Use and Abuse
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 12:56 PM EDT
106 comments
In recent GameThreads we've had some vigorous discussion of pitch counts, spurred mostly by familiarity with the work of Rany Jazayerli and Keith Woolner of Baseball Prospectus and a resulting general caution about the workload of starting pitchers. The main question has been whether Hillman's use of Bannister and Greinke in recent starts has subjected them a greater probability of decline or injury, and the answer — with the proviso that all pitchers are always subject to injury — is no, there is no reason to anticipate a greater likelihood of trouble.
Other writers have responded to the BP study with additional research that may be of interest to folks who have seen only the BP material. So for further reading on this topic for those inclined to this sort of thing, I've collected several links here for convenience that I've mostly provided elsewhere in now days-old GameThreads.
1) Bill James's chapter on Abuse and Durability in the Neyer/James Guide To Pitchers, which is a direct response to the BP work. Excerpt:
Surprising as it may be, and surprising as it certainly was to me, the pitchers identified by Keith and Rany as "abused" performed consistently and dramatically better in subsequent seasons than did the most-comparable pitchers. Not worse, not even "as well", which would have been sufficient to question the method, but better — consistently, and by wide margins.
The book this comes from is fascinating; this chapter stands apart from its main content, so even if this stuff seems dry to you it's still worth a look. Amazon's got it here and even allows you to read a few pages of the relevant chapter on the durability of pitchers. Click their "Search Inside!" link, search for Abuse and Durability, start on page 449, and read as long as Amazon will let you. Then I highly recommend that you buy a copy for yourself from your bookseller of choice.
2) Painting a Fake Tunnel on a Blind Alley by Don Malcolm at Baseball Think Factory. If you think the exchange here at Royals Review on this subject has been combative, you may not be ready for Malcolm.
3) What Pitch Counts Hath Wrought by Steve Treder at The Hardball Times. Excerpt:
...the modern pitch count obsession is something I've been perplexed about for years, and I'm very glad to see such prominent voices as James and Malcolm saying what ought to be said. The extreme focus on counting pitches in the modern era has not only meaningfully reduced the proportion of pitching that is performed by every team's best pitchers -- thus increasing the proportion pitched by the worst -- it has done so while producing no noticeable reduction in pitching injuries.
4) Don’t Fear the Reaper by Walt Davis at Baseball Think Factory, which points out some flaws in Treder's article above. Excerpt:
An important finding in Steve [Treder]’s analysis is that the current low seasonal pitch count trend began in 1984, twenty years ago. This was long before anyone came up with PAP. And unless there was some secret sabermetric revolution 20 years ago, the move to low seasonal pitch counts was the result of “old school” thinking (or “new old school” thinking).
So while there’s much to criticize in BP’s work on pitch counts, it was folks like Whitey Herzog, Tony LaRussa, Chuck Tanner, etc. who created the low seasonal pitch count environment.
5) What Pitch Counts Hath Wrought: Part Deux, Treder's follow-up at The Hardball Times, in which he addresses earlier flaws and reasserts the known facts about injuries: no decrease in spite of reduced pitching workloads.
6) The Book: Playing The Percentages In Baseball, by Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman, and Andrew Dolphin, touches upon a wide ranges of topics briefly but effectively. It's one of my favorite books of the last several years, on any subject. It touches upon pitch count limits in a section called Physical Limits, starting on page 185. You can find the book here at Amazon, but sadly there's no electronic version available there. Excerpt:
Pitch count levels may be useful for other purposes. For example, perhaps a string of high pitch count outings might have a long-term effect on a pitcher. But, on a game-by-game level? We don't think so.
So there you have a brief overview of the ongoing discussion. Everybody who is losing sleep about Banny and Greinke: I believe you have what's known as fan anxiety. It doesn't ever go away, but if you read some of the links above, you may be able to distract yourself from it temporarily.
