Pitch Counts: Good or Bad Thing For Pitchers?
| 12
|
by user Niteowl049
Don't know exactly when it became the thing to do to remove pitchers from games when they exceeded the 100 pitch mark but am wondering if it is helping or hurting pitchers to be removed so soon. Statistically it is hurting pitchers preventing pitchers from finishing games they were winning and sometimes costing them wins when shoddy bullpen work turns a win into a loss. It also may prevent pitchers from having 300 strikeouts in a season and may have something to do with no pitcher winning 20 games last season.
It may make it harder to win 300 games in a career and reduce number of high strikeout games since strikeout pitchers make more pitches to get strikeouts. Managers can't be blamed since the front office doesn't want a high salaried pitcher making 120-130 pitches in a game worried that it may be too much stress on their arm.
Would like to know the pitch counts back in the 1940's when pitchers were expected to finish a game and told that by managers. Some pitching coaches like Leo Mazzone think more throwing is better for the arm but that must be a minority view because it is an unspoken rule that pitchers come out of the game after 100 pitches.
Pitch counts are making it impossible to compare complete games and shutout records of pitchers today with other eras because they pitched deeper into games back then. For instance, Bert Blyleven who finished his career in 1992 had 60 shutouts. is 8th on alltime list. Among active pitchers today Roger Clemens leads in shutouts with 46 with Randy Johnson next with 37 shutouts. At their age neither is expected pitch a complete game so have little or no chance of pitching a shutout.
