Online Now 2650

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

On this Board 2014
Record: 12118 (3/18/2012)

Online now 2593
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Should we officially end the obsession with pitch counts?

  • Matt Cain throws a perfect game, and it takes 125 pitches.

    No hits, no walks, no errors and it takes 125 pitches to finish.

    He had 14 strikeouts.

    It takes a few extra pitches to dominate when you're striking out a lot of people. Should we continue to punish pitchers who dominate by taking them out of the game early or just admit pitch counts are arbitrary and aren't based on any scientific evidence?

    100 pitches has become a benchmark just because it's 3 digits instead of 2. That's true. Isn't it kind of a coincidence that 100 pitches is the goal and it just happens to also be a number that is 3 digits instead of 2?

    120 or 125 should be the minimum, not 100.

    This game illustrates it. Even if you're absolutely PERFECT, it takes 125 pitches to finish a game.

    Oh, and here is a picture of Matt Cain's wife after the game.

    attachment

    MSU FOOTBALL: Dominating Press Conferences Since 2007

    Fingercuffs ●

  • Fingercuffs said...

    Matt Cain throws a perfect game, and it takes 125 pitches.

    No hits, no walks, no errors and it takes 125 pitches to finish.

    He had 14 strikeouts.

    It takes a few extra pitches to dominate when you're striking out a lot of people. Should we continue to punish pitchers who dominate by taking them out of the game early or just admit pitch counts are arbitrary and aren't based on any scientific evidence?

    100 pitches has become a benchmark just because it's 3 digits instead of 2. That's true. Isn't it kind of a coincidence that 100 pitches is the goal and it just happens to also be a number that is 3 digits instead of 2?

    120 or 125 should be the minimum, not 100.

    This game illustrates it. Even if you're absolutely PERFECT, it takes 125 pitches to finish a game.

    Oh, and here is a picture of Matt Cain's wife after the game.

    He threw 39 balls. In JV's 1 walk no-hitter last year, he threw 108 pitches. In his 12 K 4 BB no-hitter he threw 112 pitches. 120 pitches is not normal for most pitchers.

    F Michigan

    AASpartan

  • Depends who the pitcher is. Veterans like Cain and JV who throw 200 innings every year without fail should simply be asked if they can keep going. Pitch counts are generally overrated when it comes to MLB starters who have been in the show for a few years.

    svenski84 ●

  • I have a bigger issue with those who obsessively talk about driving up pitch counts by taking pitches, especially against good pitchers. With good pitchers, you have to hit the best pitch, whenever it shows up.

    Anyone. Anyplace. Anytime.

    rookmsu ●

  • Pussies.

    Signed,
    Mickey Lolich

    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

    tGreenWay ●

  • Fingercuffs said...

    Matt Cain throws a perfect game, and it takes 125 pitches.

    No hits, no walks, no errors and it takes 125 pitches to finish.

    He had 14 strikeouts.

    It takes a few extra pitches to dominate when you're striking out a lot of people. Should we continue to punish pitchers who dominate by taking them out of the game early or just admit pitch counts are arbitrary and aren't based on any scientific evidence?

    100 pitches has become a benchmark just because it's 3 digits instead of 2. That's true. Isn't it kind of a coincidence that 100 pitches is the goal and it just happens to also be a number that is 3 digits instead of 2?

    120 or 125 should be the minimum, not 100.

    This game illustrates it. Even if you're absolutely PERFECT, it takes 125 pitches to finish a game.

    Oh, and here is a picture of Matt Cain's wife after the game.

    When Buehrle threw his perfect game a couple years ago he only threw 88 pitches.

    Calmer than you are

    Mister Green

  • So instead of obsessing about a 100 pitch count, you want to obsess about a 120 pitch count. You're still obsessing about pitch count.

    Spartan Punk

  • Wake me up when somebody hits 200 pitches again. Nolan Ryan could do it -- 259 pitches in a game. Hell, some guys threw over 300 pitches back in the day. whoa

    signature image

    Giant Moose ●

  • Not a pitch count, but innings count issue is going to be a big story in DC this year. RE: Strasburg.

