Pitch counts in softball?

[riseball]

Maybe it is time to quit feeding the troll.

 

[dbronstein]

No, it's math - statistics, actually. And 50% isn't even realistic. Let's say that we fund a study that in 10 years gives us useful data on youth pitch counts and overuse injury. We then take the mean pitch count by age and say "That's the limit." We've only really helped 34% of the girls - those whose non-injury limits fall within 1SD below the mean. Girls >2SD below the mean who pitch to the limit (mean) are at much greater risk, and any girls who fall to the right of (above) the mean aren't being protected at all because they're not at risk.

Look, I'm making a lot of assumptions because we have no data at all. I'm using a normal distribution and talking about standard deviations without knowing anything about the variances. The point is that no matter where you draw that line, you aren't even protecting a majority of the girls.

Jumping in out of nowhere Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. First, all of the girls who are above the mean will be protected. They would be limited to a pitchcount below their injury threshold, therefore they are protected. They would be leaving pitches on the table, but they would still be protected from going over their thresholds. Second, all of the girls who are below the mean will be protected. Yes, the limit would be above their injury threshold so they would be at-risk if they pitched up to the limit, but the limit would still protect them from further injury risk.

I think you're making an assumption that without pitchcount limits, all pitchers will pitch up to their injury threshold and be removed by good, concerned coaches, and if a limit is implemented, coaches will just leave all pitchers in up to the pitchcount. Of course reality is without a limit, many coaches will ride pitchers as much as they can without regard for where their threshold is.

Even with pitchcount limits, you would still end up with the same issue as baseball - players playing on multiple teams with no coordination between the coaches on how much the kids are pitching.

The other argument that I am skeptical of is "if pitchers are limited to pitchcounts (or innings), then there won't be enough pitchers." It's a chicken/egg thing - do teams only have 2 or 3 pitchers because that's all there are to go around, or are there only that many pitchers because girls give it up because they know they won't get a chance to pitch much if they aren't a 1 or 2? How many times have people posted here "if your DD isn't going to be a 1 or 2, then you need to find another team"? So of course teams are only going to have 2 pitchers.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Jail? LMAO I don't think the "overall benefits" justify your pipe dream since they could be achieved easier with education.

I don’t know why you believe jail would ever be considered as a punishment. I too would like to see more education, but my guess is the threat of losing a year of being able to pitch would be illicit much more rapid response.

OSKs are typically coaches and parents. Relying on people unfamiliar with the players and would result in errors. There are also "informal games" without an OSK and/or sanctioned umpires.

You really don’t want to think at all outside of the box, do you? When we set up a reporting system for our league, we simply had the 2 scorers turn in what they had for pitch counts to the umpire. If there was a minor difference, the higher number was used. If there was a significant difference, and that was left to the umpire, he’d ask for both scorers to recount. That system was in place for the 2 seasons I was the league official scorer and we never had a difference of more than 4 after a recount. It wasn’t perfect, but as time went on and everyone got used to knowing it was important, the counts got closer and closer.

If there’s an “informal game” there could still be the ability to turn in the PCs if that’s what was decided by the “powers to be”.

Of course I do. I merely answered your irrelevant question about BB PC recommendations.

Why was my question irrelevant but yours somehow relevant?

Mandates are bad when done without sufficient understanding and/or proper structure. Education is the end goal and it yields voluntary adherence to reasonable practices. Mandates without education face an unending battle to get involuntary compliance with questionable standards.

You keep saying education is the goal and I wholeheartedly agree. But the education of literally millions of new people to the sport every year, plus getting everyone in the sport up to speed isn’t like turning on a light switch. Besides, education is like leading the horse to water. That’s the easy part. Forcing him to drink isn’t quite as easy. You’re assumption is no system will ever be better planned or implemented better than the 1st one.

Short-term limits have been set low enough to be safe if maxed out repetitively in a uniform schedule. TB teams have a mixed schedule with a combination of light weeks (e.g. 3-game friendly), major tournaments (6-9 full games) and even off weekends. A team could safely exceed short-term limits by 25-50% on a major event as long as they don't do it repetitively week after week.

Short-term limits should be set for that scope and longer-term limits should be established with broader scopes (e.g. season, year). Longer-term limits should also reinforce taking a break between seasons.

How the limits are determined or enforced make no difference to me at all because that’s a separate issue from having limits and reporting use.

 

[Scorekeeper]

… You cherry picked my words and then stated that my position was that all PC's exist solely for legal reasons. I never said that. You said that.

Please show me where I said your “position was that all PC's exist solely for legal reasons”. I can’t find it.