2 recs |
106 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Forgot one: The Four Man Rotation Redux by Dan Agonistes, which attempts to restore focus on the workload of young pitchers as opposed to that of all pitchers. It’s of particular interest here because it makes brief mention of the Royals’ use of Greinke during his rookie season. Excerpt:
...if evidence of reduced injuries to young starters in the present era fails to materialize, it could well be that James is correct in surmising that most injuries to pitchers both young and old are catastrophic and not the result of overuse. The truth probably lies in the middle somewhere – young pitchers are prone to both overuse and catastrophic injuries while mature pitchers typically incur catastrophic injuries. Understanding the relative frequency of each is the key to formulating studies and systems that might detect it.
by 2X2L on Apr 16, 2008 8:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't dismiss pitch count concerns as mere "fan anxiety"
You have done a good job of showing that there is a great deal of research on this subject, much of which is contradictory. There is a great deal of disagreement on this issue.
I tend to err on the side of being careful with pitchers, particularly young pitchers. I don’t think you need to sacrifice wins in order to protect young arms, but when you can hold down their pitch counts (out of an abundance of caution) without hurting the team or putting a win in jeopardy, I would certainly do so. Guys like Greinke and Bannister are extremely precious commodities for the Royals. We need to protect them as much as possible
I hope that some occasional 107 and 111 pitch outings are the most we see Hillman allow. Unfortunately, we don’t yet know how he feels about pitchers and pitch counts. One poster said that in a recent pre-game interview he said he was comfortable with having pitchers go to 130 pitches if he is pitching well and feels good. This is a concern. If I knew that some 107 and 111 pitch outings were going to be as bad as it gets, then I wouldn’t be concerned much at all.
One other thing that I mentioned is that the number of unnecessary “extra innings” they pitch may lead to a dangerously high number of total innings pitched this year. I would hate for either of them pitch more than 30% more innings than they threw last year.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 16, 2008 8:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You really ought to read James on the subject, who will tell you more eloquently than I can that your concerns are misplaced. I’ll buy you a copy of the book and send it to you, or I’ll send you an Amazon gift certificate. Deal?
I have to admit that it’s much easier to be objective about these matters when your team has fewer “precious commodities”. Losing is hard, and everybody here knows that. Winning, surprisingly enough, is even harder in some ways.
As for me, I’m still in mourning for Steve Busby’s lost career. One of the saddest games I ever attended was this one, in which Busby showed so clearly that he was not the same pitcher anymore. But, like most career-shortening injuries, his was not the result of chronic overuse. He tore up his arm because his mechanics went bad, compensating for an unrelated injury to his leg. Catastrophes like this one and not overuse are the primary causes of trouble according to James, and they are more easily to be avoided with conditioning, which necessarily requires a well-monitored pushing of a pitcher’s limits. Here’s James on this:
Backing away from the pitcher’s limits too far doesn’t make a pitcher less vulnerable; it makes him more vulnerable. And pushing the envelope, while it may lead to a catastrophic event, is more likely to enhance the pitcher’s durability than to destroy it.
by 2X2L on Apr 16, 2008 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I own and have read Neyer/James on Pitchers
It is important work on the subject. It is not the be all, end all statement on the issue. I’ve also read Rany’s rebuttal chapter. Also good stuff.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 16, 2008 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it’s not the “be all, end all statement on the issue”. There isn’t one. However, James’s statement is squarely within the current consensus, while BP’s, on which your concerns about pitch counts apparently rest, is not.
I’m quite sure that Rany had very pure motivations in pursuing the subject - primum non nocere would be just as good an oath for baseball managers as it is for physicians. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that BP’s work in this area is as more of a call for benign management than it is a serious statistical analysis - which is why you see pejorative terms such as “Significant Risk” attached to numbers that don’t support them. But when the recommended cure is as harmful as the condition, one must move on to new ideas.
by 2X2L on Apr 16, 2008 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't believe the available data supports the contention that...
”...the recommended cure is as harmful as the condition.”
Nor would I say that this evolving area of study has a current “consensus.”
