Brian Matusz shut down without an injury

[oriole^]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-orioles-matusz&prov=ap&type=lgns

From the article, emphasis mine: "Matusz pitched 44 2-3 innings while with Baltimore. But that total, added to the 113 innings he accumulated for Single-A Frederick and Bowie before the promotion, convinced the Orioles not to overtax Matusz’s arm any further. He was 11-2 with a 1.91 ERA in the minors this season."

Okay, I realize that we aren't going anywhere this year, and this won't mean a thing. And yes, this is his first year. But throwing 157 IP and change is "overtaxing"?

I want to put this out there again, because I'm sure I've asked a variant on it at some point: does anyone have any evidence that pitchers' careers are lasting longer now, and/or that pitchers are incurring fewer injuries, than they were, say, thirty years ago - when pitching staffs could have nine guys on them and pitchers not named "Halladay" actually finished games?

[gRYFYN1]

Okay, I realize that we aren't going anywhere this year, and this won't mean a thing. And yes, this is his first year. But throwing 157 IP and change is "overtaxing"?


guess that depends on how many innings he pitched during his college years .. 157 maybe if has only been throwing 100/season.

ok found it the 3 years previous he pitched 105 , 123 , 89 innings, 157 is is arounf a 40% workload increase over that average.

[FloydtheBarber]

I agree Oriole, if I was manager I would keep giving him playing time. But whatever, Boston is the same with Clay, and New York with Joba. The AL East all has babies that are all hypochondriacs apparently..

[HoustonGM]

Whether or not careers last longer compared to, say, the 70's, won't tell you much. The conditions are completely different. 157 innings in today's environment is much harder than 157 innings in the environment of the 1960's and 1970's.

They're handling him properly. It's best to build pitchers up to the high workloads, and not just throw them right into it. Really, I think that would be common sense. The problem with pitcher usage in today's game is not the handling of young players - it's twofold, though - the babying continues throughout entire careers and managers seem to use a "one-size fits all" stance when it comes to per-game pitch counts and season-long innings, applying the "100" pitch count magic number to everyone from a 20 year old rookie to a 34 year old seasoned veteran with no injury history.

Pitcher usage should be flexible and player-specific.

[kellys11]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-orioles-matusz&prov=ap&type=lgns

From the article, emphasis mine: "Matusz pitched 44 2-3 innings while with Baltimore. But that total, added to the 113 innings he accumulated for Single-A Frederick and Bowie before the promotion, convinced the Orioles not to overtax Matusz’s arm any further. He was 11-2 with a 1.91 ERA in the minors this season."

Okay, I realize that we aren't going anywhere this year, and this won't mean a thing. And yes, this is his first year. But throwing 157 IP and change is "overtaxing"?

I want to put this out there again, because I'm sure I've asked a variant on it at some point: does anyone have any evidence that pitchers' careers are lasting longer now, and/or that pitchers are incurring fewer injuries, than they were, say, thirty years ago - when pitching staffs could have nine guys on them and pitchers not named "Halladay" actually finished games?

Jays have actually shut down 3-4 pitchers due to this reason. I think it's because the minor league call ups are not used to throwing a large number of pitches in a season and they are scared of hurting their arms (i.e. see Mark Prior, Edison Volquez; etc).

I would say pitchers have greater chance of getting hurt only because they are throwing much more difficult pitches than they used to. IN the past they through a bunch of fastballs, some changeups and curveballs.....now they throw splitters, screwballs, etc which put extreme pressure on their arms.

Halladay is a freak of nature. If you look at his injury history of the past it was never arm .... broken leg one year cost him. Him and Lincecum are the 2 best pitchers in baseball in my books.

[Jeffy25]

guess that depends on how many innings he pitched during his college years .. 157 maybe if has only been throwing 100/season.

ok found it the 3 years previous he pitched 105 , 123 , 89 innings, 157 is is arounf a 40% workload increase over that average.

exactly how i feel......i think consistency and routine is more important.

Halladay throwing 220 innings each year probably doesn't phase him any more than a guy who throws 120 innings each year, so long as it is consistent with what they do each and every year....routine is so important to ball players. I would think gradually increasing the number of innings each year is best

[Jeffy25]

Whether or not careers last longer compared to, say, the 70's, won't tell you much. The conditions are completely different. 157 innings in today's environment is much harder than 157 innings in the environment of the 1960's and 1970's.

They're handling him properly. It's best to build pitchers up to the high workloads, and not just throw them right into it. Really, I think that would be common sense. The problem with pitcher usage in today's game is not the handling of young players - it's twofold, though - the babying continues throughout entire careers and managers seem to use a "one-size fits all" stance when it comes to per-game pitch counts and season-long innings, applying the "100" pitch count magic number to everyone from a 20 year old rookie to a 34 year old seasoned veteran with no injury history.

