Monitoring the workload of starting pitchers – especially younger ones – is a pretty touchy subject among baseball fans.

Does Innings really matter when a pitchers Total Pitch Count is low?

On one side of the fence sits the old school, advocating complete games and increased innings as a way for pitchers to maintain arm strength and stay in baseball shape. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that pitchers regularly completed 10 starts a season, had multiple 150-pitch games. … and walked 10 miles barefoot in the snow every day to school. If today’s players are bigger, stronger, faster and better-conditioned as we are led to believe, they should be able to pitch at a higher level and for longer, the argument goes.

On the other side are the cautious and careful, those who feel that strict limits on pitch counts protect pitchers from overuse injuries and extend their careers. Even youth baseball organizations such as Little League and Babe Ruth have instituted pitch count limitations to protect youngsters from overworked arms and elbow problems.

Much of the analysis that you’ll find about pitcher durability looks at innings pitched as a primary approximation for the amount of work. And while innings pitched is certainly a valid proxy for a pitchers' annual workload, it may not be the strongest statistical measure.

All innings are not created equal. Ultimately, an inning represents three recorded outs, not a set number of pitches. On one hand, an inning could take as little as three pitches. Three groundouts. Three fly outs. Three HBP and three pick-offs. On the other hand, an inning could go on forever, eating up an unlimited number of pitches. Some innings may take as much 40-50 pitches if a pitcher is walking a lot of batter, going deep into several counts or just giving up a lot of hits and runs.

So, how can we standardize innings and pitch counts to compare starting pitchers on a level plating field?

With a PPI, or pitches per inning measurement. Blessed with an uncanny ability to divide positive integers, I give the fantasy baseball world this statistical gem.

It's simply a ratio involving the total number of pitches divided by a pitcher's total number of innings. For simplicity, we'll call it PPI, or pitches per inning.

Let’s get to work with some simple math.

Here are the top five innings eaters from last season --

1. CC Sabathia (241 IP, 14.86 PPI)

2. Brandon Webb (236.3 IP, 14.56 PPI)

3. Aaron Harang (231.7 IP, 15.50 PPI)

4. Joe Blanton (230 IP, 15.14 PPI)

5. Roy Halladay (225.3 IP, 14.78 PPI)

Now, here are the pitchers that threw the most pitches last season.

1. Carlos Zambrano (3689 pitches in 216.3 IP)

2. Jake Peavy (3610 pitches in 222.3 IP)

3. Scott Kazmir (3609 pitches in 206.7 IP)

4. Aaron Harang (3590 pitches in 231.7 IP)

5. CC Sabathia (3581 pitches in 241 IP)

6. Gil Meche (3578 pitches in 216 IP)

7. Dontrelle Willis (3491 picthes in 205.3 IP)

8. Miguel Batista (3485 pitches in 193 IP)

9. Daisuke Matsuzaka (3479 pitches in 204.7 IP)

Except for Sabathia and Harang, the pitchers with the most pitches are not the same ones with the most innings pitched. This suggests that some pitchers consistently do more (or less) with the same number of pitches. Keep on an eye on some of these workhorses this year, especially the top five.

Let's dig a little deeper into the 2007 stats here.

So who are the most efficient pitchers based on this exciting new metric? For purpose of analysis, I have included the top 50 pitchers in terms of innings pitched, from CC Sabathia (241 IP) to Paul Byrd (192.3 IP).

Tim Hudson (14.11 PPI)

Chien-Ming Wang (14.35 PPI)

Brandon Webb (14.56 PPI)

Fausto Carmona (14.59 PPI)

James Shields (14.78 PPI)

Roy Halladay (14.78 PPI)

John Smoltz (14.81 PPI)

CC Sabathia (14.86 PPI)

If you have one of these guys on your team, you’re probably in good shape. These guys excel using an economy of pitches and make the most out of their innings.

Now, for the “least efficient” pitchers …

Miguel Batista (18.01 PPI)

Scott Kazmir (17.46 PPI)

Daniel Cabrera (17.44 PPI)

Doug Davis (17.42 PPI)

Barry Zito (17.25 PPI)

Carlos Zambrano (17.05 PPI)

Daisuke Matsuzaka (16.99 PPI)

Jarrod Washburn (16.89 PPI)

Matt Cain (16.76 PPI)

Of this group, only Kazmir has been in the news with reported arm problems, though he appears OK for the immediate future.

Now, a high PPI doesn't always mean that a pitcher is wasteful with his pitches, although most of the hurlers on this list served up at least 80 bases on balls last season. A pitcher with a weak defense behind him may have to face more batters per inning to get three outs. In a similar vein, many pitchers are willing to throw an extra pitch or two during a given at-bat rather than give in to a hitter. They’d rather nibble around the plate, take a walk and face another batter than to give a dangerous hitter a ball to drive.

At the end of the day though, an extra pitch is an extra pitch. And though the spread between the top PPI pitchers and the bottom ones is only 2-3 pitches per inning, the numbers add up. Over the course of the season, that might lead to a 400-500 pitch difference for the season. Watch the early-season numbers for Kazmir, Zambrano, Matsuzaka and Cain, as they are likely to be drafted among the top 30 starting pitchers in most leagues.

For those with a nose for statistics, seek out some pitch count-inspired sabermetrics to amplify your analysis. One of the more interesting statistical studies belongs to seam heads Rany Jazayerli and Keith Woolner of Baseball Prospectus, who use a system they call Pitcher Abuse Points.

"It's not the number of pitches thrown that gets guys into trouble -- it's the number of pitches thrown tired," Jazayerli said in a 2004 ESPN.com article.Woolner and Jazayerli avoid looking exclusively at average pitches per start -- which would hide 130-pitch outings if they were followed by 70-pitch ones. Pitcher Abuse Points assigns a quickly increasing number to each pitch count above 100. (For example, a start of 110 pitches gets 1000, 120 pitches 8000, and so on. This type of measurement attempts to approximate the marginal negative effect of each subsequent pitch beyond a certain “safe” pitch count. Last year's top six in Pitcher Abuse Points per start were Daisuke Matsuzaka, Carlos Zambrano, AJ Burnett, Roy Halladay, Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo).

What makes their system significant is that Jazayerli and Woolner discovered a correlation between starts above 100 pitches, particularly those above 120, and both decreased short-term effectiveness and increased chance of long-term serious injury.

Does a high pitch count automatically spell arm trouble? No. Not always. And a low pitch count does not always protect a pitcher from wear and tear. Some pitchers just have more durable arms and can withstand higher pitch counts. But at the very least, it is a contributing factor and would serve fantasy owners to take note of pitch counts and innings pitched in 2008.

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.

---