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 16, 2008 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The reduction in pitching workloads over the last 20-odd years has done nothing to reduce the occurrence of injury. Therefore the cure is harmful as the regimen it replaced. No?
by 2X2L on Apr 16, 2008 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple things
First, there are lots of variables that affect pitcher’s injuries. We can’t take out one variable say what effect it has had on injuries. Maybe it has helped to some extent and other factors have worked in the opposite direction. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it has helped lessen some particular kinds of injuries. Maybe not. I’m not saying that I’m positive that lighter workloads have decreased injuries. But there are so many variables that we can’t effectively isolate them and say what effect various variables have had on the phenomenon in question.
Second, there is also the total innings pitched issue I mentioned above and how risky it is for pitchers to increase IP by more than 30% from one year to the next.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 16, 2008 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We can’t take out one variable say what effect it has had on injuries.
This is an unexpected thing for a proponent of PAP3 and STRESS to say, because that is exactly what the BP method purports to do.
In fact you can attempt to do this kind of thing using statistical methods, but you may find that the data you have eludes causal characterization.
by 2X2L on Apr 16, 2008 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying that it is always impossible to isolate variables
Many decades of social science research have done this. It isn’t perfect, but in varying degrees it can be done. It’s not perfect. I would be interested in seeing some studies which attempt to isolate the variable of decreasing pitcher workloads and their affect on injuries. I’m not quite sure how they would isolate that. I certainly haven’t seen such research. In the absence of this research, then I don’t think the available evidence supports the contention that “the recommended cure is as harmful as the condition.”
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 16, 2008 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nor would I say that this evolving area of study has a current "consensus."
This is where you have the privilege of adding to the group’s storehouse of resources. Where have you found support for BP’s approach to these questions, outside of BP? Neyer in 2001 was all over it, but as Malcolm pointed out, he has distanced himself since. Others?
by 2X2L on Apr 16, 2008 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have any studies or links at my fingertips
But if you’re saying that BP says one thing and everyone else completely disagrees with them, then I am very comfortable in saying that you are wrong. If you won’t believe that without links, then so be it.
Also, if multiple analysts at BP think one way on pitcher use/abuse and many people outside of BP disagree with them, would that theoretically be a consensus? I don’t think so.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 16, 2008 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you're saying that no one agrees with Rany and Woolner outside of BP?
No researcher, no analyst, no sabermetrician? Nothing written by serious researcher on any website, SABR publication or anywhere else agrees with them? You’re wrong. “Consensus” is a vast overstatement. That’s as big of an overstatement as “no measurable effect.”
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 16, 2008 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Consensus means the majority of opinion, as you know. Are you intentionally misrepresenting what I said, in order ot make it sound ridiculous?
by 2X2L on Apr 16, 2008 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking you were using a different definition
“general agreement or accord” as opposed to “majority opinion”. It may well be the majority opinion and there is a lot of disagreement.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 16, 2008 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Judging by what I’ve read and the links I provided, it’s fair to say it’s a large majority. Your assessment of the scope of disagreement is, so far, based on unspecified information.
by 2X2L on Apr 16, 2008 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The links you've provided,
which are all good work, of course, contradict each other quite a bit. That’s your “consensus”?
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Apr 17, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They are in agreement on the main point about the value of the PAP3 work.
As with any research process that’s subject to peer review, they point out shortcomings in each other’s work with the goal of refined thinking and greater understanding. This is not to be understood as contradiction.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is understood, however, as disagreement
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
While there is some fairly impressive work done in the studies you cite…I mean…I’ve read these studies, I’ve read plenty others on the subject of pitch counts and pitcher abuse and pitcher abuse points and count abuse and abusive pitchers and abusive counts with lemonade pitchers. I speak in jest about those last few, but I feel like it’s possible you’re discounting my opinion a bit because you think you’re better versed on the subject. I’m an avid stats guy, have been for awhile, and it is still my considered opinion that there exist many, many pitchers who teams would be better off safe than sorry with when it comes to pitch counts.
Now, are there pitchers that break the fabled “100-pitch mold”? Of course there are. Just like there are plenty of pitchers who don’t play by the same “BABIP = .300 or you’re lucky” rules. That’s a poor comparison because BABIP obviously has a lot to with defense, but my point no one here is arguing that everyone’s…eh…”overuse level” is the same.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Apr 17, 2008 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not discounting anyone’s opinion. I’m saying that the “100-pitch mold” is a myth and pointing out that this is in fact a reasonable position to take, in response to repeated suggestions that I must be uniformed, kidding, or refractory.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't call you any of those,
I’m just saying that I have access to the same articles as you, apparently, and we differ in opinion.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Apr 17, 2008 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just reminding you of what genuine discounting of opinions looks like.
