or strike:ball ratio?
Are you guys hoping relievers or starters get baby'd less? I can understand relievers. They throw 30 pitches one day, they should be available for the next game.
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 15, 2012 9:29pm
This is what I don't like. They're studying major league pitchers. Do they mention(obviously not in the little blurb in the OP) how pitchers fared when games were back-to-back days? They compared pitches in a game to ERA. Those games could have had a number of "rest" days in-between.Rest days do not appear to have a large impact on performance.
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
May 15, 2012 9:35pm
I'd have to read the methods and findings later to comment on how good the study is.pnhasbeen;1172417 wrote:This is what I don't like. They're studying major league pitchers. Do they mention(obviously not in the little blurb in the OP) how pitchers fared when games were back-to-back days? They compared pitches in a game to ERA. Those games could have had a number of "rest" days in-between.
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
May 15, 2012 9:37pm
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. I think you're talking about relief pitchers, who are almost never given a strict pitch count and who this study would not apply to.pnhasbeen;1172417 wrote:This is what I don't like. They're studying major league pitchers. Do they mention(obviously not in the little blurb in the OP) how pitchers fared when games were back-to-back days? They compared pitches in a game to ERA. Those games could have had a number of "rest" days in-between.
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 15, 2012 9:38pm
chicago510;1172414 wrote:Performance was shown to suffer, injury risk is the main point of their thesis
This study supports the popular notion that high pitching loads can dampen future performance; however, because the effect is small, pitch-count benchmarks have limited use for maintaining performance and possibly preventing injury.
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.
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 15, 2012 9:40pm
That's what I would like to do as well.chicago510;1172435 wrote:I'd have to read the methods and findings later to comment on how good the study is.
My biggest issue is how can they go against a method(the pitch counts and rest days) when the people they are studying follow those methods?Mooney44Cards;1172443 wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. I think you're talking about relief pitchers, who are almost never given a strict pitch count and who this study would not apply to.
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
May 15, 2012 9:40pm
I agree with your point. Their sample is constrained by what MLB managers elect to do. Its a common thing in human research, you can't just subject people to whatever harm/treatment you want to study due to the practicality, ethics, etc.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.
I'm going to try and find the full study at school tomorrow.
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 15, 2012 9:43pm
I think they CAN do it, but it would take a lot longer and they would have to search for pitchers who pitch on less rest. It would just be harder to find.chicago510;1172452 wrote:I agree with your point. Their sample is constrained by what MLB managers elect to do. Its a common thing in human research, you can't just subject people to whatever harm/treatment you want to study due to the practicality, ethics, etc.
I'm going to try and find the full study at school tomorrow.
Mooney - I think some of the pitch count things that managers pay attention to is a number for each pitcher where they start to slow down. Last night in the BOS/SEA game, Jon Lester threw 120ish pitches, which is above his "benchmark". They kept him in because he was pitching strong. If a hurler has been hit and barely escaped jams or has given up runs, they abide by those pitch counts. But I'm no manager.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
May 15, 2012 9:47pm
Yeah , I am confused too. Where do you get data to evaluate what a pitchers performance would be on 1 , 2 or 3 days rest...who does that in the majors? About the only guys who pitch 3 days straight are relievers...and they sure don't throw 110 pitches an outing.
What am I missing here?
What am I missing here?
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
May 15, 2012 9:52pm
I'm not sure what is confusing about this study. They looked at data from 1988-2009, then looked at the number of pitches each pitcher threw in all of the data available, and extrapolated what effect, if any, the number of pitches had on future performance and injury.
Look at it this way: each day you drink a certain amount of beers. I want to know what, if any, effect the beers you drink have on what time you get up the next day. So if I take all of the beers you drink, and divide by all of the minutes/hours you slept in over the course of the study, I could come up with a number that will tell me how many minutes each beer cost you the next day.
Obviously the methods and equations they used were much more sophisticated, but that is the simple premise of what they did.
Look at it this way: each day you drink a certain amount of beers. I want to know what, if any, effect the beers you drink have on what time you get up the next day. So if I take all of the beers you drink, and divide by all of the minutes/hours you slept in over the course of the study, I could come up with a number that will tell me how many minutes each beer cost you the next day.
