What the Verducci Effect Tells Us About Our Young Pitchers
by danmerqury on Jan 26, 2010 6:00 AM PST
76 comments
NOTE: A's sign Ben Sheets to a one-year deal. See fanpost for discussion.
As Dusty Baker or Bruce Bochy won't tell you, carrying a starting pitcher's workload through a full season is really, really difficult. It's a little easier for veteran starters, but young arms seem to be more susceptible to pitching-related injury and loss of effectiveness as a result of a large pitching workload. A few years back, Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated hypothesized that the safe limit, or magic number if you will, is around 30 innings. More specifically, he theorized that pitchers who are 25 or younger that experience workload increases of 30 innings or more from year to year will pay for it in the next season. Of course, it's not a strict rule, but a guideline that managers should generally follow. In his words,
Why can't [young pitchers] throw 200 innings? Simply put, they're not conditioned for it yet. It's like training for a marathon. You need to build stamina incrementally. The unofficial industry standard is that no young pitcher should throw more than 30 more innings than he did the previous season. ...Pitchers generally feel the effects of abusive increases in workload the next year, not the season in which they were pushed. In other words, you might be able to finish that marathon for which you didn't properly train, but your body will have hell to pay for it. I call it the Year After Effect.
Verducci isn't arrogant enough to name the effect after himself. Rather, Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus did his own research independently which seemed to corroborate Verducci's hypothesis. Carroll named the effect after Verducci, a name which Tom apparently refrains from using.
In either case, which Oakland pitchers fall under possible Verducci Effect candidacy? We've got enough young arms to move a Coliseum-sized tarp (on second thought, maybe not), but which ones are at risk because of getting overworked?
Dallas Braden (2008: 124.3 IP, 2009: 136.2 IP)--Dallas is fine. He's 25, at the upper edge of the Verducci Effect's age range anyway, and a 12 inning increase isn't going to hurt. Also, that 2009 figure isn't his career high.
Brett Anderson (2008: 105.0 IP, 2009: 175.1 IP)--Yikes. A 70 inning jump in workload can't be good. On the bright side, he pitched 120 innings in 2007, but a 55 inning increase over his previous career high still spells trouble. If it's any consolation, Anderson's average fastball velocity remained at 93 mph in the second half of the season, without any decline. I'm just not sure if fastball velocity is a good measure of year-after fatigue.
Gio Gonzalez (2008: 157.0 IP, 2009: 159.2 IP)--Nothing to worry about here. He actually pitched 150 innings in 2007. Oddly consistent.
Trevor Cahill (2008: 124.1 IP, 2009: 178.2 IP)--Another red flag. That 54 inning increase just might be another problem Cahill will have to deal with in his already ten-story "Things to Work On" pile.
Vin Mazzaro (2008: 171.0 IP, 2009: 147.3 IP)--Yes, that's right, Vin pitched 171 innings as a 22-year old split between AA and AAA. And believe it or not, but that wasn't even a 30 inning increase from 2007. He should be good to go for 2010.
Again, remember that the Verducci Effect isn't a sure thing, just a rule of thumb. Brett Anderson and Trevor Cahill aren't guaranteed to suffer next season, but Geren may want to think about treating them with extra care.
1 recs |
76 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
you are just Merqurial with stats that have human basis
I admit the religiosity of Stats Fervor on AN sometimes puts me off & I feel oddly inadequate and unsabremetrically-aligned… but Dan here has a great way of humanizing the numbers, and of finding relevant and real-world places to go with them, as with the Verducci Effect, which I’d never heard quantified as such before.
I wonder what Nolan Ryan would say about it… imagine how fast Rich Harden’s arm might unravel under Nolan’s tutelage, as presently in Texas, for instance. And Mazzaro fascinates me: there’s just something about that guy that tugs at the sleeve and says “Sleeper superstar in all of this” to me…. he threw how many innings? That’s stunning and he shouldn’t have a problem throwing 210 in 2010 based on this, but who knows? The more I read stuff like this the better Ben Sheets sounds, if only to take some of the strain on Cahill’s and Vincent’s arms away in the short term.
Thanks for this, it was really interesting to see the thing put into perspective around the 30-innings benchmark, muchas gracias Dan.
Hey, I just bought the team from Lew Wolff... who wants to play third?
Take the strain off the arms of Cahill and Mazzaro?