It occurred to me belatedly that I should have written “uninformed, frivolous, or refractory” for maximum consonance. I’m showing signs of blogging fatigue.
Anyway, it’s an open forum, and your opinion differs, so fire away. On what do you base your opinion?
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2X2L
I readily admit that my debating style is confrontational, blunt, undipomatic and often combative. You need to understand that yours is as well. Taking our combative discourse out of the equation (and it has been pretty mild in this thread) many of your comments have come off as condescending to say the least. I think I’m not the only one who infers a certain “I know more about this than you do, so I wish you would just defer to my opinion” attitude in your posts on this issue. Your mode of discourse does not breed the collegial discussion that I think you would prefer to have.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know you mentioned it in the first
sentence but you kind of have the same style. I might too, I don’t know. Self-awareness is a rare attribute. However, you should cut him some slack. If you take a side on a fan-post on a controversial opinion your sort of obligated to defend it. IMHO.
by djk royal on Apr 17, 2008 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm definitely not casting aspersions that don't apply to me
They definitely do. But earlier in my discussion with 2X2L about this topic, he showed a strong desire for the debate to not be an argument and for it to be collegial, etc. If he wants that, then he needs to make an effort to not take it in that direction.
Again, I’m not talking about his debating with me. We both made that combative. But it appears the same kind of thing is going on with his discussion with NHZ. A certain condescending and perhaps even insulting style which turns thing personal and ugly. And I don’t think he wants that.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s a very odd response to make to a post in which I invited NHK to present his opinions and the basis for them. I sincerely hope he will do that. Don’t know what else to say to you.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops, NHZ. No more keyboard for me until gametime.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your whole discussion with NHZ was very contentious
...and there was more than a little perceived condescension. I think there’s a reason for that.
Just my read. Maybe I’m wrong.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He called my integrity into question; I exercised my right to call him on it. You can choose to perceive this as condescending. I don’t buy it.
Meanwhile, we’re not allowing him to speak for himself. If he’s got a beef with me, I’d be glad to discuss it with him.
And, by the way, I really am avoiding the keyboard, using this nifty little device I hope to use tomorrow at Oakland Coliseum.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I read you wrong, then.
This whole fanpost, I had caught the vibe that your arguments were based on the idea that NYRoyal or me or someone else who disagreed with your position on pitch counts was not as well informed as you on the subject. If that isn’t the case, I apologize for that inference.
As to my own opinion, I believe the outline of it’s already been stated. I’m afraid I lean heavily towards NYRoyal’s assessment of the work discussed, if you want a brief statement, so we’re unlikely to agree on much. We can really debate this topic all day without getting much done, as you clearly have a considered opinion as well. For the moment, I’d prefer to let it drop. Long week. Very long week.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Apr 17, 2008 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had caught the vibe that your arguments were based on the idea that NYRoyal or me or someone else who disagreed with your position on pitch counts was not as well informed as you on the subject.
A group well-informed folks who want to talk baseball - that is absolutely tremendous and I want to be part of it. And I agree completely with what you’re implying, that you can’t learn anything by acting like a know-it-all.
When you guys asked me whether I had read the BP stuff in the GameThreads, I really did wonder whether you guys had read anything but the BP stuff, because you shut me down pretty hard. I still wonder why anyone who was familiar with all the material quoted here might be motivated to respond in that way.
But I’ll get over it. Let’s talk baseball instead.
by 2X2L on Apr 18, 2008 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My word isn't law, 2X2L,
and I’m quite aware of that. I have a-clearly-different opinion on this subject than you (though, to be frank, I’m not sure how much we disagree, as I believe there’s truth to the argument that one can minimize potential damage by limiting the pitch count after a long outing), but obviously both of us have considered a lot before formulating said opinions.
