Maybe The Sox Don't Need Another Starter and Reliever

[Lillian]

A few years ago, I wrote a paper, in which I advocated a different use of Professional baseball, pitching staffs. This year’s final game of the World Series reminded me of the hypothesis, which

I put forth then. The Giants used their Ace starter, Madison Bumgarner, in long relief, on his normal bullpen, side session day. We all know the results, and they were quite impressive.

 

The impetus for my hypothesis is that today’s starting pitchers are used so little, and yet make so much, that there should be a better way to utilize them. When a pitcher is only asked to pitch in one out

of every 5 games, and then only expected to go 6 innings, or around 110 pitches, which ever comes first, it should be obvious that teams are not getting much for their money.

 

This present day modus operendi requires 5 very expense starters, which is problematic, in itself.

However, when you then consider all of the vitally important relievers, which are required to provide effective late inning pitching, the whole system is just about as cost inefficient as one

could possibly imagine. Explaining that to an analyst, not steeped in baseball, would surely elicit a response of “head scratching” incredulity. It all begs the question; isn’t there a better way?

 

Well, that takes us back to the 7TH game of this year’s World Series. The Giants had a plan to use Bumgarner, in relief to close out the final game. They executed that plan to perfection.

He threw 68 pitches just two days after throwing 117, pitches in his previous start. This is precisely the way I assert that teams should manage their pitching staffs.

 

Pitchers routinely throw around 45 or 50 pitches, during their side session day, which comes a couple of days after their regular starts. My contention is that instead of throwing those pitches

in the bullpen, let them throw them in the game.

 

Now, I know that someone is going to object on the basis that those pitches, thrown in a game situation, might put to much stress on the pitcher’s arm. To that, I can only reply, “oh poor pitcher”.

Tell that to the old timers, who routinely threw close to double the amount of pitches, thrown by today's pitchers, every start, and did it every 3 days.

 

Over protecting a pitcher’s arm, can be just as detrimental as over taxing it. There is a point where too little work results in insufficient conditioning. It’s the very reason that a reliever, has to

work up to being able to start. He must develop the stamina, necessary to enable him to throw the additional pitches required. If a starter were only asked to throw 50 pitches in a game, that

would probably be about all you could extract from him, without risking injury. This principle is best expressed by the strength and fitness creed; “Use it, or lose it”.

 

So, how would this system of employing the current bullpen, “side session” pitches in game situations work? Teams would use two pitchers per game. That day’s “starter” would be expected to throw

around his usual 100 - 110 pitches. He would exit the game, and another pitcher would take his place, and throw what would be the equivilent of a “side session” 45, or 50 pitches. The following day,

you would repeat the same process, with two more starters.

 

At that point, you would have used all 4 of the starters, required for this system, and you may or may not have needed to use any bullpen pitchers. The third game begins to utilize the pen.

They would divide the workload, and pitch the entire game.

 

The 4TH game, returns to the first two pitchers, who shared the first game’s work load, only this time the roles are reversed. Pitcher A, who threw 100 pitches the first game will now be

asked to “relieve” pitcher B, who will start this game, and be expected to throw 100 pitches. Pitcher B is able to throw 100 pitches, as his previous appearance was the equivilant of a “side session,”

of merely 45 pitches. The 5Th game repeats the same system, this time with pitchers C and D, who worked in tandem, in game 2. They would reverse their respective roles, just as pitchers A and B did.

 

This system enables a team to use 4 starters, instead of 5, and requires fewer relievers. Moreover, the relievers do not have to be of the same quality, as they are not asked to pitch in virtually every

close game, unlike today’s method of depending upon the bullpen to pitch the final 3 innings. Therefore, they would not be key to every game’s outcome. How many great starts from Sale and Quintana,

did the Sox waste, because the bullpen couldn't preserve the lead?

 

The amount of money that could be saved by this method of managing a pitching staff, is tremendous, and could afford teams the payroll flexibility to upgrade other roster spots. Applying this principle to

the current situation, the front office could forget about looking for another starter, and more bullpen help. They could then use the money to acquire another outfielder, and be ready

to compete in 2015. Although, ideally the Sox would have 4 top starters, and it appears that they only have 3, at best. A staff of Sale, Quintana, Rodon and one solid RH starter, might work.

 

Of course, agents and the Players Union might object and attempt to thwart any such revolutionary idea, which might threaten the existing system, but that does not diminish the validity of the idea.

What do you gentlemen think of the concept and its feasibility?

Edited December 7, 2014 by Lillian

[Dick Allen]

A few years ago, I wrote a paper, in which I advocated a different use of Professional baseball, pitching staffs. This year’s final game of the World Series reminded me of the hypothesis, which

I put forth then. The Giants used their Ace starter, Madison Bumgarner, in long relief, on his normal bullpen, side session day. We all know the results, and they were quite impressive.

 

The impetus for my hypothesis is that today’s starting pitchers are used so little, and yet make so much, that there should be a better way to utilize them. When a pitcher is only asked to pitch in one out

of every 5 games, and then only expected to go 6 innings, or around 110 pitches, which ever comes first, it should be obvious that teams are not getting much for their money.

