Article: The Myth of the 130-Inning Limit

[Craig Arko]

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.

 

Agreed. Next year is the one that really matters.

[Brock Beauchamp]

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.

 

More than that, there's just no reason to push Gibson at all. Shut him down if there's even the smallest chance that he's starting to fatigue.

[Kwak]

More than that, there's just no reason to push Gibson at all. Shut him down if there's even the smallest chance that he's starting to fatigue.

Fatigue? If that is his problem, then his entire training regimen is at fault. The innings limit is imposed to reduce inflammation and "unseeable" tissue damage, not fatigue.

[johnnydakota]

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.

 

Ryan said, well there you go .....From my perspective there is no accountability in the things that roll out of his mouth...

[johnnydakota]

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.

 

Dont they try to increase innings by 10/15% ?

[cmathewson]

Dont they try to increase innings by 10/15% ?

 

I've heard 25% as a rule of thumb, no more than 30%.

[jay]

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).

 

I don't have the time to search through every post, but those were the impressions that I (and, I do believe others) were getting. jokin, c'mon, you're making it sound like no one here was relentlessly attacking the Gibby situation. Most of what you mentioned was said, but there was plenty more.

 

Either way, it's in the past and today is a bright new day. Here's to Gibby and some great starts through the dog days of summer.