Now, as to the specific case where you’re talking about “being shut down pretty hard,” two things:
1. obviously there was a previous discussion between you and NYRoyal about this that I wasn’t privy to. So at the time I wouldn’t have known the full scope of your argument.
2. Stating your opinion in an argumentative forum, on a topic that you know is likely to be contentious, and then having someone disagree with you vehemently…well…don’t be surprised. Royals Review is full of people, including yourself, who are quite educated when it comes to baseball and the numbers game. I apologize if I came off a little strong, because now I see that from your perspective you probably thought I was doing the same thing I thought you were—discounting an opposing opinion under the assumption of lack of knowledge.
Anyways, I agree that we should get over it and move on and talk baseball. I think perhaps everyone involved can understand that a little less aggression might do us all good (myself included).
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Apr 21, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can be divided on one or more particulars but in consensus on the larger issues. I’m not sure why this needs to be said.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or, since nothing is really novel, a reexamination of old ideas.
by 2X2L on Apr 16, 2008 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK... well since this was sorta started with the Greinke outing
lets look at it another way:
what was gained by sending him out there in the 9th?
considering the score and the number of good options in the pen, i just can’t see what the point was
by royalsreview on Apr 17, 2008 2:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, when you talk about low-risk (but a little risky) pitch counts like 107 or 111
...the wisdom of the choice to keep the pitcher in for another inning is extremely situational. If it is a 1-run game and you feel like the SP is definitely a better option than the reliever who could replace him, then I understand swallowing that small amount of risk for the good of the team in that game. But when you’re up by 3 or 4 with a well rested and very good bullpen, I don’t see the upside to pushing him out there for another inning.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 3:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You use words like “risk” and “wisdom” as if you have access to data that show that outings of that length are problematic. But after talking with you about this for 5 days now, I think what you have is a persistent but ill-founded preconception.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why are you asking? Do you assume that restricting Greinke to under 100 pitches is good for him?
Let’s look at it this way: I’ve had the same breakfast 8 days in a row. It’s supposed to be good for me, and I’m not tired of it yet. But there are other things here I could eat. Should I switch just because I can?
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
let's put it another way
Let’s say you just had 8 bowls of cereal for breakfast. Should you have another bowl? Or would it make sense to quit?
It might make you fatter in the long run, allowing you to ingest more in subsequent sittings. But what if that 9th bowl of cereal is the one that blows out your colon?
Food for thought.
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Apr 17, 2008 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it’s the 9-bowl catastrophy trope. I feared it would come to this.
Fortunately for me we have hypercritical teenagers in the house, who are on standby to tell about anything they think is “wrong” with my breakfast choices, or in fact with anything at all that they think is out of the ordinary. They’re not professional coaches or trainers, you understand, but until they make their own way in the world I’m quite sure I’ll never be without guarded but keen observation and blunt advice.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
are the hypercritical teenagers
as well versed in the ad hominem?
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Apr 17, 2008 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
where they might have picked that up.
They clearly know ad nauseum, though. Does that count?
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Make that “u” an “a” and pour me another bowl of that flax, please.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
perhaps i'm just imagining your 10:40 post was dripping with condescension
the internet is an imperfect vehicle for communication, so if indeed it was not intended that way, i’ll lay this little tete-a-tete to rest
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Apr 17, 2008 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought I was just going with the flow—your 10:12 (7:12 out here) was clever and funny, and I was just trying to extend the tone (and the metaphor) that I thought had been established, imagining what would happen here if I really was breakfasting my way into danger. My apologies for putting you off, but that was not my intention at all.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry, i just misinterpreted your post
Anyway, I read the Malcolm article, and whatever scraps of the Bill James piece were available over amazon. Interesting stuff.
I was unable to finish the James’ article, so hopefully you can help me fill in the blanks. Was he arguing that single game abuse is a non-issue, or was he arguing that several games of high abuse is not an issue? (Or both?)
Even in the Malcolm piece, it looked like Don conceded at one point that “a long consecutive string of 100+-pitch outings, which recent research (noted by Neyer, but bypassed by Prospectus) has shown to produce injury in close to 50% of its incidences.” Now, maybe I’m totally misrepresenting Malcolm’s contention here, but based on this quote, I would say there’s reason to be cautious with a pitcher based on pitch counts.