 

This present day modus operendi requires 5 very expense starters, which is problematic, in itself.

However, when you then consider all of the vitally important relievers, which are required to provide effective late inning pitching, the whole system is just about as cost inefficient as one

could possibly imagine. Explaining that to an analyst, not steeped in baseball, would surely elicit a response of “head scratching” incredulity. It all begs the question; isn’t there a better way?

 

Well, that takes us back to the 7TH game of this year’s World Series. The Giants had a plan to use Bumgarner, in relief to close out the final game. They executed that plan to perfection.

He threw 68 pitches just two days after throwing 117, pitches in his previous start. This is precisely the way I assert that teams should manage their pitching staffs.

 

Pitchers routinely throw around 45 or 50 pitches, during their side session day, which comes a couple of days after their regular starts. My contention is that instead of throwing those pitches

in the bullpen, let them throw them in the game.

 

Now, I know that someone is going to object on the basis that those pitches, thrown in a game situation, might put to much stress on the pitcher’s arm. To that, I can only reply, “oh poor pitcher”.

Tell that to the old timer hurlers, who routinely threw close to double the amount of pitches, thrown by today's pitchers, every start, and did it every 3 days.

 

Over protecting a pitcher’s arm, can be just as detrimental as over taxing it. There is a point where too little work results in insufficient conditioning. It’s the very reason that a reliever, has to

work up to being able to start. He must develop the stamina, necessary to enable him to throw the additional pitches required. If a starter were only asked to throw 50 pitches in a game, that

would probably be about all you could extract from him, without risking injury. This principle is best expressed by the strength and fitness creed; “Use it, or lose it”.

 

So, how would this system of employing the current bullpen, “side session” pitches in game situations work? Teams would use two pitchers per game. That day’s “starter” would be expected to throw

around his usual 100 - 110 pitches. He would exit the game, and another pitcher would take his place, and throw what would be the equivilent of a “side session” 45, or 50 pitches. The following day,

you would repeat the same process, with two more starters.

 

At that point, you would have used all 4 of the starters, required for this system, and you may or may not have needed to use any bullpen pitchers. The third game begins to utilize the pen.

They would divide the workload, and pitch the entire game.

 

The 4TH game, returns to the first two pitchers, who shared the first game’s work load, only this time the roles are reversed. Pitcher A, who threw 100 pitches the first game will now be

asked to “relieve” pitcher B, who will start this game, and be expected to throw 100 pitches. Pitcher B is able to throw 100 pitches, as his previous appearance was the equivilant of a “side session,”

of merely 45 pitches. The 5Th game repeats the same system, this time with pitchers C and D, who worked in tandem, in game 2. They would reverse their respective roles, just as pitchers A and B did.

 

This system enables a team to use 4 starters, instead of 5, and requires fewer relievers. Moreover, the relievers do not have to be of the same quality, as they are not asked to pitch in virtually every

close game, unlike today’s method of depending upon the bullpen to pitch the final 3 innings. Therefore, they would not be key to every game’s outcome. How many great starts from Sale and Quintana,

did the Sox waste, because the bullpen couldn't preserve the lead?

 

The amount of money that could be saved by this method of managing a pitching staff, is tremendous, and could afford teams the payroll flexibility to upgrade other roster spots. Applying this principle to

the current situation, the front office could forget about looking for another starter, and more bullpen help. They could then use the money to acquire another outfielder, and be ready

to compete in 2015. Although, ideally the Sox would have 4 top starters, and it appears that they only have 3, at best. A staff of Sale, Quintana, Rodon and one solid RH starter, might work.

 

Of course, agents and the Players Union might object and attempt to thwart any such revolutionary idea, which might threaten the existing system, but that does not diminish the validity of the idea.

What do you gentlemen think of the concept and its feasibility?

I don't think it is feasable. In a World Series, it is worth the risk of what the stress, and pitching in a game is very different from a side session, will do to your pitcher moving forward. And it probably could work for a week or 2, but 162 games is a long time, and pitchers aren't as good as Baumgarner. The results wouldn't be the same. IMO, you are just asking for trouble. The payroll flexibility created would soon dissappear as you would probably be paying guys to rehab.

[shysocks]

It comes down to this:

Now, I know that someone is going to object on the basis that those pitches, thrown in a game situation, might put to much stress on the pitcher’s arm. To that, I can only reply, “oh poor pitcher”.

Tell that to the old timer hurlers, who routinely threw close to double the amount of pitches, thrown by today's pitchers, every start, and did it every 3 days.

Well, I think it's a little more complicated than that. The old timers played when there was a lot less money in the game. When these guys are getting paid what they are, "oh poor pitcher" becomes a very big deal. The health consequences of this would be very real.

 

What happens in the fourth game when your starter can't give you six innings but every reliever had to carry multiple innings the night before because it was their game? Not every side session is going to go as smoothly as Bumgarner's did.

