Pitch counts in softball?

[canyonjoe]

A little off the subject but I wish more tournaments would do like Utrip around here and use run differential (up to 8 per game) as the first tie breaker for seeding versus runs against. If you are in a tough bracket now and up big you still have to keep a top pitcher in versus maybe giving number 3 or 4 some more reps. It's not the biggest deal in the world, but I think it might make some coaches try out some more pitchers. Particularly at a younger age.

 

[Scorekeeper]

It won't be. In LL it's the coaches, and LL has more money to spend than any other stick and ball org (probably, I'm actually guessing there) for enforcement.

It won’t be if the LLI model is used, but it’s certainly not the only model and lord knows it’s not the best model. Heck, they don’t even report the pitch counts to districts, and not every league reports them either.

What I'm actually saying is that, and as riseball has stated: coaches know their players better than some arbitrary (or non-arbitrary) "one size fits all" number. If the HC feels that the pitch count is artificially low for a specific pitcher, he'll be far more inclined to ignore it.

To put it another way: why are you in favor of limiting protection to only 50% of the girls? Education of parents and coaches, similar to the concussion education that is mandatory just about everywhere now, spreads the protection to far more than 50%. And we currently have no way of knowing what the counts should be, it would be a WAG (wild a$$ guess).

It’s only your opinion that it would only protect 50% of the pitchers, but even if that’s true, what’s wrong with that? If you truly believe education would eventually work, why not use both?

Not at all, and you're cherry picking my words. I said believed that LL did it to avoid legal issues. And I am convinced that it is more of a legal concern than a safety concern for the organizations who use them. The positions are not exclusive of each other, nor are they contradictory. But I'll concede that riseball makes an even better case: LL pitch counts encourage participation. But even that might fall under a legal concern: think there's never been a lawsuit regarding playing time? Happens all the time.

How am I cherry picking words when I quote you? You position was PCs were put in place “PURELY TO COVER THEIR BUTTS LEGALLY”. Now you say you’re “IT’S MORE OF A LEGAL MANEUEVAR TO PROTEC THEMSELVES”. If they were put in PURELY to cover their butts, it would be a legal maneuver. It’s ok to back up a bit in your position, but don’t try to make out you didn’t say something.

Regardless, I've yet to see the research that shows all 11-12yo pitchers can throw 85 pitches every four days without concern for overuse injury.

Who on earth has said a 11-12YO can “throw 85 pitches every four days without concern for overuse injury”? Those are your words. The guideline is much safer than having nothing which allows an unlimited number of pitches every game. Sorry, you may be a great coach, but I don’t believe every coach to be great, and that’s why the safety net need to be there.

Why hasn't everyone done it? Same reason McDonalds has a million lawyers and Jose's Taco Cart has none: who has the more to protect?

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

It’s only your opinion that it would only protect 50% of the pitchers, but even if that’s true, what’s wrong with that? If you truly believe education would eventually work, why not use both?

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.

How am I cherry picking words when I quote you? You position was PCs were put in place “PURELY TO COVER THEIR BUTTS LEGALLY”. Now you say you’re “IT’S MORE OF A LEGAL MANEUEVAR TO PROTEC THEMSELVES”. If they were put in PURELY to cover their butts, it would be a legal maneuver. It’s ok to back up a bit in your position, but don’t try to make out you didn’t say something.

You are doing it again - you quoted only a portion of my words, not the full statement. That is called "cherry picking." I stated that I believe that Little League is doing it only to cover their butts. Leaving out the Little League part mischaracterizes my position.

Who on earth has said a 11-12YO can “throw 85 pitches every four days without concern for overuse injury”? Those are your words. The guideline is much safer than having nothing which allows an unlimited number of pitches every game. Sorry, you may be a great coach, but I don’t believe every coach to be great, and that’s why the safety net need to be there.

Little League says 11-12yo can throw up to 85 pitches every 4 days, or more accurately with 4 days of rest so I guess every 5 days? Not my words, other than the "without concern" part.

And I'm not even going to try to explain the other - if you don't understand why larger organizations are sued more often and for higher dollar amounts than little guys, I can't help.

 

[Scorekeeper]

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.

Forget about everything else and let’s concentrate on … I'm making a lot of assumptions because we have no data at all.

That’s precisely why I’d like to see a national database! Then the data would be available. But folks like riseball and SoCal_Dad don’t want anyone to have that data, I suppose so they can continue doing whatever they please without scrutiny. But regardless of whether 50% or 34% were being protected, isn’t that better than 0%?