Pitcher usage should be flexible and player-specific.

Tell that to Dusty Baker ;)

[oriole^]

Whether or not careers last longer compared to, say, the 70's, won't tell you much. The conditions are completely different. 157 innings in today's environment is much harder than 157 innings in the environment of the 1960's and 1970's.

Really? I wouldn't consider that to be the case at all. I would consider that some things are more difficult, some are easier, and many haven't changed all that much.


They're handling him properly. It's best to build pitchers up to the high workloads, and not just throw them right into it. Really, I think that would be common sense. The problem with pitcher usage in today's game is not the handling of young players - it's twofold, though - the babying continues throughout entire careers and managers seem to use a "one-size fits all" stance when it comes to per-game pitch counts and season-long innings, applying the "100" pitch count magic number to everyone from a 20 year old rookie to a 34 year old seasoned veteran with no injury history.

Pitcher usage should be flexible and player-specific.

I'll buy that last bit; it does seem that managers would do that more back in the day than now.

And maybe they're doing the right thing, or maybe not (though it doesn't mean much to have him keep pitching, so err on the side of caution). I'm just wondering when having a starting pitcher go 160 IP in a season, given any situation, became, "Holy heck! We're wearing the kid out!"

[Alloutwar]

I see your point, but after reading up on Matusz being a 2008 draft pick, and sort of coming out of nowhere to decent MLB success - why not shut him down? He's proven what he can do at this level, he's been impressive, but the Orioles aren't exactly in the hunt. Why keep throwing him out there with the chance of injury or over-taxing his young arm, which has only had a season to develop in professional baseball?

If I were GM I'd shut him down as well. If he had a full A or AA season under his belt of 200 innings, then maybe I'd be more open to letting him finish things out.

Either way - congrats on a good Orioles pitcher! Hope he does well.

[HoustonGM]

Really? I wouldn't consider that to be the case at all. I would consider that some things are more difficult, some are easier, and many haven't changed all that much.
Pitching in a higher offense/less favorable environment is going to be harder. In the 1970's, teams often had a couple holes in their lineup. Shortstop, for example, was almost exclusively filled with good-glove/no-hit players. Nowadays, the only "hole" in most lineups is the pitcher spot in the NL. Obviously, it'll be more taxing to face better hitters, as there's less chances for you to "ease up" and take it slow for a few batters.

Pitch count data doesn't go back very far - 1988 is the earliest - but just compare then to now. In the 1988 NL, the average pitches per plate appearance was 3.54. In 2009, it's 3.82. One plate appearance, on average, takes more to get through now than it did in 1988 (and the 1960's and 70's were a much more pitcher favorable environment, so I imagine the P/PA #'s for then would be lower than 1988), so it's simple common sense that a pitcher exerting X amount of energy in 1988 would be able to pitch to more batters and thus throw more innings than a pitcher exerting the same amount of energy today.

[BINGLEBOP]

And maybe they're doing the right thing, or maybe not (though it doesn't mean much to have him keep pitching, so err on the side of caution). I'm just wondering when having a starting pitcher go 160 IP in a season, given any situation, became, "Holy heck! We're wearing the kid out!"

It seems to me that it's more of an issue of a gradual increase in innings pitched each season, and not just the flat number of innings pitched. Every team wants their starters to be workhorses like Roy Halladay, but building them up to that level gradually seems like the best way to go, instead of just throwing them out there to pitch 210+ innings after throwing half that the previous season.

[HoustonGM]

It seems to me that it's more of an issue of a gradual increase in innings pitched each season, and not just the flat number of innings pitched. Every team wants their starters to be workhorses like Roy Halladay, but building them up to that level gradually seems like the best way to go, instead of just throwing them out there to pitch 210+ innings after throwing half that the previous season.
Exactly.

I often compare it to weight-lifting. If you want to lift weights, are you going to start off with a 250 pound benchpress, or start off smaller and then work your way up as you build muscle?

[kenny1234]

More pitches per PA, also more plate appearances. The league-wide OBP is .333 now, between 10 and 30 points higher than it was for years in the 1960's. A higher OBP means more plate appearances per inning - so more effort. Also, all those guys on base implies pitchers pitching more often without a full windup, which I assume is less efficient.

[HoustonGM]

More pitches per PA, also more plate appearances. The league-wide OBP is .333 now, between 10 and 30 points higher than it was for years in the 1960's. A higher OBP means more plate appearances per inning - so more effort. Also, all those guys on base implies pitchers pitching more often without a full windup, which I assume is less efficient.
Great points, forgot about both those things.