[Chicago White Sox]

I'm sorry, but your theory loses all credibility at "oh poor pitcher". Ignoring the increased likelihood of injury that throwing in-game side sessions would result in is ridiculous. I don't care what some "old-timers" were able to years ago, most pitchers today are not conditioned to handle that much additional stress.

 

IMO, this strategy would likely be an epic disaster. I think the underlying concept makes some sense, but you can't force the human body to do something it's incapable of. Pitchers would break down and then you're running out replacement level talent which would more than offset any benefit of the original plan.

[Eminor3rd]

Dave Cameron has written a ton about this type of system, and is on record claiming that a tandem/multi-use system is where pitching will go in the long run.

 

That said, he also clearly brings up the point that moving to this sort of system is a massive undertaking that has to take place from the bottom of the minors up to the Majors, and represents a severe issue when trading or acquiring players that are changing systems.

[Dick Allen]

Dave Cameron has written a ton about this type of system, and is on record claiming that a tandem/multi-use system is where pitching will go in the long run.

 

That said, he also clearly brings up the point that moving to this sort of system is a massive undertaking that has to take place from the bottom of the minors up to the Majors, and represents a severe issue when trading or acquiring players that are changing systems.

Several years ago, Nolan Ryan wanted the Rangers to go to a 4 man rotation permanently. The problem with that is, you can train your guys in the minors to do this, but during the season, even in the offseason, you acquire pitchers that aren't physically trained for it, and it will blow up in your face. Same with this idea. Just about every team would have adopt this philosophy for it to really work.

[chw42]

I feel like the biggest issue here is that pitching in a game is so much more stressful than a bullpen session.

[Kyyle23]

I'm sorry, but your theory loses all credibility at "oh poor pitcher". Ignoring the increased likelihood of injury that throwing in-game side sessions would result in is ridiculous. I don't care what some "old-timers" were able to years ago, most pitchers today are not conditioned to handle that much additional stress.

IMO, this strategy would likely be an epic disaster. I think the underlying concept makes some sense, but you can't force the human body to do something it's incapable of. Pitchers would break down and then you're running out replacement level talent which would more than offset any benefit of the original plan.

 

Plus, old timers were not nearly the investments that they are now. If a guy blew out his arm, see ya. Now, it is a loss for the team for years, money spent on contract and surgery and rehab, and merely hoping that he can get back to where he was.

[Balta1701]

One thing that the advanced stats have allowed us to do is make a much better evaluation of the actual impact of a player and how to compare the impact of a pitcher making 35 starts a year to a hitter making 150. You describe it as cost-inefficient, but we've seen good correlations between actual wins on the scoreboard and the numbers projected by those stats. Maybe you quibble over the exact numbers a bit, but a 5 WAR pitcher making 35 starts a year is just about as valuable to a team as a 5 WAR shortstop making 150 starts a year.

[Lillian]

Thanks for the responses, and hope there are many more to come.

 

Do you guys honestly think that asking nothing more than that starters throw their current "side sessions" in the game, would jeopardize their health?

I reject that notion. This system does not require pitchers to throw more pitches, or more often. It simply utilizes the pitches thrown in the bullpen side session,

in the game. Again, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the issue of limiting a pitcher's work load. Too little work equals inadequate conditioning.

Even high intensity weight training does not require 5, or even 4 days of rest, in between sessions. If today's relievers can throw as frequently as they do, and often

with considerable intensity, then the frequency which this demands, is not unreasonable. The question becomes; how many pitches? That is debatable, but I don't

see the problem with 2 appearances, within a 5 day span. 100 pitches in one appearance, and 45 in the other, does not seen like a terribly burdensome work load,

providing that a pitcher is conditioned for it.

 

I would be interested to know how much intensity is actually applied, during side session days.

Does anyone know much about how they are conducted?

Edited December 5, 2014 by Lillian

[southsider2k5]

I'm sorry, but your theory loses all credibility at "oh poor pitcher". Ignoring the increased likelihood of injury that throwing in-game side sessions would result in is ridiculous. I don't care what some "old-timers" were able to years ago, most pitchers today are not conditioned to handle that much additional stress.

 

IMO, this strategy would likely be an epic disaster. I think the underlying concept makes some sense, but you can't force the human body to do something it's incapable of. Pitchers would break down and then you're running out replacement level talent which would more than offset any benefit of the original plan.

 

Agreed. You can't really compare the pitchers of today and yesterday because of WAY different styles of pitching philosophy between the games.

[Dick Allen]

Thanks for the responses, and hope there are many more to come.

 

Do you guys honestly think that asking nothing more than that starters throw their current "side sessions" in the game, would jeopardize their health?

I reject that notion. This system does not require pitchers to throw more pitches, or more often. It simply utilizes the pitches thrown in the bullpen side session,

in the game. Again, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the issue of limiting a pitcher's work load. Too little work equals inadequate conditioning.

Even high intensity weight training does not require 5, or even 4 days of rest, in between sessions. If today's relievers can throw as frequently as they do, and often

with considerable intensity, then the frequency which this demands, is not unreasonable. The question becomes; how many pitches? That is debatable, but I don't

see the problem with 2 appearances, within a 5 day span. 100 pitches in one appearance, and 45 in the other, does not seen like a terribly burdensome work load,

providing that a pitcher is conditioned for it.

