Post by Glenn Fleisig, Ph.D. on Feb 12, 2015 15:38:12 GMT -6
Hi scorekeeper. I reviewed your pdf. I applaud your efforts, however I can't follow your math. I think I can't follow because of the grammatical errors in the write-up. Perhaps you can proof-read and fix the English. Also, show some calculations (not just results). Furthermore, I don't understand if there is any theoretical basis or empirical evidence to support this equation. Finally, comparing your "total pitches" to ASMI recommended actual pitches is comparing apples to oranges. The ASMI recommendations were based upon actual pitch counts and injuries of 500 kids in our field studies. If you wanted to test your "total pitch" vs. injury risk, you would have to compute your "total pitch" counts for kids in a field study and statistically correlate those to which kids got hurt.
Hi scorekeeper. I reviewed your pdf. I applaud your efforts, however I can't follow your math.
No problem Glenn, I have a lot of trouble following it myself.
I think I can't follow because of the grammatical errors in the write-up. Perhaps you can proof-read and fix the English. Also, show some calculations (not just results).
The only thing I saw was where I said “rubber” when I meant “rubbed”. But I’m sure there are other things in there that I’m not seeing because I’m reading into it what I meant. But it’s no big deal because I’m sure you got the gist of it, and I’ll try to show the math.
Furthermore, I don't understand if there is any theoretical basis or empirical evidence to support this equation.
As of this moment, I’m not trying to base the equation on anything other than what makes common sense to me. Not that I wouldn’t like some empirical evidence, but where would anyone get it? As far as I know, I’m the only one in the country with data of much depth for the HS level, and even if I had access to ML data, I’m not quite sure how I or anyone else would go about proving the 30th pitch in an inning was any more dangerous because of fatigue than the 10th. Believe me, I’d love to be able to go to a table someone had worked out based on scientifically acquired and proven data, but I don’t know where it would be.
Finally, comparing your "total pitches" to ASMI recommended actual pitches is comparing apples to oranges. The ASMI recommendations were based upon actual pitch counts and injuries of 500 kids in our field studies. If you wanted to test your "total pitch" vs. injury risk, you would have to compute your "total pitch" counts for kids in a field study and statistically correlate those to which kids got hurt.
I don’t know that it’s quite apples and oranges, but I don’t believe I ever compared what I was doing to what you guys had done. I think you know how much I’ve always supported the use of pitch counts to limit pitchers, but I’ve always felt there was something missing, which is a big reason there’s been so much pushback.
From what I understand, when y’all did your study, it was done on pure pitch counts without regard to whether it was say 50 pitches over 6 innings or 50 pitches in 1 inning, and that’s where I and so many others have a problem. All I’ve attempted to do was to quantify it in such a way that the 50 pitches in 1 inning wasn’t treated the same as 50 over 6 innings because it simply isn’t the same.
I store the additional pitches calculated for each at bat with the at bat record. After each at bat, the 1st thing I do is get the total number of calculated addition pitches for the pitcher who threw the at bat from the database donating all the at bats for the game.
Then I calculate the total number of pitches by adding together the additional pitch total, the number of balls, missed strikes, fouled strikes, called strikes, and BIP strikes.
I use those numbers to calculate the additional pitches for the current at bat by dividing the pitches in the at bat by the total pitches, multiplying it by the inning, then subtracting it from 1.
If the pitch was the 4th pitch of the at bat and there were 7 total pitches in the 1st inning, it would look like this. (1- (3/7) * 1) = 0.4286 additional pitches for the at bat.
After that, a check is made to see whether there were runners on base, where they were, what the umpire’s count was, and how many outs there were. That gives a point total that’s used to modify the previously computed additional pitches.
Here’s the actual formula from the code.
NAPITSNRUNNERSH = NCURRADPITSH * (RUNNERPTS*.1)
If the umpire’s count was 3-1 and a runner was on 1st with no outs, it would look like this.
7 + 0.4286 + 0.2571 = 7.6858 total pitches. I see both the REAL total pitches and the Real total pitches plus the additional pitches and the runner factor.
Once more. I’m not trying to say this method should be used and the ASMI guidelines ignored! I’m saying to look at the finalized number, and use that one to take into the ASMI guidelines, which if anything would actually get the pitcher to some ASMI number more quickly.
SK: Assuming your calculations are correct, what conclusions can you draw? How would this help the average youth coach and the parents of pitchers? Do you see any applicable value in the study or is it more of an academic exercise?
SK: Assuming your calculations are correct, what conclusions can you draw?
I’m not sure there are any conclusions to be drawn. I’m not doing anything that hasn’t been talked about by nearly every person that’s commented on pitch counts one way or the other. The fact is, as I understand them pitch count limit guidelines as proposed by ASMI don’t take in any consideration for rest during the game, amount of pitches between rest periods, or many other factors other than age. It’s too bad, but as you well know there are one devil of a lot of people who simply won’t accept them because they don’t take in any of those other factors.
It’s really unfortunate that rather than simply develop more pitches to reduce the workload of all, the need to win continues to put the best pitchers more at risk because they continue to get the highest workload. I’m afraid that will never change because there are so many who don’t know how to develop pitchers allowed to coach, not to mention the fact that developing pitchers just isn’t all that simple. Then there’s the 2 elephants in the room, velocity and size. As long as so many coaches are biased by those 2 things, the number of possible pitchers will always be artificially kept down, further compounding the problem.
How would this help the average youth coach and the parents of pitchers?
I know I’m not very well getting across what I’m thinking, but I don’t know how else to say it. All I’m trying to do is get a more accurate number to apply against the ASMI guidelines by taking into account what the best coaches do instinctively, when they concentrate on it. So, the way it would “help”, is by allowing some pitchers to pitch a little longer while getting others off the mound a little bit sooner.
Do you see any applicable value in the study or is it more of an academic exercise?
Well, since it isn’t really a “study” in the sense that I’m studying anything, I suppose there’s no applicable value in it. I think It’s safe to say that with the dearth of data out there to study, this is a topic that has no “real” resolution. Even the real study ASMI did only looked at a sample of 500 players. Think about that. Something so talked about is based on less than 0.01% of the players playing the game in any one year.
What I’m saying is, there’s still plenty of room for further discussion and study, but in the meantime it just might be possible to make the guidelines more meaningful. Heck Daque, if I were the baseball dictator, I’d mandate that no amateur pitcher ever be allowed to throw more than 1 inning or 40 pitches because there’s no need for throwing more in a development environment, then there wouldn’t be any need for any studies or guidelines, but how far do you think that would go?
Since it’s a given that there will always be some coaches who “abuse/overuse” some pitchers, there will always be a need for limits of some kind. I’m pretty sure there’s been enough written about how useless the inning guidelines are to know PCs are the direction everyone’s heading. If there’s a way to get any amateur organization off of innings and into PCs ASAP, I’m for it, and I don’t care who comes up with it!
SK: You stated, in part, "but as you well know there are one devil of a lot of people who simply won’t accept them because they don’t take in any of those other factors."
What I do know is that this position is an excuse to continue doing what they want.
In the end, how much and how fast enlightenment or progress takes place, always comes down to resistance to change. The lower the resistance, the more rapidly there can be advancements. One of the major sources of resistance comes from people who have a very high feeling of “not invented here”. IOW, unless they think of something, they give it very little value.
That’s one reason why all I’m advocating is something that make sense to as wide a range of philosophies as possible. As I’ve said before, I don’t know of anyone who wouldn’t agree that throwing 30 pitches for two innings is more fatiguing than throwing 15 for 4.