You are doing it again - you quoted only a portion of my words, not the full statement. That is called "cherry picking." I stated that I believe that Little League is doing it only to cover their butts. Leaving out the Little League part mischaracterizes my position.

What you said was: LL has pitch counts to supposedly protect the kids from overuse injuries, but IMO it's purely to cover their butts legally.

How is not using “LL” mischaracterizing anything? You think pitch counts were put in place to only protect themselves legally.

Little League says 11-12yo can throw up to 85 pitches every 4 days, or more accurately with 4 days of rest so I guess every 5 days? Not my words, other than the "without concern" part.

Don’t you think adding those words mischaracterizes the rule? The implication is LLI says as long as the guidelines are used, no pitcher will ever suffer arm injury, and that just isn’t the case.

And I'm not even going to try to explain the other - if you don't understand why larger organizations are sued more often and for higher dollar amounts than little guys, I can't help.

I understand why larger organizations are sued more often and for higher dollar amounts than smaller ones. They have many more customers and have much deeper pockets. What does that have to do with an organization instituting pitch counts?

On a different subject, if Cardale has a great game today, will J.T. be back on the bench again? Go Buckeyes!

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Why would a player need a different account for different teams? The whole purpose of unique ID#s is that there would only be one ID# for every player. FI, if Susie’s ID# was 875, it wouldn’t matter if she was 9YO pitching in LLI or 22 pitching for USC. All of her date would be under the ID# 875.
I never said nor implied players would "need" different accounts. It would happen both intentionally (people circumventing the system) and unintentionally (people creating a new one instead of using an existing one). Both occur now with sanctions' rosters and would occur with this too.

As I noted earlier, if the coaches were left out of the process, how could there be under or non-reporting, and as I said above, there’s absolutely no reason for multiple accounts for the same player.
Who would do it - a 3rd party? Parents don't need a national DB to track their own kids and regulate their PCs. The biggest abuses are in TB and it is an unwieldy mishmash that ranges from informal games to sanctioned tourneys.

I recognize their limitations as well, but I see no reason why the thought of a national registry is absurd if you understand much at all about relational database management. I’ve been doing that myself for almost 40 years.
I am an IT professional with 39 years experience in large business software development and implementation projects. Developing and installing a system is the easier part. Implementation (i.e. having it used properly) is the hard part. Your underestimation of the task and overestimation of users belies your knowledge claim.

Who do you think put together the BB pitch count recommendations?
Dr. James Andrews was involved in the LL pitch counts.

That’s all anyone’s ever said. Why is it such an anathema to so many people?

There's a big difference between suggested and enforced limits. Some will resist any type of regulation. For many, it's because overuse injuries occur over an extended period of time and current PC limits are structured too restrictively by being short-term focused.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

What you said was: LL has pitch counts to supposedly protect the kids from overuse injuries, but IMO it's purely to cover their butts legally.

How is not using “LL” mischaracterizing anything? You think pitch counts were put in place to only protect themselves legally.

I'll try to make this crystal clear by asking a simple question: what is the difference between the following statements?

"LL has pitch counts to supposedly protect the kids from overuse injuries, but IMO it's purely to cover their butts legally."

and

"My opinion is that pitch counts exist purely for legal covering of butts."

Can you see the difference? One statement is very specific dealing with a single organization and an opinion on their motivation; the other is a sweeping general opinion regarding the reason behind the existence of all pitch counts. I never claimed that the existence of pitch counts was a purely legal thing, and that's not what I think despite your claims.

 

[Scorekeeper]

I never said nor implied players would "need" different accounts. It would happen both intentionally (people circumventing the system) and unintentionally (people creating a new one instead of using an existing one). Both occur now with sanctions' rosters and would occur with this too.

Would there be occasional “hiccups”? Of course! But with any kind of decent validation routines in place those hiccups would be held to a minimum and most would be caught. Of course there will always be those who purposely circumvent a system, but having real punishments for those who were caught would discourage most. In any case, my guess is the numbers would be so small it would never negate the overall benefits.

Who would do it - a 3rd party? Parents don't need a national DB to track their own kids and regulate their PCs. The biggest abuses are in TB and it is an unwieldy mishmash that ranges from informal games to sanctioned tourneys.

Pretty simple to have OSK or umpires do it.

I am an IT professional with 39 years experience in large business software development and implementation projects. Developing and installing a system is the easier part. Implementation (i.e. having it used properly) is the hard part. Your underestimation of the task and overestimation of users belies your knowledge claim.