 

I would be interested to know how much intensity is actually applied, during side session days.

Does anyone know much about how they are conducted?

 

I have been in the park for side sessions. Sometimes they are pretty intense, other times, they seem to be just getting loose. I think a lot of it depends on how a guy is feeling. They always say most pitchers pitch with pain in many starts. I think another problem with your scenerio (and I would have no problem if they did it for a short time like a World Series) is it may make them more sore. That causes pitchers to compensate, which could lead to disaster. I do think if they were conditioned for it for a few years, it would probably be fine. But you would pretty much have to get the entire industry on board with it for it to really work. Besides, thinking of it, you aren't going to get much financial savings if the plan did work. These guys would all expect even larger paychecks.

 

[oldsox]

The Rockies tried something similar to this in 2012. Starters were limited to 75 pitches, then his "Piggy Back" pitcher would come in. The two pitchers were kind of a team, I guess. Of course, it didn't work, and everyone laughed at them, especially the Denver Post. Players hated it. They did it because the pitching staff was getting bombed routinely. Who knows, if a contending team tried it, it might work. We'll probably never know.

[palehose23]

I applaud your outside the box thinking and originality but as you witnessed here on this forum, your idea would be shouted down by the masses. People fear change of any kind so they'd rather go with a flawed system than to change to what might be better in the long run. Uncertainty and the unknown are infinitely more scary than status quo. Need more original thoughts in this world.

[ptatc]

A few years ago, I wrote a paper, in which I advocated a different use of Professional baseball, pitching staffs. This year’s final game of the World Series reminded me of the hypothesis, which

I put forth then. The Giants used their Ace starter, Madison Bumgarner, in long relief, on his normal bullpen, side session day. We all know the results, and they were quite impressive.

 

The impetus for my hypothesis is that today’s starting pitchers are used so little, and yet make so much, that there should be a better way to utilize them. When a pitcher is only asked to pitch in one out

of every 5 games, and then only expected to go 6 innings, or around 110 pitches, which ever comes first, it should be obvious that teams are not getting much for their money.

 

This present day modus operendi requires 5 very expense starters, which is problematic, in itself.

However, when you then consider all of the vitally important relievers, which are required to provide effective late inning pitching, the whole system is just about as cost inefficient as one

could possibly imagine. Explaining that to an analyst, not steeped in baseball, would surely elicit a response of “head scratching” incredulity. It all begs the question; isn’t there a better way?

 

Well, that takes us back to the 7TH game of this year’s World Series. The Giants had a plan to use Bumgarner, in relief to close out the final game. They executed that plan to perfection.

He threw 68 pitches just two days after throwing 117, pitches in his previous start. This is precisely the way I assert that teams should manage their pitching staffs.

 

Pitchers routinely throw around 45 or 50 pitches, during their side session day, which comes a couple of days after their regular starts. My contention is that instead of throwing those pitches

in the bullpen, let them throw them in the game.

 

Now, I know that someone is going to object on the basis that those pitches, thrown in a game situation, might put to much stress on the pitcher’s arm. To that, I can only reply, “oh poor pitcher”.

Tell that to the old timer hurlers, who routinely threw close to double the amount of pitches, thrown by today's pitchers, every start, and did it every 3 days.

 

Over protecting a pitcher’s arm, can be just as detrimental as over taxing it. There is a point where too little work results in insufficient conditioning. It’s the very reason that a reliever, has to

work up to being able to start. He must develop the stamina, necessary to enable him to throw the additional pitches required. If a starter were only asked to throw 50 pitches in a game, that

would probably be about all you could extract from him, without risking injury. This principle is best expressed by the strength and fitness creed; “Use it, or lose it”.

 

So, how would this system of employing the current bullpen, “side session” pitches in game situations work? Teams would use two pitchers per game. That day’s “starter” would be expected to throw

around his usual 100 - 110 pitches. He would exit the game, and another pitcher would take his place, and throw what would be the equivilent of a “side session” 45, or 50 pitches. The following day,

you would repeat the same process, with two more starters.

 

At that point, you would have used all 4 of the starters, required for this system, and you may or may not have needed to use any bullpen pitchers. The third game begins to utilize the pen.

They would divide the workload, and pitch the entire game.

 

The 4TH game, returns to the first two pitchers, who shared the first game’s work load, only this time the roles are reversed. Pitcher A, who threw 100 pitches the first game will now be

asked to “relieve” pitcher B, who will start this game, and be expected to throw 100 pitches. Pitcher B is able to throw 100 pitches, as his previous appearance was the equivilant of a “side session,”

of merely 45 pitches. The 5Th game repeats the same system, this time with pitchers C and D, who worked in tandem, in game 2. They would reverse their respective roles, just as pitchers A and B did.