    According to Quick Pitch this morning, If the Nats adhere to their preseason hard innings count for Strasburg, he'll be shut down with about 24 regular season games left and potentially the playoffs...

    What will they do?

    signature image

    RPMadMSU ●

  • Spartan Punk said...

    So instead of obsessing about a 100 pitch count, you want to obsess about a 120 pitch count. You're still obsessing about pitch count.

    No obsession at all. You simply don't even worry about pitch count until a guy reaches 120, then you evaluate the situation.

    Most guys will be out of the game by then anyway.

    We need to get back to evaluating a pitcher by the score and situation, not pitch count.

    I understand you need to monitor a pitcher, but 100 is just the wrong barometer for it and there are no studies that 100 pitches is anything but just an arbitrary number that people recognize just because it happens to be 3 digits instead of 2.

    MSU FOOTBALL: Dominating Press Conferences Since 2007

    Fingercuffs ●

  • I don't think pitch counts exist arbitrarily, if they did, we wouldn't see pitch counts decrease over the years. The way pitchers are used these days, most arms get tired when you get up over 100 pitches. If the data showed that they performed just as well on their 101st pitch, as their 1st pitch, they wouldn't be getting pulled.

    And while many pitchers could be conditioned to pitch well into the 100 range, they simply aren't utilized that way. The same way someone who runs 10k's could probably do a half marathon, if they aren't training for it, they won't perform as well as they could otherwise.

    Batters have so much technology at their disposal these days to study pitchers (and vice versa). Every pitcher has a unique style of pitching, and the more familiar batters become with it, the better they do. Long and middle relievers not only bring a fresh arm, they bring a new challenge for the batter to face. A slight disruption like that can easily be the difference between a pop up out and a home run.

    Rodeo Burger

  • tGreenWay said...

    Pussies.

    Signed, Mickey Lolich

    and nearly every pitcher before 1995.

    Nommad

  • On the professional level, yes. You can't let 15,16,17 year-olds throw 120 pitches.

    This post was edited by Spartan8Ball on 6/14/2012 at 12:37 PM

    signature image

    Spartan8Ball

  • Teams "obsess" about pitch counts for good reasons. MLB pitchers are expensive investments.

    On top of that, is some middle-of-the-rotation starter better by the time pitch 120 rolls around than a reliever that can go out and give 100% for 20 pitches? I don't have any numbers in front of me, but I'd wager that pitchers, generally speaking, become less effective after a certain number of pitches.

    Slippery People

  • So you're using a perfect game, something that has happened 22 times in baseball history, to prove a point about a nightly concern of managers? Nothing better to take an extreme & twist it to prove the average....

    The Only Colors

  • Fingercuffs said...

    No obsession at all. You simply don't even worry about pitch count until a guy reaches 120, then you evaluate the situation.

    Most guys will be out of the game by then anyway.

    We need to get back to evaluating a pitcher by the score and situation, not pitch count.

    I understand you need to monitor a pitcher, but 100 is just the wrong barometer for it and there are no studies that 100 pitches is anything but just an arbitrary number that people recognize just because it happens to be 3 digits instead of 2.

    Right now, managers usually let a pitcher get to around 100 pitches then evaluate the situation. So now you want to change it from 100 to 120 because you think everyone else thinks it only 100 because it's a 3 digit number.

    So, yes, you want to change from obsessing about pitch count from 100 to 120.

    Spartan Punk

  • The pitcher that probably disregarded pitch counts the most was a Spartan. Robin Roberts.

    Here is a list of Complete Games pitched over a 4 year span in his career:

    1952: 30
    1953: 33
    1954: 29
    1955: 26

    Roy Halladay has led the majors the last 5 years in Complete Games (has yet to crack double digits).

    GO GREEN!

    sparty06

  • Cook Daddy ●

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports