If they injured their elbow or shoulder their career was over and you most likely never heard about them to begin with. Or they were like Koufax, Fidrych, Herb Score or Dean Chance and had to shut it down in their prime when modern surgery could have prolonged their careers.
Correct. And then you have the "freaks" who can seemingly throw forever, and never have any sort of serious arm/shoulder trouble.... like Nolan, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens. Overall, as humans, we're not meant to throw overhand with this sort of force... and we haven't evolved or "mutated" to become less prone to injuries (but we are better at "fixing" them).
Hmmm. Actually, many do debate it: ""And what have pitch counts done?" one trainer asked. "What is the reason you do pitch counts? To protect the pitcher's arm. The DL will tell you it has not protected the pitcher's arm." His point: It's not science, not yet, not as long as a study or a hypothesis that has been replicated outside of a laboratory continues to elude those in charge of the game. For every idea that seems to have merit – Sports Illustrated writer Tom Verducci, for example, claims that young pitchers who increase their inning load by more than 30 become an injury risk – there is a perfectly reasonable argument against it. In Verducci's case, it's this: Of course young pitchers run a risk of getting injured. They're young pitchers. Their injury rate is already 50 percent. Correlation is not causation." http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/sto...ings-limits-pitcher-injuries-study-tommy-john http://sports.yahoo.com/news/stephe...mmy-john-surgery-scott-boras-mike-rizzo-.html
I can just as easily say that being a human and throwing a ball overhand is putting somebody at risk of future surgery... yes, its not science. I can also say that younger arms do heal faster/better when injuries that are diagnosed earlier/quicker... so if you do take overall precautions with younger arms, even if they need surgery, you're likely to extend their careers.
Very intriguing (hat tip to Ashby). I've always described command vs. control as command means getting the pitch to do what you want, and control as getting the pitch to go where you want. That's the first time I can recall hearing McCullers described as having great control, at least on a season-long, consistent level. I have noticed his propensity for foul balls: he gets a ton more foul balls than swinging strikes, and a ton more strikes looking than swinging.
I can understand how HGH could play a factor in this, but steroids? As I understand it, steroid use would actually lead to more, not fewer, ligament/tendon injuries as the muscles are beefed up to a level that the soft tissue is not equipped to withstand.
It would depend on what steroid and how they were using it, though, right? I admittedly don't know ANY of the science but... I doubt Mark McGwire's PED cycle looks anything like Lance Armstrong's. But they were both using PEDs. Steroids is often used as an all-encompassing term; like Coke. But I don't believe it's that simple.
In sports, anabolic steroids are all basically testosterone precursors... you also have steroids that decrease inflammation. But for the most part, the "abuse" of steroids involves the former... and you would have a possibility of increasing muscle mass beyond what the ligaments can handle, as it pertains to pitchers. HGH and anti-inflammatory abuse would likely assist pitchers more in terms of cutting down on soreness, allowing for more innings to be pitched, but if you believe that arms/ligaments have a shelf life like any car engine or house appliance... I don't think this would "prevent" structural damage like tears or strains (but it could "mask" the pain and inflammation that normally occurs with an injury, which could delay a diagnosis or make an injury more severe).
I think you just boiled down the argument here, but only presented one side. In other words, some say that pitchers who are genetically predisposed to get hurt are going to get hurt no matter how many innings they pitch, so why put a limit on the innings? With the surgeries and medical procedures now available, those pitchers will be able to be patched up and pitching again, and their careers should last as long as those who do not have the injuries. I'm curious as to where Luhnow stands on this. I haven't heard him say anything about limiting innings for McCullers or VV, but maybe I missed it.
Despite that, I believe a pitcher is still more likely to get "hurt" when his arm is fatigued/going above/beyond what the structural ligament can handle at that given moment. There's also the facet that if a pitcher has a dead arm, or is simply fatigued by the work load, you're going to see diminishing results on the field as is... thus some inning restrictions take this into account rather than simply "preventing injury". Rest, allowing the arm to recover, avoiding over-taxing, etc. still has a role in preventing injury... but I agree that some injuries are unavoidable regardless of the workload.
Has anyone heard Luhnow (or Hinch) comment on how they'll handle McCullers come Aug/Sept as the innings build up? If not I'd certainly be curious as to what they might have to say on this subject. If they're going to shut him down then that would leave them with: Keuchel McHugh Feldman Ober *would think they'd shut down VV as well. As it's been discussed they'll more than likely make a trade for another starter. I think they'll have to make a move as I feel pretty confident that the Angels & Rangers will both make moves.
http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastro...-velasquez-innings-take-forefront/#33915101=0 “Jeff and I have talked about it,” Boras said of McCullers’ and Velasquez’s potential workloads. “It’s valuable to have a manager (in Hinch) who’s a catcher who also has been in development because these conversations are all mapped out, and they’ve got a good focus on what they’re going to do to make sure that their inauguration in the league, I think, is very controlled. And the great thing is these guys are at an age that’s (not so) young that’s going to affect their long term durability, where they’re going to throw a lot of innings before they’re 24.” A switch to the bullpen later this season, temporarily, for one or even both pitchers could be the answer. Typically, the Astros would like to see a pitcher who has reached at least 100 innings increase their workload 30 percent the next year, but that’s just a general rule of thumb for minor leaguers. McCullers, 21, threw 103 innings last year between the regular season and playoffs. Velasquez, 23, threw 89 2/3 innings between the regular season, playoffs and Arizona Fall League. “A.J. and I have talked about it a little bit, just as far as they’re going to use my bullets in the way they want to and make sure that when I’m going out there it’s (keeping in mind a goal) to pitch down the road, to pitch many years here,” McCullers said. “I’m going to be pretty reluctant if anything is brought up. … I think the more you try to pitch to pitch count, the more you try to pitch to innings limit, the worse you’re going to be. You just got to go and let the mind be free and let the body do what it can do for as long as the other team will allow you to.”
Seems like a 6-man rotation could be a simple solution to keep people engaged while cutting back innings, especially if there's already a discussion of what to do when Feldman gets back. Either that, or give VV and LM each take a few weeks off in the middle of the season. Or if VV can't go many innings consistently anyway, you could tandem them so one pitches 5-6 innings and the other pitches 3-4 each turn through the rotation. Bullpen seems like a terrible solution for LM, and I'd hate to get to the playoffs and have to either shut them down or have the team/players pressured to take risks they don't want to take.
As long as Keuchel (and if he continues his recent good starts - McHugh) remain on a 5 man rotation schedule, this would be a reasonable solution.
I like the option to move them to the bullpen, all while keeping a 5 man rotation and alternating that 5th start with VV or LMc. Wasnt he projected to be a future closer anyway when he was drafted? If fields can dominate out of the pen with almost nothing but fastballs, then so could LMc. Not saying he should be our closer but he would be viable out of the pen to keep his arm active.
I was thinking the same thing. Am I the only one, btw, bothered by the fact Boras is being engaged? If I were Luhnow, and Boras called me to talk about pitchers' workloads, I'd tell him to blank off. (Or could they smartly be engaging him in order to build a better relationship, with no actual intent to listen to anything he has to say?)
If the Astros institute a 6-man rotation, will they remove a guy from the bully or a position player?
