Article: The Myth of the 130-Inning Limit

[IdahoPilgrim]

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1934-The-Myth-of-the-130-Inning-Limit

[greengoblinrulz]

Personally heard that Terry Ryan radio interviews this winter/spring where that number was given by Ryan....so

[jokin]

Personally heard that Terry Ryan radio interviews this winter/spring where that number was given by Ryan....so

 

Unless you can produce the actual audio, it's just a myth...

[NoCal]

A veritable Montaigne view of the Twins ........and life?

[raindog]

Personally heard that Terry Ryan radio interviews this winter/spring where that number was given by Ryan....so

 

So...no one is saying that number wasn't given by Ryan. But TR also said in March that there is no firm number.

 

It would be nice if the Twins could come out and confirm what the current plan is. Or maybe they aren't sure yet. Either way, I think Walters made the decision to call up Gibson easy last night. Hope to see him soon.

[Chance]

Very nice read. Though I hope you're right, the twins have a hard time leaving a pitcher in once he reaches 100 pitches. It doesn't really matter how well they are pitching ( was that Slowey or Blackburn that they took out after 8 no-hit innings). My belief is that the twins believe in hard set numbers more then the rest of the league. They get caught up in what you mentioned above (the birth certificate reference). I'm not a Twins conspiracy guy, I don't believe that they are out to make us miserable, I just believe that they are the type of front office that would set a limit.

[JB_Iowa]

Whether the number is firm or not doesn't really matter when it comes to discontent about not bringing him up.

 

While obviously problems could develop at any innings count, he is MORE likely to be shut down the more innings he gets. He is currently at 92.2 innings so, whether the innings limit is precisely 130 or has some flexibility, he is approaching a place where they are going to be watching his innings more and more closely. And are much more likely to shut him down.

 

130 innings may not be his ceiling but I'm not sure anybody guaranteed that he would get the full 130 either. Maybe they will shut him down at 120 or 125.

 

I had forgotten the following tweet from Rhett Bollinger (found again on RotoWorld) on May 20:

 

The Twins optioned left-hander Pedro Hernandez to Triple-A Rochester on Monday, which immediately led to speculation that Gibson could get the call. The 25-year-old right-hander has a 3.25 ERA and 46/14 K/BB ratio in 52 2/3 innings through eight starts this season in Triple-A. Even if the Twins opt for Walters or Deduno, it's just a matter of time before Gibson arrives. May 20 - 5:08 PM

 

Obviously "time" did not arrive within the following month since it is now June 23 and we've not caught sight of Gibson.

[TheLeviathan]

How can something be a myth if it was acknowledged by Ryan?

 

Perhaps a better title and suggestion would be: "The mysterious innings limit for Kyle Gibson". Ryan said there was a limit and gave a rough number. That may have changed and their may be reason to believe it has changed. He may even have just been giving a very cautious number publicly, but it is not (nor was it ever) a "myth". That's a backhanded way of discrediting people who are citing something the GM said on the issue.

 

I would think that sort of evidence is pretty strong, not made up or "mythic"

[Brandon]

I can see Gibson being allowed to go 150-160 innings as long as he looks strong. but I don't see him going much beyond that. They will want him to come back stronger next year and make sure they avoid a potential dead arm next year when he is up in Minn.

[cmathewson]

If they don't limit his innings, they are taking a huge, unnecessary risk. The science is well documented. They have a recent example of how this risk came back to bite them in Liriano. If they push it beyond 140, I would be shocked.

[nicksaviking]

Ryan first said 130-140, then said the number wasn't firm. From my perspective, 130-140 is not a firm number and neither statement contradicted each other.

[jay]

Thank you for this piece. I've been blasted by a few folks here who take every quip as the ultimate truth (even if there is contradicting evidence) while trying to make that point:

"One thing it would remind us of is how easy supposition can become “fact” through the process of repetition."

 

Really hoping we see Gibson come up for Walters. Not defending it and I hope not, but I could see them give PJ one more start since that was his first real clunker (I know he wasn't great in 2 other starts as well).

[Otto von Ballpark]

The tricky thing, at this point, if he really struggles, is it due to the recovery, and does he need to be shut down? Or is it just regular rookie adjustments?

[Craig Arko]

I guess we'll find out soon enough. I hope he gets through July and August before being shut down, and then maybe Worley or Hendriks takes over the spot in September.

[Mike Sixel]

We don't know what will happen, and maybe the Twins don't either. But I fail to see how quoting Ryan, when he says something, is wrong somehow. We only know a: what happened; b: what they say will happen. For the future, we can extrapolate from past behavior, and their words. Ryan said what he said, I don't see how repeating that somehow makes people bad/wrong/evil/not real fans.

