Dylan Fosnacht throws 194 pitches

[Mitch Rapp]

No, and I'll say no again, I did not paraphrase most coaches using common sense. I'll repeat it, I was talking about MLB managers and pitching coaches. None of them, not some, gave a hoot about pitch counts in the 70's. I'll ask you again. Did we see more arm injuries in the 70's, or do we see more arm injuries now?

Odd answer considering that the topic was high school pitching. If you think that there are fewer injuries now than there were in the 70s, then why don't you support your opinion with stats? It's not my job to validate your opinion with facts.

[LRCW]

Odd answer considering that the topic was high school pitching. If you think that there are fewer injuries now than there were in the 70s, then why don't you support your opinion with stats? It's not my job to validate your opinion with facts.

Not an opinion at all. Pitchers threw more pitches in the 70's, and there were far less pitchers going on the DL or having season ending surgeries. Those are the Coors Cold Hard Facts.

[Mitch Rapp]

Not an opinion at all. Pitchers threw more pitches in the 70's, and there were far less pitchers going on the DL or having season ending surgeries. Those are the Coors Cold Hard Facts.

You are entitled to your opinion and I don't care enough to research the issue myself.

 

I know that there are far fewer career-ending injuries today than there were then because of advances in surgical technology. I also know that there were far fewer MLB teams and far fewer pitchers during the 70s. It would take considerable work to work out the frequency of injuries on a some common statistical basis for comparison - but it sounds like you must have already crunched those numbers.

[LRCW]

You are entitled to your opinion and I don't care enough to research the issue myself.

 

I know that there are far fewer career-ending injuries today than there were then because of advances in surgical technology. I also know that there were far fewer MLB teams and far fewer pitchers during the 70s. It would take considerable work to work out the frequency of injuries on a some common statistical basis for comparison - but it sounds like you must have already crunched those numbers.

The only thing I usually crunch is food.

[Mitch Rapp]

The only thing I usually crunch is food.

I expected that was the case but I was trying to be polite.

[Lawnboy13]

Show me the data that shows that throwing a high amount of pitches leads to arm injuries. Do we see more arm and elbow injuries today with pitchers that are babied, or more injuries from back in the 70's when there was no such thing as a pitch count?

 

Back in the early years of Major League baseball pitchers would throw back to back games, go the distance in a 15 or 16 inning marathon, throw a complete game one night and come in relief the next, etc......

 

Bottomline----back in the day and up until the mid 70's it was a whole different approach to the craft, and you never heard of any pitcher breaking down because of excessive innings pitched. What is lacking today is pitchers building true arm strength, add in the fact that "specialization" with middle relievers and closers has entered the mix, and you have what we have today.

 

My best friend from grade school and high school is the former Head Trainer for an American League team, and is in the same capacity now with a National League team, and he says the same thing, pitchers today don't have the arm strength or the one's that do are "babied", of course he said he would never go on record with this.

 

Hell, when I was in grade school & high school it would be nothing for me to throw close to 200 pitches EVERYDAY playing strikeout against the wall at Bellevue Stadium in the summer, and never had a problem one with my "cannon". 75 MPH of pure heat. :lol2:

[Lawnboy13]

Please merge threads.

 

http://bluegrasspreps.com/controversial-issues/dylan-fosnacht-throws-277918.html

[rjs4470]

Lets not pretend that pitching injuries are a recent thing. While guys threw many more innings in the old days, you can go through the history books and find plenty of names that had a couple of big years and then were never effective again, and quickly out of the league. Mark Fidrych, Jon Matlock, Don Gullet, even the great Sandy Koufax. You can't just say pitchers never broke down back then. And to even bring up guys from the early days, say 1900-1950 is pointless. It was a completely different era. Higher mounds, big ballparks, and comparatively weak lineups (most teams only had a couple of really good hitters and most teams had more than a few guys that were terrible hitters), it was an easier era to pitch. Also during these times, there was no surgery, and with large farm systems, pitchers tried pitching through injuries in fear of losing their spot. I'm willing to bet, many injuries, went undiagnosed (no MRI's etc) and therefore went unreported/undocumented. You also have to consider sheer numbers. 32 teams now, each carrying 12-13 pitchers equates to about 400 pitchers. Back in the old days, 16 teams each carrying 9-10 pitchers is only about 150 pitchers in baseball. If each era had a 10% injury rate (a purely made up number....just trying to simplify the model), you've got 40 injured pitchers vs 15. While it seems like it's more than twice as many, statistically it's not much different.

[stickymitts]

I have to say this post and those who like it cause me to question their judgment in future posts on baseball. I know everyone is entitled to an opinion but how can anyone think this is ok?

 

Haha. Obviously 194 is absurd. Shouldn't happen.

 

However, I do get tired of hearing people get worried when a pitcher hits 100 pitches and I do think pitch counts are overrated.

[Voice of Reason]

Haha. Obviously 194 is absurd. Shouldn't happen.

 

However, I do get tired of hearing people get worried when a pitcher hits 100 pitches and I do think pitch counts are overrated.

 

Whew. OK. I can roll with you on that to a certain degree. It isn't 100% just the pitch count. Other factors come into play like what pitches are being thrown, bad innings in the outing (25+ pitch innings are bad), mechanics of the pitcher, how many pitches were thrown in the most recent outings, number of days since last outing, etc.

[stickymitts]

Whew. OK. I can roll with you on that to a certain degree. It isn't 100% just the pitch count. Other factors come into play like what pitches are being thrown, bad innings in the outing (25+ pitch innings are bad), mechanics of the pitcher, how many pitches were thrown in the most recent outings, number of days since last outing, etc.

 

Of course. That's what I hate the "He threw 100!" crowd. Some guys mechanics break down at 65. Others don't break down until well over 100. Days rest prior. Days rest after. Is it warm? Cold? So many factors. Everyone is different.

 

I hate limits being set on anyone after the early season work has been completed.