Perhaps your inability to create and install systems that are difficult to implement belies your knowledge claim.

Dr. James Andrews was involved in the LL pitch counts.

Wouldn’t you count him as a sport’s medicine professional?

There's a big difference between suggested and enforced limits. Some will resist any type of regulation. For many, it's because overuse injuries occur over an extended period of time and current PC limits are structured too restrictively by being short-term focused.

You’re correct. There is a big difference between suggestions and mandates, but does that equate to mandates being inherently bad?

Yes, most overuse injuries do come over a long period of time, but how does short term restrictions make any difference? What is the major ramification of pitch counts being used as pitching limitations? One ramification is more pitchers will be forced to share the load, which means more pitchers will have to be developed. Is that a good thing or bad?

Another ramification would be that Janie doesn’t throw an additional number of pitches every game. Would those extra pitches somehow be the difference in her getting to the next level or not?

 

[Scorekeeper]

… I never claimed that the existence of pitch counts was a purely legal thing, and that's not what I think despite your claims.

Below is the entire post, just so there’s no mistake.

In it you say you opinion is LL put in PC limitations PURELY to cover their butts legally. I don’t know how you can or would want to deny that’s what you said. You’re entitled to your opinion just as I am mine. But I’ve seen absolutely nothing to indicate LL or anyone else has implemented PCs to cover themselves legally, and I’ve read more things on the subject and communicated with more people having something to do with the implementation than I care to remember.

Our major bone of contention seems to be that you don’t think PCs are an attempt, good or bad, to protect pitchers, but I do.

I like the idea of increased education, but IMO any pitch count limitation wouldn't be arbitrary. Or at least it shouldn't be; it should be based on actual scientific research. That said...

This ^^^

The one size fits all approach is only useful when all are average, which is never.

LL has pitch counts to supposedly protect the kids from overuse injuries, but IMO it's purely to cover their butts legally. DS plays LL, and there is zero education offered to coaches or parents regarding overuse, what it is, how to identify it, and what to do about it. Compare that to concussion training and education and to me it's clear: if there actually is an overuse problem in softball, it's not being addressed.

IMO pitch counts will be implemented simply because it's the least complex "solution." Just cruising through the OSU library online, I can find very little research on softball at all and even less on pitching specifically. What is there is mostly kinesiology-based. Not very helpful when you need a long term study of pitching arm/shoulder injuries tied to number of pitches thrown.

Back to OSU football. That game yesterday was an abomination! If OSU was dropped as low as #10 I'd understand. No FB team can leave their defense on the field that much against a quality team that can score.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Would there be occasional “hiccups”? Of course! But with any kind of decent validation routines in place those hiccups would be held to a minimum and most would be caught. Of course there will always be those who purposely circumvent a system, but having real punishments for those who were caught would discourage most. In any case, my guess is the numbers would be so small it would never negate the overall benefits.
Jail? LMAO I don't think the "overall benefits" justify your pipe dream since they could be achieved easier with education.

Pretty simple to have OSK or umpires do it.
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.

Wouldn’t you count him as a sport’s medicine professional?
Of course I do. I merely answered your irrelevant question about BB PC recommendations.

You’re correct. There is a big difference between suggestions and mandates, but does that equate to mandates being inherently bad?
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.

Yes, most overuse injuries do come over a long period of time, but how does short term restrictions make any difference? ...

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.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

LL has pitch counts to supposedly protect the kids from overuse injuries, but IMO it's purely to cover their butts legally.

Below is the entire post, just so there’s no mistake.

In it you say you opinion is LL put in PC limitations PURELY to cover their butts legally. I don’t know how you can or would want to deny that’s what you said. You’re entitled to your opinion just as I am mine. But I’ve seen absolutely nothing to indicate LL or anyone else has implemented PCs to cover themselves legally, and I’ve read more things on the subject and communicated with more people having something to do with the implementation than I care to remember.

Our major bone of contention seems to be that you don’t think PCs are an attempt, good or bad, to protect pitchers, but I do.

Are you seriously telling us you can't tell the difference between saying "LL did it to cover their butts," and "PC's exist only to cover butts?" Really? You need some further education in critical reading if so. This is tiresome: when you take only some of my words and try to characterize them as my entire position, you are cherry picking and mischaracterizing. Stop.

I never denied saying that LL did it for legal purposes. In fact, I was very clear that I said exactly that. You decided to remove the "LL" part of my statement. 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.

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?

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.