Is there an epidemic or increasing trend (beyond the rise of popularity of the sport) that I am not aware of? Where's the data on the injury rate with the participation rate factored out? This all sounds more like a solution looking for a problem to solve.I can never figure out "why" everyone is so worried about reasonable limits on pitchers. Baseball has been limiting the innings for pitchers for more than 100 years, and it seems to have done quite well.
Mechanics is everything. All athletes try and maximize energy transfer to the ball, but if you do it with the wrong mechanics, you will break something much more quickly. A study without considering mechanics is incomplete. It's comparing apples to oranges.As to the "good mechanics"...you guys are *really* kidding yourself. The point of good mechanics is to maximize the amount of energy transferred to the ball. The whole point of IR/BI/leg drive is to generate as much energy as possible and channel that energy into the pitching hand.
Yes, pitch counts could reduce the number of shoulder injuries for some athletes. But this reduction will come at a price that top athletes will pay. Who's to say that Monica, Jennie, Sarah, etc would have reached the same level of success later in their careers had they pitched half as many innings as a youth? My kid has been a late developer, if she doesn't get major reps out of this season, she might not have enough experience to make a college team if she should so desire.
So there you go, I do agree that on the front end pitch limits will save some atheltes (mostly those with bad mechanics) from damage, but it will have an affect on the back end. You might lose a Monica or a Sarah here and there, but you will save a struggling pitcher's shoulder long enough to compete in a couple more seasons before washing out of the position.
I'm assuming baseball did the math and the risk/reward was worth it. It's a totally different equation for the underhand throw...