If Malcolm and James are saying that one incidence of a high pitch count is no reason for concern, then I would tend to agree.
If, as Malcolm seems to be implying, there is indeed evidence that suggests that several 100+ pitch count games in a row increases injury risk, then I would think the current trend for Greinke is a bit alarming (99, 107, 107). Of course, Malcolm didn’t really expand on what a “long string” of games means, so maybe we’re talking about a sample size that spans the course of several seasons. And again, perhaps he just went completely over my head there.
Whatever the case, I’d prefer to err on the side of caution on this one.
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Apr 17, 2008 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, the James article is the touchstone for the Malcolm material, so it’s hard to follow when you don’t have access to the whole thing. I summarized some of his conclusion below.
One problem with caution is that sometimes fear can imitate it. I could err on the side of caution by never letting my kids leave the house, as it is surely a risky world. But I let them go, hoping that on balance their experiences out there will help them to cope better with that world as adults. It’s a balance to be sought, and there’s no way to know at the time of any particular decision whether it really is for the best.
One interesting point raised about “long consecutive strings of 100+ pitch outings” was that in the old days there was a natural check against their occurrence — if a starter was ineffective in the early innings, teams had long men or swing men to replace them, sometimes as early as the 1st inning. Nowadays this rarely happens, and ineffective starters stay in the game longer.
In any case, we’ll keep watching the pitch counts, and if Banny or Greinke has a ton of consecutive starts of 100 or more pitches, which probably implies a continued run of success, we will all wonder when the other shoe will drop. If that gets a little closer to reality we’ll all be buzzing for a number of reasons.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“there’s no way to know at the time of any particular decision whether it really is for the best.”
Well, that was a stupid thing to write. Sometimes it’s obvious, of course.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a note here to try to improve our understanding of each other, about why I established this thread. Pitch count paranoia is part of the new orthodoxy, just as firmly entrenched as the old orthodoxy such as the knee-jerk tendency to overuse the sacrifice bunt. And it has been as thoroughly skewered by good research of the sort that all of us admire from the folks at BP, when they provide it. However, they don’t always provide it.
There was a tendency here to pile up on Hillman as if pitch count research had reached a mature stage with proven findings, and this is simply not the case. I hope that our prior “combative” discussion, transformed here into a friendlier exchange, helps us to move forward on this issue. That’s all this is about. If I was motivated to continue the head-bashing, I would have stayed with the prior discussion.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree it
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Apr 17, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoops
i agree that there’s no definitive proof on the subject. i also think that there’s still at least what would appear to be a little correlation with repeated abuse and injury. the cubs pitching staff under dusty baker is a prime example, although clearly that’s not enough to prove anything conclusively.
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Apr 17, 2008 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Paranoia = the new orthodoxy
Witness: little league pitch counts and mandatory days of rest based on the prior game’s pitch count.
How many of those here who were alive, say, when the Mets last won the world series, had to deal with pitch counts/etc. in little league?
I’m not saying it’s wrong… but it’s the antibacterial soap of baseball. Maybe we should send Banny and Greinke out there with some Purell.
by wentToARoyalsGameBeforeRR on Apr 17, 2008 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mid-to-late 80's
When I was a junior and senior in high school (1987, 1988), I umpired little league baseball. And even back then they had rules about how often a kid could pitch. Worrying about overuse of young pitchers isn’t a new thing.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I mean, your era of expertise is right in my Little League wheelhouse, and I don’t remember such things. Maybe it’s my faulty memory, or maybe we just weren’t a very competitive/abusive league. I dunno. I suppose I wouldn’t doubt the former option, but it all just sounds so new to me. Or maybe it’s that I was always on the really crappy team.
by wentToARoyalsGameBeforeRR on Apr 17, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure there are different rules in different places
But in Derby, KS’s youth baseball leagues even back then, they had these rules. The league kept track of who pitched when and the umpire had to make sure that the pitchers being used were allowed to pitch on that day.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I played in Blue Valley...