Whether or not the A’s sign Sheets you can be certain that Cahill and Mazzaro will be pitching next year. They might not be doing it in Oakland come April but they will be on a mound facing professional baseball hitters.
The monster at the end of this blog.
You are correct
But with the Sheets signing, Cahill and Mazzaro will be doing it (Maybe) in a semi-stress free environment with more offdays. Right?
Duke
Anderson
Sheets
Braden
Gio
… sounds really, really good to me.
Cahill
Mazzaro
Simmons
Ross
Souza
… sounds pretty good to me, too.
by Colorado Fan on Jan 26, 2010 9:22 AM PST up reply actions
The AAA season is... 144 games?
So in theory Mazzaro and Cahill could see a reduced workload, although I find it hard to believe that both pitchers wouldn’t end up in Oakland by season’s end.
If you want to grant the point that AAA might be less of a mental strain, than OK. But the Verducci Effect is all about IP regardless of level, so the mental aspect would be more relevant for another thread.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I don't know about that...
Pitching in the 6th Inning,, 1-1 game, with a runner on 2nd base, no outs…
Those situations are a lot different in AAA than they are in the MLB. More stress on the arm in the MLB, especially if you are a young pitcher
by Colorado Fan on Jan 26, 2010 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
eveland and mortensen are still around, too. as is dinardo. and outman will be back midseason.
this SP thing seems like a bigger logjam than OF was before hairston and cunningham were traded.
perhaps there is another trade coming…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Dangit, had the post all put together, then ... hit the back button
Anyway, with apologies to redundancies, the pitching looks good (and weren’t the Duke and Sheets signings huge):
Athletics:
Anderson
Braden
Duke
Sheets
di Nardo
Bailey
Ziegler
Devine
Kilby
Breslow
Wuertz
AAA
Gio
Mazzero
Cahill
Eveland
Mortenson
de los Santos
Figueroa
Rodriguez
Cassevah
Meloan
huh? there is not a chance in hell of dinardo cracking the MLB rotation...
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Maybe not, but
they did sign him for a reason. Not too often a player gets signed just for the hell of it, though.
... they signed him to a minor league contract
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Yeah I know that
but again, they have plenty of minor league pitchers; they hardly needed another one. DiNardo has pitched at the ML level before; if not injured, he can do it again.
Doubt it
He’s signed as emergency roster filler and that’s about it. If he makes it to the majors with the A’s, something went horribly wrong. DiNardo’s a guy who will eat innings at the AAA level both as a starter and out of the bp so that the A’s aren’t forced to bring guys up and down from AA (and as a result A+, A-) as they’ve had to because of the injuries they’ve had the last couple of years.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
you have dinardo, signed to a minor league contract, in MLB
you have eveland, who is out of options, in AAA
the probability on that is about as close to zero as it gets.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Thanks, en!
I try to hit that middle ground between being stat-based and informative while still making sure very little goes over the head of the non-stat readers.
Always the summers are slipping away.
Find me a way for making it stay.
This is why Sheets would be nice
Take some pressure off the back end of the rotation. If outman can come back even better.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury
Maybe this is a good case FOR pitching more and stretching out the arms early on?
On the one hand there’s all those guys back in the old days who pitched complete games on a regular basis and still managed to excel for years on end.
On the other hand, there’s Billy Martin and the effects his workload had on Norris, Langford, Keough, and McCatty. Who knows, maybe 1 or two of those guys might have had more long-term success had they been treated easier.
Yet, modern pitchers are generally better conditioned and have better health regimens that pitchers of 60+ years ago, so one would think they’d be able to better withstand an increased workload.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
Agree on the "old days" idea
What has really changed intrinsically about pitchers’ bodies from decades ago when 200 IP was simply expected? Is it that pitchers then started on a high workload and so the incremental increase in innings wasn’t as bad? Was it that pitchers were ridden hard, there was lots of attrition due to arm fatigue, and therefore only the cream of the crop rose to become MLB pitchers?
Pitchers also throw a lot on the side, so how can it be that game innings, but not “side innings” account for the deleterious effects?
So many questions, I don’t even know what to ask
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Jan 26, 2010 7:16 AM PST up reply actions
It's not that pitchers bodies have changed as much as teams don't treat them as disposable
any more. In the 1970s you had 9-10 pitchers per team at a time and cycled through lots of them over a five year period. The strong, like Nolan, survived. Many got hurt — see Frank Tanana, Mark Fidrych, Andy Messersmith, John Fulgham, Fernando Valenzuela. We try not to hurt them now.