[ThePuck]

We don't know what will happen, and maybe the Twins don't either. But I fail to see how quoting Ryan, when he says something, is wrong somehow. We only know a: what happened; b: what they say will happen. For the future, we can extrapolate from past behavior, and their words. Ryan said what he said, I don't see how repeating that somehow makes people bad/wrong/evil/not real fans.

 

It doesn't.

[Craig Arko]

Yeah, although the distinction between extrapolation and speculative fiction should be kept in mind.

[SwainZag]

Very nice read. Though I hope you're right, the twins have a hard time leaving a pitcher in once he reaches 100 pitches. It doesn't really matter how well they are pitching ( was that Slowey or Blackburn that they took out after 8 no-hit innings). My belief is that the twins believe in hard set numbers more then the rest of the league. They get caught up in what you mentioned above (the birth certificate reference). I'm not a Twins conspiracy guy, I don't believe that they are out to make us miserable, I just believe that they are the type of front office that would set a limit.

 

In this day and age in baseball with such good bullpens and use of specialty guys, I have no problem when the starters are pulled after 100-110 pitches or so.

 

If you have an ace type pitcher I believe there should be a completely different mentality, but there is not one pitcher on this roster I would trust more going beyond 100-110 pitches than the bullpen arms the team currently has right now.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, although the distinction between extrapolation and speculative fiction should be kept in mind.

 

You're right, this blog is a good example of speculative fiction.

 

Not only is Ryan's quote evidence of an innings limit approaching - so is major league baseball conventional wisdom, the Twins general conservative approach to injuries, and standard injury rehab timelines.

 

Personally, I hope Ryan and his crew up that limit. The more Gibson, the better. But there was never a "myth", there was a very real expectation based on the vast majority of evidence. Not wild, hopeful speculation.

[TheLeviathan]

I thought I had raised a valid point - that there is just as much evidence for there not being a firm limit as there is for there being one.

 

Except that there isn't. As I noted in my last post, there is a vast preponderance of evidence that there is an innings limit from injury rehab times, conventional wisdom for handling this injury, the Twin's standard approach to injuries, etc.

 

You have one quote from Ryan that is even more vague than the one that favors an innings limit.

 

You may indeed be right, but you don't (as your article suggested and I take issue with) have anything beyond hopeful speculation. I share your hope, but not your confirmation of speculation as evidence.

[Otto von Ballpark]

No team is ever going to announce a firm playing time limit, ever. Even with Strasburg, the Nationals were very cagey. In injury situations, teams don't want to appear arbitrary, even when there isn't really a better way to do it. In their more candid moments, they will refer to precedent and other players usage, but they aren't going to put a hard number out there for anyone -- even when it's blindingly obvious that a hard number is pretty much the driver behind any shutdown decision (like how Zimmermann and Strasburg were both shut down at the exact same threshold).

 

Players probably wouldn't like it either, although it would be interesting to hear what conversations the teams have with the player about such a limit (if any).

 

If that's the evidence you are looking for, you are never going to find it.

[jay]

As I noted in my last post, there is a vast preponderance of evidence that there is an innings limit from injury rehab times, conventional wisdom for handling this injury, the Twin's standard approach to injuries, etc.

 

He didn't say there wasn't going to be a limit of some type (which is what you seem to be inferring), just that this rock-solid belief of a hard cap at 130 IP needed to be questioned.

 

While we all want to see Gibson pitch and be successful, I've taken issue here and elsewhere with:

1 - Turning 130 IP into the only possible truth and the line of thought that Gibson has pitched xx innings at AAA, now he can only pitch 130-xx innings.

2 - That there wasn't any sort of a plan at all and there weren't any justifiable reasons to keep Gibson at AAA (ie Super 2, etc).

 

It wouldn't seem likely to me that the Twins will have him make 5-6 starts at MLB. I'm going to wager on closer to 10-12, which would land him somewhere around 150-160 IP -- a realistic number based on evidence of other rehabs, etc.

[RodneyKline]

There are so many more arm and shoulder injuries since they started babying pitchers with this arbitrary 100 pitch limit and now the 140 inning limit on young guys. Every pitcher is different so it is so silly to say 100 is this magical number. They never even consider how many warm up pitches they throw but when they throw 100 pitches they automatically have to be pulled. It is so silly! They should be starting pitchers out with less pitches at the beginning of the season but they should be getting stronger as the build up their arm strength. Some guys might only be able to throw 80 pitches or less and some guys could easily throw 120 or more. They should be evaluating each pitcher every start without needing to know the number of pitches if they are a good pitching coach. Why are the injuries so much higher than when we were kids if this pitch count is so good?

[SwainZag]

There are so many more arm and shoulder injuries since they started babying pitchers with this arbitrary 100 pitch limit and now the 140 inning limit on young guys. Every pitcher is different so it is so silly to say 100 is this magical number. They never even consider how many warm up pitches they throw but when they throw 100 pitches they automatically have to be pulled. It is so silly! They should be starting pitchers out with less pitches at the beginning of the season but they should be getting stronger as the build up their arm strength. Some guys might only be able to throw 80 pitches or less and some guys could easily throw 120 or more. They should be evaluating each pitcher every start without needing to know the number of pitches if they are a good pitching coach. Why are the injuries so much higher than when we were kids if this pitch count is so good?