 

This system enables a team to use 4 starters, instead of 5, and requires fewer relievers. Moreover, the relievers do not have to be of the same quality, as they are not asked to pitch in virtually every

close game, unlike today’s method of depending upon the bullpen to pitch the final 3 innings. Therefore, they would not be key to every game’s outcome. How many great starts from Sale and Quintana,

did the Sox waste, because the bullpen couldn't preserve the lead?

 

The amount of money that could be saved by this method of managing a pitching staff, is tremendous, and could afford teams the payroll flexibility to upgrade other roster spots. Applying this principle to

the current situation, the front office could forget about looking for another starter, and more bullpen help. They could then use the money to acquire another outfielder, and be ready

to compete in 2015. Although, ideally the Sox would have 4 top starters, and it appears that they only have 3, at best. A staff of Sale, Quintana, Rodon and one solid RH starter, might work.

 

Of course, agents and the Players Union might object and attempt to thwart any such revolutionary idea, which might threaten the existing system, but that does not diminish the validity of the idea.

What do you gentlemen think of the concept and its feasibility?

Your idea is not without merit but has a few issues with it. Teams have tried rotations with using 3 pitchers for 3 innings each every 3 days. However the issues are:

 

1. The pitchers would need to learn to dial down the intensity. Current pitchers are being conditioned to only 6 innings or so because that is a "quality start." Because of this the intensity is ramped up and they throw harder than the pitchers wanting to go 9 innings. If the pitcher needs come back earlier than 4 days, they would need to dial that back.

2. side sessions are not for throwing easily. It's like training to run a marathon. Some days are hard some are easy. You could do the pitching on the side session a couple of times but then you would wear them out. Pitchers will typically work on certain pitches especially "feel" pitches in side sessions and you cannot do that throwing too lightly.

3. The mental aspect may be the most important. OPitchers just don't feel comfortable with it so you would need to sart it in the minors to mentally get thme used to it. You can't have young pitchers stressing to make the MLB and toally changing the way they pitch.

[southsider2k5]

If you don't think the mental aspects is important, look at how badly some people handle being disagreed with on a message board. Then times that to a much higher level of intensity for it happening on a baseball field, and not a message board.

[Quin]

I applaud your outside the box thinking and originality but as you witnessed here on this forum, your idea would be shouted down by the masses. People fear change of any kind so they'd rather go with a flawed system than to change to what might be better in the long run. Uncertainty and the unknown are infinitely more scary than status quo. Need more original thoughts in this world.

 

While an original idea, it's also a bad idea for reasons stated above.

 

Pitcher blows out his arm? Boom, millions go to waste.

 

Wasn't even a good idea in the past. Koufax? Career cut short due to overuse. That's the greatest pitcher ever having to retire at 30 because he pitched too much for his arm to physically handle.

 

And even though no one is reaching 300 IP foolishly anymore, the league leaders still hit around 240 IP+

 

Pitching can also be more stressful now. With scouting reports and video, people know to look for a pitchers offering and exactly what it will look like. Pitchers are also just throwing harder.

 

If you want pitcher's careers to be in jeopardy and risk millions of dollars, then this is a great idea. Otherwise, it's bad.

 

And let's get some non-legendary examples of such things working in the modern era. Bumgarner had an all-time post season performance. Bob Gibson is an all-time great pitcher.

[southsider2k5]

While an original idea, it's also a bad idea for reasons stated above.

 

Pitcher blows out his arm? Boom, millions go to waste.

 

Wasn't even a good idea in the past. Koufax? Career cut short due to overuse. That's the greatest pitcher ever having to retire at 30 because he pitched too much for his arm to physically handle.

 

And even though no one is reaching 300 IP foolishly anymore, the league leaders still hit around 240 IP+

 

Pitching can also be more stressful now. With scouting reports and video, people know to look for a pitchers offering and exactly what it will look like. Pitchers are also just throwing harder.

 

If you want pitcher's careers to be in jeopardy and risk millions of dollars, then this is a great idea. Otherwise, it's bad.

 

And let's get some non-legendary examples of such things working in the modern era. Bumgarner had an all-time post season performance. Bob Gibson is an all-time great pitcher.

 

And the jury is still out on whether Bum will still be as good next year.

[LDF]

While an original idea, it's also a bad idea for reasons stated above.

 

Pitcher blows out his arm? Boom, millions go to waste.

 

Wasn't even a good idea in the past. Koufax? Career cut short due to overuse. That's the greatest pitcher ever having to retire at 30 because he pitched too much for his arm to physically handle.

 

And even though no one is reaching 300 IP foolishly anymore, the league leaders still hit around 240 IP+

 

Pitching can also be more stressful now. With scouting reports and video, people know to look for a pitchers offering and exactly what it will look like. Pitchers are also just throwing harder.

 

If you want pitcher's careers to be in jeopardy and risk millions of dollars, then this is a great idea. Otherwise, it's bad.

 

And let's get some non-legendary examples of such things working in the modern era. Bumgarner had an all-time post season performance. Bob Gibson is an all-time great pitcher.

 

bingo, there was a thread of "when or what made you a sox fan" or something to that extent

several months ago. i was thnking and for me it was around 68-69 Wilbur Wood rookie or

first yr. he pitched over 300 innings that yr, won 25 games i believe.