Obviously the methods and equations they used were much more sophisticated, but that is the simple premise of what they did.
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
May 15, 2012 9:56pm
The text of the study states that less than 0.5% of those in the sample pitched with less than 3 days rest.HitsRus;1172474 wrote:Yeah , I am confused too. Where do you get data to evaluate what a pitchers performance would be on 1 , 2 or 3 days rest...who does that in the majors? About the only guys who pitch 3 days straight are relievers...and they sure don't throw 110 pitches an outing.
What am I missing here?
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 15, 2012 10:01pm
Using your beer example, because I have beer and like beer:Mooney44Cards;1172479 wrote:I'm not sure what is confusing about this study. They looked at data from 1988-2009, then looked at the number of pitches each pitcher threw in all of the data available, and extrapolated what effect, if any, the number of pitches had on future performance and injury.
Look at it this way: each day you drink a certain amount of beers. I want to know what, if any, effect the beers you drink have on what time you get up the next day. So if I take all of the beers you drink, and divide by all of the minutes/hours you slept in over the course of the study, I could come up with a number that will tell me how many minutes each beer cost you the next day.
Obviously the methods and equations they used were much more sophisticated, but that is the simple premise of what they did.
I drink 12 beers tonight and see how many minutes extra I sleep tomorrow.
I then wait 5 days and drink 12 more beers. Those original 12 beers really have nothing to do with these current 12 beers when it comes to tomorrow.
What I'm saying is that this study is trying to disprove the needs for rest days and pitch counts, but it is using examples from a league that holds pretty strict to rest days and pitch counts. I want to see the methods to see who they tracked.
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 15, 2012 10:03pm
Exactly! How can the study say that rest days and pitch counts have a linear correlation(slightly negative) with performance when the people they are studying are following those procedures. You can't say that Verlander had equal performance 4 days after his previous outing and say that's why he can pitch on 2 days rest. You'd have to find examples where the pitchers pitched with less than 3 days rest, far more than 0.5%.Mooney44Cards;1172484 wrote:The text of the study states that less than 0.5% of those in the sample pitched with less than 3 days rest.
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
May 15, 2012 10:05pm
Which is the problem with these human studies. I'm sure the findings are statistically significant, but the power is low due to the small sample.Mooney44Cards;1172484 wrote:The text of the study states that less than 0.5% of those in the sample pitched with less than 3 days rest.
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 15, 2012 10:06pm
You're better at talking than me.chicago510;1172490 wrote:Which is the problem with these human studies. I'm sure the findings are statistically significant, but the power is low due to the small sample.
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
May 15, 2012 10:07pm
That's a terrible example because it is a 2 day sample size. They have a sample size of well over 77,000. You can begin to notice trends over such a large sample size.pnhasbeen;1172487 wrote:Using your beer example, because I have beer and like beer:
I drink 12 beers tonight and see how many minutes extra I sleep tomorrow.
I then wait 5 days and drink 12 more beers. Those original 12 beers really have nothing to do with these current 12 beers when it comes to tomorrow.
What I'm saying is that this study is trying to disprove the needs for rest days and pitch counts, but it is using examples from a league that holds pretty strict to rest days and pitch counts. I want to see the methods to see who they tracked.
For example, did a pitchers performance change if he had 4 days rest, 5 days rest, or 10 days rest? Over a large sample size, you'll have tons of examples of pitchers skipping starts, or pitching on short rest.
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 15, 2012 10:12pm
I'm sure you could have assumed to have kept my beer example going, but it doesn't really matter.Mooney44Cards;1172493 wrote:That's a terrible example because it is a 2 day sample size. They have a sample size of well over 77,000. You can begin to notice trends over such a large sample size.
For example, did a pitchers performance change if he had 4 days rest, 5 days rest, or 10 days rest? Over a large sample size, you'll have tons of examples of pitchers skipping starts, or pitching on short rest.
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.
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
May 15, 2012 10:13pm
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?chicago510;1172490 wrote:Which is the problem with these human studies. I'm sure the findings are statistically significant, but the power is low due to the small sample.