 

Do you have proof or statistics that say there have been more injuries to pitchers on pitch limits or innings limits for young pitchers?

[cmathewson]

Do you have proof or statistics that say there have been more injuries to pitchers on pitch limits or innings limits for young pitchers?

 

I did some research, and this is the best source I could find: Pitcher Workloads

[TheLeviathan]

He didn't say there wasn't going to be a limit of some type (which is what you seem to be inferring), just that this rock-solid belief of a hard cap at 130 IP needed to be questioned.

 

Not at all, I'm saying that his claim of "it doesn't necessarily have to be 130 innings" does not, in fact, have more evidence. It has substantially less evidence.

 

The best evidence we have is that Gibson is most likely not going to have more than 7-10 starts depending upon how well he performs. If, for whatever reason, it's more - no one deduced that from the preponderance of evidence. They just had a lucky guess, but one I'll be more than happy to see happen.

[Joe A. Preusser]

Not sure why we're talking about an innings limit at all? Whether a starter goes 5, 6, 7 or more innings per start has much less to do with W&T on the arm than the actual number of starts made. For instance, Gibson can go an average of 5 innings and make 30 starts to 150 innings. Or he can go an average of 7 innings and make 21 starts to 147. But the year that saw him make 30 starts will almost certainly be harder on his arm. It's similar to the idea that once a reliever is warmed up and ready to come into the game, he's basically worked his arm enough to count as an appearance as far as fatigue goes. Also true (as far as I can tell) is that the prep a pitcher goes through for each start (bullpens, warmups, long toss, etc) counts for far more than an arbritary number of innings he throws during that start. Thoughts?

[jokin]

He didn't say there wasn't going to be a limit of some type (which is what you seem to be inferring), just that this rock-solid belief of a hard cap at 130 IP needed to be questioned.

 

While we all want to see Gibson pitch and be successful, I've taken issue here and elsewhere with:

1 - Turning 130 IP into the only possible truth and the line of thought that Gibson has pitched xx innings at AAA, now he can only pitch 130-xx innings.

2 - That there wasn't any sort of a plan at all and there weren't any justifiable reasons to keep Gibson at AAA (ie Super 2, etc).

 

It wouldn't seem likely to me that the Twins will have him make 5-6 starts at MLB. I'm going to wager on closer to 10-12, which would land him somewhere around 150-160 IP -- a realistic number based on evidence of other rehabs, etc.

 

1) I've yet to find any post that said that the only possible truth for Gibson was 130 IPs.

 

2a) I've yet to find any post that said that there wasn't any sort of plan at all. What was said was that the Twins public statements about their plan for Gibson did vary quite a bit from Sprint Training to late June.

 

2b) I've yet to find anyone say that there weren't any justifiable reasons to keep Gibson in AAA. Some of the reasons they offered turned out not to be justifiable. And, regarding Super 2 status, of course that was a viable reason and was thoroughly fleshed out on TD, but this was one reason that the Twins FO publicly denied was being taken into consideration (and we can blame the CBA for that, not the Twins).

[Craig Arko]

Not sure why we're talking about an innings limit at all? Whether a starter goes 5, 6, 7 or more innings per start has much less to do with W&T on the arm than the actual number of starts made. For instance, Gibson can go an average of 5 innings and make 30 starts to 150 innings. Or he can go an average of 7 innings and make 21 starts to 147. But the year that saw him make 30 starts will almost certainly be harder on his arm. It's similar to the idea that once a reliever is warmed up and ready to come into the game, he's basically worked his arm enough to count as an appearance as far as fatigue goes. Also true (as far as I can tell) is that the prep a pitcher goes through for each start (bullpens, warmups, long toss, etc) counts for far more than an arbritary number of innings he throws during that start. Thoughts?

 

I think Gibson's arm has shown a lot of durability this year, as witnessed by the complete game shutouts racking up 100+ pitches. He shouldn't be pushed another hundred innings, but if they were really fretting about it I doubt they'd have let him do that.

[cmathewson]

I think Gibson's arm has shown a lot of durability this year, as witnessed by the complete game shutouts racking up 100+ pitches. He shouldn't be pushed another hundred innings, but if they were really fretting about it I doubt they'd have let him do that.

 

The key is to get him ready to pitch 180-200 innings next year. You don't do that by giving him 180-200 innings this year, because one study after another has shown that most pitchers don't respond well after adding 100 innings to their work load one year to the next. And you'd have to have a short memory to forget how Liriano fared the year after going almost 200 innings following a season in which he pitched none. It's much less risky to go 140 this year and 180 next year, if you can afford to.