 

300+ innings..... i can't even imagine that.... that was normal then.

 

edit ^^ overuse ..... Dizzy Dean pitched a double header in 1 day.

Edited December 5, 2014 by LDF

[ptatc]

Thanks for the responses, and hope there are many more to come.

 

Do you guys honestly think that asking nothing more than that starters throw their current "side sessions" in the game, would jeopardize their health?

I reject that notion. This system does not require pitchers to throw more pitches, or more often. It simply utilizes the pitches thrown in the bullpen side session,

in the game. Again, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the issue of limiting a pitcher's work load. Too little work equals inadequate conditioning.

Even high intensity weight training does not require 5, or even 4 days of rest, in between sessions. If today's relievers can throw as frequently as they do, and often

with considerable intensity, then the frequency which this demands, is not unreasonable. The question becomes; how many pitches? That is debatable, but I don't

see the problem with 2 appearances, within a 5 day span. 100 pitches in one appearance, and 45 in the other, does not seen like a terribly burdensome work load,

providing that a pitcher is conditioned for it.

 

I would be interested to know how much intensity is actually applied, during side session days.

Does anyone know much about how they are conducted?

1. Throwing the side sessions in the games would create much more stress on the arm. Having been in there with rehabbing pitchers, there is a total different intensity. Also, physically there isn't enough of a break. The pitchers will get fatigued and drop the mechanics and injuries will occur. Remember most of pitching comes from the lower extremities and trunk. When these fatigue the arm will suffer.

2. it does require the pitcher to work harder more often. This will be the physical breakdown. Over a 6 month season. it's too much stress.

3. There isn't too little work, it's the intensity of it. I think a 4 man rotation would work better, if you could work to re-train the pitchers.

4. In high intensity weight training, there is considerable rest. Olympic weight lifters work one group of muscles once per week. If you are truly maxing out that is the limit. Pitchers work until total fatigue of the larger muscle groups. You just can't fatigue the muscles that way and expect perfect form, which would need in pitching.

[Lillian]

1. Throwing the side sessions in the games would create much more stress on the arm. Having been in there with rehabbing pitchers, there is a total different intensity. Also, physically there isn't enough of a break. The pitchers will get fatigued and drop the mechanics and injuries will occur. Remember most of pitching comes from the lower extremities and trunk. When these fatigue the arm will suffer.

2. it does require the pitcher to work harder more often. This will be the physical breakdown. Over a 6 month season. it's too much stress.

3. There isn't too little work, it's the intensity of it. I think a 4 man rotation would work better, if you could work to re-train the pitchers.

4. In high intensity weight training, there is considerable rest. Olympic weight lifters work one group of muscles once per week. If you are truly maxing out that is the limit. Pitchers work until total fatigue of the larger muscle groups. You just can't fatigue the muscles that way and expect perfect form, which would need in pitching.

 

I've been weight training for 55 years, long before it was ever popular. I started when I was 15, and have never stopped, and still do virtually the same routine, now at age 70. Of course, I don't

train with the same intensity that I once did, but my sessions still involve going to failure on almost every set. I competed back in the 80's, and had some notable success. It has never been

necessary for me, or for any of the people, with whom I have trained, to rest a body part for an entire week. In fact, my experience has been that an entire week in between sessions tends to

make it difficult to maintain maximum hypertrophy. I have always tended to have soreness, unless I train the body part more frequently, approximately once every 4 days, although I have been

able to do it once every 3 days, when I was younger. I haven't really tried that in a few years, primarily due to a lack of sufficient motivation. After all, "What the hell am I trying to prove?"

I'm an old lady, it just seems inappropriate at my age. But we're talking about young, testosterone producing, men. And let's not discount the nutritional supplements that are available today, and

I'm not talking about PEDS.

 

Look, I'm not a doctor or physiologist, but this notion doesn't compute with my own experience. Your body needs a certain amount of time to recover fully, but any stress that requires an

entire week to recover sounds more like healing from an injury, than normal recovery from a safe stimulus load. More importantly, this whole notion contradicts the standard practice of utilizing

a closer, several times per week. The issue is more about the number of pitches, than the frequency. You also cannot ignore that pitchers in the past threw much more frequently, and many

more pitches, per outing. I don't recall that there were significantly more injuries back then, than we see today.

 

This obviously requires some caution, but I just can't accept that 100 pitches one day, and 45 two days later, followed by another 100, 3 days later represents some terrible risk to a pitcher.

Isn't it possible that he would actually be better conditioned than pitchers who work so infrequently?

Edited December 7, 2014 by Lillian

[ptatc]

I've been weight training for 55 years, long before it was ever popular. I started when I was 15, and have never stopped, and still do virtually the same routine, now at age 70. Of course, I don't

train with the same intensity that I once did, but my sessions still involve going to failure on almost every set. I competed back in the 80's, and had some notable success. It has never been

necessary for me, or for any of the people, with whom I have trained, to rest a body part for an entire week. In fact, my experience has been that an entire week in between sessions tends to

make it difficult to maintain maximum hypertrophy. I have always tended to have soreness, unless I train the body part more frequently, approximately once every 4 days, although I have been

able to do it once every 3 days, when I was younger. I haven't really tried that in a few years, primarily due to a lack of sufficient motivation. After all, "What the hell am I trying to prove?"

