Posted by David Wade on Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 9:52 pm

My last piece looked at Baseball Prospectus’ Pitcher Abuse Points and how they correlate to slight declines in pitching performance in the weeks following a ‘high score’ outing. In this installment, I want to summarize what Keith Woolner wrote in his work “Analyzing PAPII”, which looks at potential injury risks associated with high PAP^3 numbers. 

Woolner’s study in the second article examined starting pitchers who missed at least 30 days due to a first-time career incident of arm injury. He chose a ten year period running from 1988 – 1998 and found 73 such cases. He then selected pitchers who had amassed similar career workloads (total innings pitched within 10% of the first group) at the same age who had not fallen victim to arm injuries of at least that length. Looking at those two groups together, he found that those with career PAP^3 numbers that lie above the average of both groups of pitchers were three times more likely to have been injured than those falling below that average.

As with his first article, Woolner acknowledges some shortcomings with this examination. Among other things, this study did not look at minor league pitchers or pitchers sorted in any way by age. However, his analysis led him to conclude, rather convincingly, that PAP^3 is at the very least, better than straight pitch counts as a tool to monitor a pitcher’s workload. I agree with the authors that it could be used to try and keep arms under a threshold that could lead to falloff in productivity, or worse, injury to the pitcher.

As I wrote in an earlier installment, not everyone is down with this pitch count thing.  For example, a couple of articles from hardballtimes.com question PAP and pitch counts in general and are well-written representations of the other side of the coin. They are found here and here.  One of the main counterpoints to pitch counts is that we’ve not seen a great reduction in injuries in the past decade or so, when pitchers really started throwing fewer pitches per start.  (Basically, starting around 1989, pitchers have since totaled in a season on average far fewer pitches than in any other era, according to the research in the linked articles.)  They also found that in the midst of the disco craze of the 1970s, the best pitchers threw enormous numbers of innings, leading the author to point out that guys weren’t dropping like flies then.  This, despite the high pitch counts that must have accompanied the heavy work load of pitchers from that era that often went well into 300 IP per year.

Another point, backed by no less than Bill James in his and Rob Neyer’s Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers, is that age is a huge factor in how we try to measure the effect of pitch counts. Even staunch opponents of strict pitch count monitoring concede that younger pitchers should be brought along with care.  As I wrote above, Woolner agreed with this when he wrote- “…a pitcher’s age may be of considerable importance when assessing the risks of specific pitch count limits, but was not included in this study.”  Maybe some day someone will get around to a study like that, but the point remains that if you are willing to concede that younger pitchers should be monitored in some manner, it only seems logical that a tool such as PAP^3 would be useful at least as a way to make sure we’re really watching it when a young pitcher is in a high-pitch outing. 

In looking at criticisms of pitch count monitoring, one piece of anecdotal evidence James and others use when deriding pitch counts is that of resistance exercise.  Why, they wonder, if the human body grows stronger and more resistant to injury when pushed to its limit in a gym is pitching any different? 

I.E., you’re not going to bench 300 if you never fail, try again and again, and ultimately pass 275.  And you’re never going to be able to throw 150 pitches in a game if you never throw more than 100.  Something like that. 

I would use my own testimonial evidence as an admitted gym rat to counter that point by saying proper resistance training at no time puts a joint in such a compromised position as that of an overhand throw.  Plus, when in the gym, the primary goal is muscle growth.  In pitchers, the primary injuries are not in the muscles, but in the ligaments and tendons that attach them to the rest of the body.  Strength training probably helps tendons and ligaments as well, but again, it’s in a controlled and slow motion that has nothing in common with rotating that shoulder joint at speeds faster than found in any other sport.

So, while we probably won’t ever be able to stop pitchers from ever getting injured, I think it’s too early to pull the plug on something like PAP as a tool to help make sure pitchers aren’t overworked.

Now, I’ll leave you with an intro to one more piece before I put on the black robe and judge Mr. Baker. 

That next piece would be the results of my interview with Keith Vorhoff of the University of Kentucky baseball coaching staff.  After going over his thoughts as a way to see how someone in the coaching field feels about keeping pitchers healthy, I’ll finally sum up this whole thing and see how I feel about Harang’s second half of the season. 

It’s looking like I’m headed toward a surprising conclusion.