The ONLY thing that should determine when a pitcher comes out of a game is his performance in the game. You can tell when a pitcher is tiring..he can't hit his spots and he can't keep the ball down in the strike zone.
If a pitcher is cruising along, why in the world do you want to take him out of the game just because he has thrown 100 pitches? If it's not broken, don't fix it!
As for inning limits, that's crazy, too. The Nationals shut down Stephan Strausburg last year when he was perfectly healthy and their best pitcher. They may have cost themselves a World Series championship by not fielding their best team. (isn't that why you play the game, to win championships?)
Now this year they have discovered that making the playoffs and going for the championship is not guaranteed every year and when you DO have a chance, you do EVERYTHING you can to grab the prize.
I do have to agree with you that some of these limits seem very arbitrary (especially the 100 pitch count). I think that's just become convention nowadays. As for the innings limits, I think there must be some studies or some inside knowledge that GMs have on this stuff that we don't. Teams have a lot invested in guys like Strasburg or Harvey so it is their job to protect their asset the best they can. So I wouldn't definitively say "there's no proof", because I don't think they would be doing it otherwise.
What do you mean do I believe in it?
As another user said, the manager is trying to reduce the risk of injury to one of the most valuable players to his team.
And of course there is no proof that once pitching x number of innings represents a redline after which Tommy John surgery will be necessary. That's guesswork and everyone knows it. There are people who are paid millions of dollars, spend 40, 50, 60 hours a week analyzing just these kind of questions.
Pitch and inning counting didn't come in vogue until the late 80s or early 90s as I recall, but the game has changed since then.
I don't believe in innings limits at all.
I don't like strict pitch count limits either. But I am OK with keeping track of number of pitches just so you know how much work the pitcher puts in and so you don't work him too much. I don't think it should be strict though. Like if a starting pitcher has thrown 120 pitches already but is in the 9th inning and doing pretty good, have somebody warmed up in the bullpen but leave the starter in, give him a chance for a complete game. Don't pull him only because of pitch count, just keep number of pitches thrown in the back of your mind for if he starts to get in trouble to know that he should be pulled, but if he doesn't get in trouble leave him in the game.
Good question and I agree! The strasburg situation was stupid. He's the youngest and most fit he's ever gunna be so why take innings away from him?? Putting so much stock into pitch count and innings is overrated, but you DO need to monitor certain players in particular situations.
As you say some can and some can't handle it. The point is these guys make a ton of guaranteed money. So they err on the side of caution with them.
I don't believe in pitch counts, but It's used for precaution/safety reasons.
I think its just risk management, I don't like it as a fan but I completly understand it from a managerial decision.
No.
no
Not saying a pitcher should throw 250 pitches in one game or go 500 innings in a season.
Just stuff like last year with Stephen Strasburg.
Mike Rizzo- He's only going 170 innings then he's done.
Why 170 innings? why that number?
There's no proof of any kind that says after TOMMY JOHN you can only throw 170 innings that year.
It also with pitch courts. OMG 100 pitches take him out he's going to get hurt. I understand that you don't want to hurt him but everyone is different some guys can throw around throw 130 pitches and be fine.