But baseball! Fuck yeah! -- lynnzgal
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2010 7:46 AM PST up reply actions
But that we don't push any of them
precludes the possibility that one of them is indeed a Ryan, or a Clemens or a Maddux.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Jan 26, 2010 7:56 AM PST up reply actions
Because the only way to find out
is to risk them towards permanent damage and injury. How many good pitchers do you really want to lose experimenting over which tiny few of them could do it?
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
I'm not saying we should run them all into the ground
But what objective tools are currently available to find out who could be a workhorse? It was mentioned in an INsider article that someone posted about Anderson that he’s weight training more and gaining MPH on his fastball. Do we discount this as “that’s nice” or do we try to exploit a formerly occult durability?
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Jan 26, 2010 8:31 AM PST up reply actions
I'd discount it as concerning, but nice
Weight training has also been linked to tighter/stiffer muscles and pitchers tend to get injured more in those circumstances. Granted, it all depends on what weight training he’s doing, but you want a wiry, flexible pitcher, not necessarily a hulk. Unless you really don’t care about the pitcher and he won’t be back the following year, I wouldn’t risk “trying to find out” if he’s durable because there really isn’t any going back once the damage is done. Good pitching is hard to come by and when you get them, it’s damn expensive.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
Right, we don't want the Harden redux in Anderson
I wish someone would do an academic study on this, because it’s something I’ve been wondering for awhile now
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Jan 26, 2010 9:02 AM PST up reply actions
I tried doing something fairly similar (except much simpler) for my thesis
Turns out it was really, really, really difficult to predict soft tissue injuries even with state-of-the-art analysis. That may have changed since 2008, but I doubt it’s got very far. It’s a tricky business.
Is there a way to predict hard-tissue injuries?
I mean, assuming the guy doesn’t have osteogenesis imperfecta or something.
Seems like an unnecessary qualifier.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
The soft/hard distinction is force of habit
They’re very different materials, so when you’re doing biological engineering you have to keep them distinct.
my observation of weight training in the red sox system
(I have known a couple of the trainers there) is that they pretty much don’t do it, at least not in the sense of barbells, dumbbells and machines. they do a lot of STRENGTH training, but it’s resistance bands and light weight exercises based either on old industrial and farm work (think hay bales) or, of all things, on . . . baseball.
their trainers would generally agree with you. weight training is going to create stiffness and tightness; the exercises they value have light weight and full range of motion.
I don’t have stats on this but i would bet that a good analysis would show the red sox have a relatively low injury rate for their pitching staff.
The A's. The SWINGING A's. That's right, the SWINGING A's.
by eastcoasta'sfan on Jan 26, 2010 8:31 PM PST up reply actions
I bet nolan ryan doesn't personally change out the brake pads on his F-150.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury
that's fucked up.
"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jan 30, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
OK here's what's going on here
In the “old days,” pitchers were worked like broken-down nags. Many of them suffered career-ending injuries as a consequence. If you were lucky enough to be one of the guys who didn’t, you benefitted from the fact that many of the other good pitchers had fallen off the face of the earth.
Nowadays teams realize that averaging 150 innings a year for 7 years out of a guy is a lot better than getting 200 innings out of him and then having his arm explode.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Where do the fewer-inning effects plateau though?
Is it really at 150?
Moreover, isn’t there a somewhat related problem of fewer innings = more pitchers = dilution of pitching talent.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Jan 26, 2010 9:22 AM PST up reply actions
Point taken
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Jan 26, 2010 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
All innings are not created equal...
I’m not a big fan of the variables “innings pitched” leaves. What about pitch counts, mechanics, style, build, etc.? It’s easy to see why a Greg Maddux could increase 94 innings as a 22 year old with no negative effects, and why Mark Prior’s arm almost fell off doing the same thing.
I understand that IP is easier to quantify and that there could be some effect from the wait in between innings, but it’s just too vague to be an accurate stress calculator.
One quibble
Both Brett Anderson and Trevor Cahill pitched in the 2008 summer olympic games, so their actual innings tally from the previous season is a bit higher.
It likely does not push them below the 30 innings threshold (although in Cahill’s case it may very well be close), but it does mitigate what otherwise looks like a pretty substantial increase in workload.
by CapgrasDelusion on Jan 26, 2010 7:02 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Adding to the quibble
Anderson also pitched for the River Cats in the 2008 playoffs. I don’t remember the exact number of innings off the top of my head, but you can add roughly 25 IP to his total.