I'm an old lady, it just seems inappropriate at my age. But we're talking about young, testosterone producing, men. And let's not discount the nutritional supplements that are available today, and

I'm not talking about PEDS.

 

Look, I'm not a doctor or physiologist, but this notion doesn't compute with my own experience. Your body needs a certain amount of time to recover fully, but any stress that requires an

entire week to recover sounds more like healing from an injury, than normal recovery from a safe stimulus load. More importantly, this whole notion contradicts the standard practice of utilizing

a closer, several times per week. The issue is more about the number of pitches, than the frequency. You also cannot ignore that pitchers in the past through much more frequently, and many

more pitches, per outing. I don't recall that there were significantly more injuries back then, than we see today.

 

This obviously requires some caution, but I just can't accept that 100 pitches one day, and 45 two days later, followed by another 100, 3 days later represents some terrible risk to a pitcher.

Isn't it possible that he would actually be better conditioned than pitchers who work so infrequently?

Maximum hypertrophy and strength/endurance are very different things. Hypertrophy is not a direct correlation to functional strength and much less so with endurance. This is due to the proprioception/motor control variables. Pitching has absolutely nothing to do with strength. It's almost all lower extremity endurance. It's mostly maintaining mechanics by maintaining endurance. This is why relief pitchers used the PEDS more than anyone because it allowed them to maintain the endurance over days while recovering faster.

 

Pitchers in the past did throw more which I do think should happen. However, there are 4 caveats to this

 

1. They threw with much less intensity as they paced themselves because the y knew they were going to throw more pitches/innings.

2. They threw from a higher mounds so the pitches were more effective with less intensity.

3. They threw very easily on off days.

And most importantly

 

4. They were a select few whose body could tolerate this stress. Back then pitchers threw a lot and if that load injured them they were washed out in the minors never to be heard from again. The pitchers that made it to the MLB were fewer because there were fewer teams.

In today's league they need more pitchers so they need to be protected so they have enough pitchers. 2/3 of all pitchers today would have been injured and washed out in the minors 40 years ago because their bodies couldn't physically handle it.

 

The issue isn't the number of pitches, it's the quality and intensity. Every time you throw a ball you put enough torque on the elbow to tear the UCL. The only thing holding it together are proper mechanics and flexor muscle forces.

If you truly max out for pure strength gain you will not lift a body part more than once a week. The days of 3 sets of 10 2-3x/week. Went out with the rampant PEDS in the Olympics.

[Lillian]

For those of you who are really interested in this discussion, I encourage you to read this article, which I just found:

 

http://jonahkeri.com/2010/09/13/pitching-i...es-and-rangers/

 

It's quite long, but very interesting, and addresses many of the points that can be made on both sides of this issue.

 

Here are some highlights:

 

The team now has a simple, and hopefully sustainable, blueprint for building a better pitching staff: Work harder.

“If you set limits,” said Maddux, “you lower people’s ceilings.”

 

"Still, there’s no denying the massive changes that have washed over the game in the past 36 years. When a pitcher closes in on 100 pitches today, an alarm goes off in the ballpark,

one that alerts managers, pitching coaches, broadcasters and opposing hitters that the guy on the mound is getting tired and won’t last much longer. Pitchers who last into the 7th inning

give their team a big edge, allowing their managers to keep their bullpen fresh and use higher-quality relievers to close out the game."

 

"Intensive training methods like those Vazquez now recommends can cause greater lactic acid buildup, which can cause more soreness than a pitcher might be used to handling.

But pitchers experience the same physical sensations when straining through a 30-pitch inning against a tough lineup in searing August heat. By acclimating themselves to those sensations,

Vazquez said, pitchers become better able to handle heavier workloads, increasing their effectiveness and lowering their chance of injury."

 

"Nolan came in and said the pitchers need to be pushed more, they need to work harder and turn up their intensity – and that there’s nothing wrong with that.”

The Rangers’ biggest break from conventional wisdom may be their decision to use big league pitchers to throw batting practice between starts. While most other teams have spare coaches

lob lollipop pitches in for hitters to launch into the bleachers, the Rangers use BP as a way for pitchers to test their complete repertoire between starts, facing live hitters.

“It’s important to see how hitters react to your pitches in certain locations,” said Ryan, who credited throwing BP with keeping him sharp between starts throughout his career.

By pitching off a mound to hitters, instead of throwing side sessions on a bullpen mound, you’re also put into a situation that’s a lot closer to being in a game. It’s another good way

to help build your stamina.”

 

The pitchers have bought into the idea of throwing extra BP.