[SirKodiak]

Basic Pitch Count Estimator = 3.3 PA + 1.5 K + 2.2 BB


Year PA/G K/PA BB/PA GDP/PA CS/PA
1968 37.174 0.158 0.076 0.018 0.008
1988 37.944 0.147 0.081 0.019 0.009
2008 38.636 0.175 0.087 0.021 0.006
Included GDP and CS just because they are free outs that do go towards IP

Some links to put some things in perspective:

http://www.tangotiger.net/pitchCountsKoufax.html
http://www.tangotiger.net/pitchLogKoufax.html
http://www.tangotiger.net/pitchCounts.html

[oriole^]

Great points, forgot about both those things.

All those are true, but there have also been strides in the treatment of pitchers which have nothing to do with pitch counting that have made things easier on the pitcher. For example, specialized roles have developed, and training staffs have gotten better at year-round workouts, strengthening exercises, better understanding of musculature, and so forth. Heck, remember when they used to use heating pads on pitchers' arms between innings?

The DH rule also reduced stress on a pitcher - though not within the time span I'd originally mentioned.

And to be clear: I'm not knocking the O's for sitting Matusz down. You err on the side of caution for the future when you don't have a clear benefit now. No problem there. I'm just wondering about this as a league-wide strategy. It seems to me if it was the case that young arms needed to be protected, and pitchers needed to watch their pitch counts carefully, the eras prior to this one would have seen a ton of young arms flame out early, and pitchers who'd throw 8-10 CG a year would be done in five or six years.

I don't notice any significant difference in pitchers' careers now as opposed to, say, the 1970s. You have some guys pitch until they're old and gray, you have some guys flame out...some suddenly acquire it after a few years, some mystifyingly lose it...same now as it was then.

[HoustonGM]

All those are true, but there have also been strides in the treatment of pitchers which have nothing to do with pitch counting that have made things easier on the pitcher. For example, specialized roles have developed, and training staffs have gotten better at year-round workouts, strengthening exercises, better understanding of musculature, and so forth. Heck, remember when they used to use heating pads on pitchers' arms between innings?
Yes, true. It could be that these advancements in medicine simply "cancel out" the increases in pitching stress.



The DH rule also reduced stress on a pitcher - though not within the time span I'd originally mentioned.
The DH also increases stress for pitchers, though, when it comes to pitching.


And to be clear: I'm not knocking the O's for sitting Matusz down. You err on the side of caution for the future when you don't have a clear benefit now. No problem there. I'm just wondering about this as a league-wide strategy. It seems to me if it was the case that young arms needed to be protected, and pitchers needed to watch their pitch counts carefully, the eras prior to this one would have seen a ton of young arms flame out early, and pitchers who'd throw 8-10 CG a year would be done in five or six years.
This is where the difference in environment is relevant. The easier environment allowed pitchers to handle heavier inning workloads without putting as much stress on their arms.


I don't notice any significant difference in pitchers' careers now as opposed to, say, the 1970s. You have some guys pitch until they're old and gray, you have some guys flame out...some suddenly acquire it after a few years, some mystifyingly lose it...same now as it was then.
I haven't studied it, of course, so I don't know, but I think IN ORDER to properly study it, you actually have to look at the way the individual pitchers were handled, and not just do a general comparison. Why? Because even today you have pitchers that are abused, so yes, of course, there's going to be guys flaming out. Mark Prior and Kerry Wood, for example, would be guys that would skew an overall comparison and may make it look like that there is little difference from then to now, but they were saddled with heavy workloads at a young age, so that doesn't really give us an accurate view of how the "babying" affects pitchers. As such, I think it'd be an incredibly complex thing to systematically look at and draw meaningful conclusions from.

[MichelleWie]

I wish the Brewers would shut down Gallardo. We're out of it why let our best pitcher get hurt. I think he only pitched 20 some innings last year and now he's around 170. They started giving him more rest in between starts but I think they should be smart and shut him down.

[HoustonGM]

I wish the Brewers would shut down Gallardo. We're out of it why let our best pitcher get hurt. I think he only pitched 20 some innings last year and now he's around 170. They started giving him more rest in between starts but I think they should be smart and shut him down.
http://brewersbeat.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/09/what_to_do_with_gallardo.html

They're considering it.

[gRYFYN1]

id be curious to know exactly what the thought pattern was.

I know for instance, the Red Sox study film of a pitchers motion in spring training and either shut him down or send him to the DL if they see changes in his mechanics that may come from wearing down.

It'd be a coup if they could come out and say they see something in the film that makes them think his mechanics are becoming unsound, and they think it releated to workload.