The monster at the end of this blog.
So you're saying we should trade Anderson and Cahill while their arms are still attached?
But baseball! Fuck yeah! -- lynnzgal
I don't think he's saying that
But it should also be noted that the A’s went to a 6 man rotation at the end of last year, giving their young arms extra rest between starts which should have helped reduce the risk of wear and tear due to increased innings.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Is there any real evidence for the "Verducci Effect"
Anything that goes beyond the regular 1) regression toward the mean and 2) the fact that pitchers often get hurt?
I seem to remember the evidence being based on things like Chad Gaudin falling into a dumpster…
What would you consider "real" evidence?
I mean, we know that fatigue can lead to a change in a pitcher’s mechanics and altered mechanics can lead to injury. So it makes sense intuitively to think that there could be additional risk (beyond what is inherent with pitching in general) to asking a guy to go from throwing 100 IP to 200 IP in a year.
The 30 IP rule always struck me as an arbitrary number but the general rule of a more gradual approach to building arm strength and durability makes sense. It could also be linked to teams limiting the number of IP allowed for their players in the low minors. I know the A’s wouldn’t let their HS arms (Cahill, Mazzaro, Deal) go much past 120 IP during their first full pro season. By their second year they’re looking at an expectation of 28 GS at 6 IP a pop, or a 168 IP season. AAA might offer up an extra GS, plus maybe a September call-up and you’re appraoching 200 IP.
So the basical result is, you’re looking at a 30-40 IP increase in annual work load but the growth comes more as a side effect than a deliberate plan to marginally increase a pitcher’s workload.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I should also add
In that second season, it wouldn’t be too surprising for most pitchers to have a few “getting their ass handed to ’em on a platter” starts which could lower their IP total into the 150’s. That would further reinforce the idea of a 30 IP rule.
I’ve never seen the Verducci Effect argued in such a way that having a pitcher throw 31 more innings than the year before as dooming him forever. (Which doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened!)
The monster at the end of this blog.
Yeah - it's an expression of a medical risk
and like any medical risk – “you’re more likely to get heart disease if you eat bacon every day” – one data point doesn’t “prove” it either way, and nor is it good for predicting exactly what will happen to an individual.
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does.
Bacon wrapped bacon, IMO.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
BLT with avocado and red onion...
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
Whomever Sabean signs this off-season will make a good platoon partner with Ryan Gark-ohh... nevermind...
with some Kool WHIP?
"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jan 30, 2010 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
I mean Miracle WHIP
or was it Kool VORP?
"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jan 30, 2010 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
This is another reason why I disliked the handling of the A's' pitchers last season
Cahill, in particular, should have been sent down to AAA by mid-July when it was obvious that he had no business being in the major leagues, which would have had the added benefit of reducing his innings count to more like 150. Anderson should probably just have been shut down in September.
I have to say, I much prefer how the Rays handle their HS pitchers— a rigorous level-at-a-time system that gets them to the majors when they’re actually in their prime years, and doesn’t ever produce large IP jumps.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Why should they have been shut down?
The Verducci Effect can be a rule of thumb but monitoring individual performance (not production) makes more sense. If the pitcher isn’t complaining about fatigue or pain, if his mechanics are consistent and there’s no noticable drop in stuff then shutting him down for the sake of shutting him down is questionable at best.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Signed,
Dan Meyer
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Hang on
For anyone who might have forgotten… Meyer hurt his shoulder while working out and didn’t tell anyone about it. He continued to pitch and hid the injury, so while the A’s knew his velocity was down they didn’t know what the cause was. Meyer’s should got worse until he finally confessed his sin of stupidity.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Eh
Why risk it for the sake of a couple of meaningless September games in a non-contending season?
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Cahill improved in the latter months of the summer last year
This improvement for a young pitcher would not have been realized if he was sent to AAA as the drop in quality would have left him and the rest of the A’s front office curious if his improvement was indeed from facing tougher competition or… just his development as a young pitcher.
He didn’t suffer any injuries and his time in AAA this season will be well spent refining his mechanical issues and his overall skill. I’m just glad that with Sheets and Duke we now 40% of our rotation covered so that we don’t have to watch sophomoric pitching as much as we did last year.
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King
He really didn't improve at all
He stopped being unlucky with home run balls. He also stopped striking anyone out (which admittedly he hadn’t been doing much of to begin with) and stopped throwing a breaking ball.