“It gives you a little bit more intensity level, more than what you would get out of a bullpen,” said Colby

 

"“The day after a start I’ll go from the foul line to the fence, about 300ish,” said Hunter. “It’s something I’ve done since college, so it’s not new to me. I’d always throw two bullpens between

starts too. It’s just one of those things that keeps me acclimated to baseball and pitching off the mound.” (this quote is from Tommy Hunter)

 

"Last year was the first year I started doing long toss,” Feldman said. “My arm had been just kind of barking all spring. [Maddux and Hawkins] said, instead of not throwing today, why don’t you try

to stretch it out and play long toss? A lot of people, the minute their arm starts hurting they’ll take a day off. But if you think about it, it’s just dead arm. If you throw through it, you can get past it,

and you’re stronger after. That really helped a lot.”

 

"Jaeger saw just the opposite. By restricting an athlete’s ability to train and strengthen his muscles and movements, Jaeger believed teams were making their pitchers less likely to increase their

strength, less likely to add velocity to their pitches, less likely to handle bigger workloads and more likely to get injured."

 

“We wouldn’t do this with anything else. We wouldn’t tell a healthy player, don’t run that far, or don’t swing that hard. So why were doing this to our pitchers?”

 

"The Rangers’ more aggressive approach does have some backers in the medical community. Dr. Glenn Fleisig, Smith & Nephew Chair of Research at the American Sports Medicine Institute in

Birmingham, Ala. (the same clinic that houses top sports surgeon Dr. James Andrews), sees the benefits of pushing pitchers to their physical limits – so long as they don’t push past those limits.

When a pitcher pitches or trains to the point of fatigue, Fleisig said, that’s his body telling him he’s developed micro-tears in his ligaments, tendons and muscles. If the pitcher calls it a day at that point,

then gets the proper blend of rest and activity between starts, those micro-tears recover and he gets stronger – fostering more endurance for the future. On the other hand, if he keeps working past

the point of fatigue, the tears get bigger. Without the proper rest and monitoring, those tears can get too big to repair themselves, resulting in major injuries down the road."

 

"The Rangers do have the right idea about pushing pitchers as far as their bodies will allow, Fleisig said. If a pitcher doesn’t work hard enough, he said, “You can’t develop. You won’t get hurt, but you

won’t get stronger or better either.”

 

“Teams are under the false belief that you have a finite number of throws in your shoulder before it blows out, that it has nothing to do with how you condition your shoulder over the years,” he said.

“They feel like you’re destined to blow your arm out no matter what you do. I believe you can condition it and prevent injury, by making it stronger.”

 

To summarize the argument espoused by these quotes; It requires a certain level of training frequency and intensity to attain an elevated physical condition. There is of course a limit, but too little work load

can result in a less than optimum state of physical condition, which can contribute to injury. Maybe modern technology will devise a method of accurately measuring the constantly changing physical

state of a pitcher, as he pitches so that he could be allowed to maximize his effort, and be removed before the risk of injury is reached.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2014 by Lillian

[Quin]

I'm going to with ptatc as he is our resident medical expert.

[ptatc]

For those of you who are really interested in this discussion, I encourage you to read this article, which I just found:

 

http://jonahkeri.com/2010/09/13/pitching-i...es-and-rangers/

 

It's quite long, but very interesting, and addresses many of the points that can be made on both sides of this issue.

I read that back when it first came out and you're right there are many things it addresses on both sides of the issue. I do have some positives and negatives in relation to it.

 

negatives

 

1. Nolan Ryan. You really can't go by much of his training/pitching philosophies. This is like Micheal Jordan telling a 5'5" guy to dunk by just jumping because that's what I did. He is a gentic beast who did thing no one else could. His pitching came with Tom house and subsequently Larry Rothschild (homewood-flossmoor guys). This is the classic "towel drill" and throwing the football guys for pitching. Studies have shown how terrible these mechanics are for the shoulder and to a lesser extent the elbow. Just because aguy could throw 95 in his 40's doesn't mean everyone can.

 

On the positive side his ideas of how to train the lower legs and trunk as opposed to the arm are excellent and I really push for pitchers.

 

2. Vazquez uses his theories of training revolving around pushing the lactate level as justification. We know through research that lactate levels have nothing to do with strength/power/soreness/recovery or anything related to muscle function. Muscle fatigue mostly comes from a combination of a disruption of the calcium channels to activate the muscle and a reflex action from the interneurons in the spinal cord which connect to the individual motor units in a given muscle.

 

Again some of the power activities from the lower extremity are valid though.

 

Positives.

 

The key aspect to the whole article revolves around Glenn Fleisig's comments. He is one of the primary researchers in pitching today. He stated that pitchers should be pushed to the point of fatigue in training and pitching but not beyond it. Mechanics will breakdown and microtears will begin in the static support structures if this happens

 

This is the key concept about your idea. I agree tht pitchers should throw more. However, it should not be when they are fatigued. If they throw in a game a day or even two after a previous outing, they will accumulate the fatigue and the wear and tear will be too much and everything will breakdown.

 

I push for more throwing between starts but not at game intensity and definitely not with the large number of breaking pitches at that intensity that would be required to get MLB hitters out without proper rest