Maybe it is time to quit feeding the troll.
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.
Jail? LMAO I don't think the "overall benefits" justify your pipe dream since they could be achieved easier with education.
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.
Of course I do. I merely answered your irrelevant question about BB PC recommendations.
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.
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.
… 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.
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.
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
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?