In many respects he was actually performing worse in September than in May, but it was masked by luck.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
And his claim of going to AAA
isn’t particularly valid since the FO would care less about the results and more about the process in the case of Cahill.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
Yeah, I guess lower ERA, lower walks and higher strikeout percentage
…should just be considered “luck” according to your logic when comparing pre and post all star numbers.
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King
Innings Pitched Totals can also be somewhat deceiving.
I’ve always been somewhat skeptical of applying the Verducci effect to all young pitchers, regardless of their mechanics and styles. I think that innings pitched totals can be somewhat deceiving in that over a full season, a pitcher that is more efficient with his pitches/pitches to contact effectively will pitch more innings than a wilder guy and might actually throw less pitches total throughout the year, but actually tally more innings. Maybe the effect should be furtther expanded and broken-down by total pitchers thrown?
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
This
I recall hearing this towards the end of last season (maybe on a broadcast?) Innings pitched means something different for different pitchers. Anderson was pretty efficient.
Totally agree with the concept of the Verducci effect but not so sure about the measurement used. Maybe number of pitches makes more sense. Even then there are other things to consider – side sessions, pitching on the National team (as mentioned above), physical makeup, etc…
Regardless, I have confidence that the A’s know what they are doing with Anderson and Cahill and would not have thrown them out there towards the end of the season if there was a chance they would be hurting the pitchers for 2010. I am sure they have more information/research on what kind of workload a pitcher can handle then we could imagine.
To repeat a couple thoughts
C+A were both in the Olympics so you have to add a few innings. It seems Cahill pitched 8 innings more, while Anderson pitched 12.2. Going back through some old Sacramento archives, it looks like Anderson also pitched ~15 innings in the playoffs. Add those 27 innings to his total and he only had a 32 inning increase.
The Verducci Effect also does not have too much evidence behind it. Pitchers get injured a lot, especially young ones. The 30 inning mark has no statistical basis. Of course there is no reason to push young pitchers past their limits.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
but/and Cahill and Anderson also pitched exhibition games
for team USA prior to the Olympics starting. Those don’t count in the official innings but should count (like xbhaskarx says below) as pitched thrown at full effort in game conditions. These two were being extensively monitored by the A’s during their Olympic sabbaticals. I’m not worried about excessive workload in 2009 having a carryover effect for these two.
Thanks for looking up the data
Couldn’t do that at work but I knew the numbers would make a dent in the listed differences (especially Anderson). To me, the key thing the A’s did was give their young SP extra rest between starts, they slowed down the overall accumilation of GS which in turn allowed for a lower amount of IP.
The monster at the end of this blog.
why is the unit of measurement innings pitched instead of something like "pitches thrown at full effort"?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
That's what BP tries to do with Pitcher Abuse Points
Last year the A’s did pretty well here.
Justin Verlander had the most PAP. The A’s:
94. Brett Anderson
136. Dallas Braden
152. Trevor Cahill
160. Vin Mazzaro
169. Gio Gonzalez
It doesn’t look too bad from this perspective relative to others in the league
But baseball! Fuck yeah! -- lynnzgal
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 26, 2010 4:06 PM PST up reply actions
Is there any other organization more cognizant
of the need to monitor arm strength between outings. I know the A’s make each pitcher throw from certain distances between every outing to determine arm strength even if velocity does not fall off in games. Thats how they discovered Mazzaro’s tendinitis. He was throwing 94 in starts as usual but between starts his velocity fell off while throwing from one orange cone to another at a certain distance. they keep records of each pitchers velocity between starts. thats how they determine who comes out of the bullpen as well. a lot of the veteran pitchers balk at this regimen initially because theyve never had to do it before.
by Jessse on Jan 26, 2010 2:26 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
interesting
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Rec'd - good info
Wonder if that’s why our pitchers are generally less injury prone than other teams (unlike our hitters)
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
What the Verducci fails to mention
Is that ace level pitchers who throw zero pitches deserve big contracts the next year!
RIVER CATS: AAA CHAMPS!
What Verducci effect doesn't take into account is ...
In the case of Brett Anderson and Trevor Cahill, the time they spent away from their minor-league team during the 2008 season with the U.S. Olympic team and the work they got there.
So the percentage increase in their 2009 workload is not really as big as it would appear, although it might still be up more than would be ideal.
by nativetexanasfan on Jan 27, 2010 3:06 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
Related FanShots on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