My major "bone of contention" is your mischaracterization of my position, period. How about trying a new approach: asking me what I think instead of trying to tell me what I think and looking foolish doing it?

As far as I can see, the only person looking foolish is you because you deny saying what you said, then trying to blame me for mischaracterizing it by making personal attacks.

I'll save you some typing:
The existence of PC's is likely due to a desire to protect pitchers.
The use of PC's by an organization is not necessarily in line with the reason PC's exist.
Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Why didn’t you just say that instead of what you did?

 

[Scorekeeper]

Nicely said dbronstein.

When I started this thread, I did it because I thought it was interesting to see an article about SB PCs. I wasn’t trolling as riseball suggests, but I continue to wonder why anyone fights something they agree would add a measure of protection, even though it might not be the best way to protect anyone or be the best system possible. If it was mandatory to have every plan be perfect, its implementation perfect, and there not be any ways to improve it, very little progress would ever be made. When something encompasses as many people as this does, there’s no way to plan for every contingency or implement any plan without problems. But most of all, because new things are being learned every day, there will always be improvements to any plan.

Much of the resistance I’ve seen here is exactly the same as when LLI was trying to implement PCs almost 10 years ago, and like the argument about there not being enough pitchers if PCs were mandated, that resistance for the most part has been debunked.

 

[Rocketech1]

Nicely said dbronstein.

When I started this thread, I did it because I thought it was interesting to see an article about SB PCs. I wasn’t trolling as riseball suggests, but I continue to wonder why anyone fights something they agree would add a measure of protection, even though it might not be the best way to protect anyone or be the best system possible. If it was mandatory to have every plan be perfect, its implementation perfect, and there not be any ways to improve it, very little progress would ever be made. When something encompasses as many people as this does, there’s no way to plan for every contingency or implement any plan without problems. But most of all, because new things are being learned every day, there will always be improvements to any plan.

Much of the resistance I’ve seen here is exactly the same as when LLI was trying to implement PCs almost 10 years ago, and like the argument about there not being enough pitchers if PCs were mandated, that resistance for the most part has been debunked.

For what its worth, the underlying message is there is a group that doesn't like anyone (governing bodies) putting restrictions on people's individual freedoms and would like to be the ones deciding how many pitches their DD should throw. I believe this is the same group that doesn't like the mandate of pitching masks, seat belts, etc (they consider it a personal choice).

 

[riseball]

I have a fundamental issue with artificially constraining top performers to "level the playing field" for others. Just as with mandated facemasks, mandated pitch counts are yet another solution in search of a problem. While we are at it how about a weight and height national registry for athletes? BMI > X and you do not play until you slim down to what is deemed an acceptable level. After all if keeps one overweight kid from hurting themselves or another kid isn't it worth it?

 

[mothgirl]

I know I get upset, when people try to mandate what I can and can't do. I get very defensive about my freedom, as any American should. Really, you can't teach common sense, and you can't regulate people into having it either. The more we try, the more we dumb everything down and take away personal responsibility. Imo

 

[Scorekeeper]

I know I get upset, when people try to mandate what I can and can't do. I get very defensive about my freedom, as any American should. Really, you can't teach common sense, and you can't regulate people into having it either. The more we try, the more we dumb everything down and take away personal responsibility. Imo

PCs haven’t got a dang thing to do with personal responsibility! They’re nothing more than posting a speed limit, painting yellow lines on the road where it’s dangerous to pass, putting signs up warning of dangerous curves or pedestrians, or requiring a license to drive. Lots of people can and do speed, pass on a solid yellow, exceed the suggested speed around curves, drive recklessly where there’s a lot of foot traffic, and for sure drive without a license, and many get away with it without causing a problem.

So should all the laws on the books regarding driving be expunged to give you the personal freedom to drive however you like? Sounds pretty good until you realize that means everyone else gets to drive however they like too. And while we’re at it, why not then do away with the SB/BB rule books too? Shouldn’t every American have the freedom to play the game however they want? The fact is, infringements on freedoms are everywhere.

 

[Scorekeeper]

I have a fundamental issue with artificially constraining top performers to "level the playing field" for others. Just as with mandated facemasks, mandated pitch counts are yet another solution in search of a problem. While we are at it how about a weight and height national registry for athletes? BMI > X and you do not play until you slim down to what is deemed an acceptable level. After all if keeps one overweight kid from hurting themselves or another kid isn't it worth it?

Just what is it the top performers you’re worried so much about are being constrained from? You and many others have an inordinate fear of what? Knowledge! How do you know that knowledge wouldn’t prove you right?

I suspect that at the root of this issue is an unwarranted fear of losing some kind of power and control.