...growing up in the late 80s/mid 90s and pitchers were only allowed to pitch a certain number of innings each game, week, whatever. Don’t remember the exact rules.
Royals, NBA, Golden Hurricane, Hawkeyes, Chiefs, and KU basketball, in that order.
by Rowyal on Apr 17, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Little League pitch count limits are a very good thing, actually, as there is plenty of good evidence that overuse of developing arms is a problem. I’m very much in favor of having a system that limits the abuse of those guys, that the volunteer managers who sometimes get carried away are compelled by their leagues to observe. The Little League pitch counts replace an inferior system of limits involving innings pitched, which was all too frequently abused.
My last year of managing Little League was the year that the pitch count limits were advisory, in the year prior to their adoption. I tried to follow them voluntarily and thought the results were good.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my thought was just looking at it more holistically
1) is it worth the risk of something fluky happening
2) what effectiveness was greinke at? how does that compare to 100% of Ramirez or Gobble or whomever
3) is there any benefit to saving the bullpen guys
4) how much is this truly helping the team win, versus whatever the PAP risk may or may not be
by royalsreview on Apr 17, 2008 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The word “holistically” is apt, as I think one of James’ stronger statements in his piece is essentially that you can’t look at pitching usage questions in a holistic manner when you’re hyperfocused on pitch count data:
What I believe has happened is that this “balancing of risks” has just gone completely haywire. Two things have happened to cause it to go haywire:1) We have introduced new information — pitch counts — into a previously organized way of thinking about the issue, and
2) We have focused undue attention on the risk of chronic overuse, which in reality is merely one of many potential problems for a pitcher.
James’ main conclusion is that something fluky is more likely to happen when you don’t condition your pitchers by allowing them to reach their level of endurance, not less, as quoted way up top.
So yes, by all means consider the pitcher’s state of effectiveness, his state of fatigue, his “body language”, etc., when thinking about whether to take him out.
At the end of the 8th inning in Greinke’s start, I was in favor of relief, because those last two batters hit the ball pretty well, and that hadn’t happened all night to that point—not because he had reached 95 pitches. All I have to go on is what I see on MLB.tv, while I’m sure Hillman and staff did their job in the dugout, not just by asking Greinke how he felt but also by reviewing whatever indications they monitor to determine whether he might be gassed. He surely did not seem gassed in the 9th, so I think they got it right. If he had gone out there in the 9th and then showed indications of fatigue, I have no doubt they would have pulled him, as soon as the bullpen was warm. Also I think Hillman and co. got it right when they made the opposite decision, pulling Banny against the Yankees after 5 innings and 97 pitches. So my confidence in these guys is building.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From your point of view, does pitch count become a concern at any point?
If so, what is the magic number? If there’s no magic number, then you are arguing that pitch counts are totally irrelevant. If there is one, then why do things suddenly change at that number of pitches? Aren’t there degrees of pitcher abuse?
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The very formulation of your question assumes that pitch count is a primary indicator of fatigue or of abuse. This is an inappropriate oversimplification, as pitch count is one among multiple indicators that should be monitored. By the time a pitcher reaches an elevated pitch count, there are usually multiple indications of his state of fitness to continue—these are what you go on.
In the rare event that a pitcher reaches an elevated pitch count with no other indications of fatigue, first I’d check whether he was Juan Marichal in disguise. I would be quite certain that he wasn’t Charlie Leibrandt, however.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know there are many variables, but I'm attempting to look at one of them
So, without sidestepping, let’s look at pitch count. Let’s say the pitcher “looks good,” “feels strong,” and he still looks effective in the late innings. If everything looks fine otherwise, is the pitch count irrelevant to you, regardless of how high it is?
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would I ignore the pitch count? As I said, it’s one among several indicators of the pitcher’s progress toward his limit of endurance.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know I'm trying to determine how and to what degree you include pitch count in your analysis
It really seems like you’re dodging the question. So, let me give you a hypothetical. You’re the manager and your SP, who is 26 years old in his second major league season has thrown 115 pitches through 8 innings. He’s been very effective giving up only 1 run. Your team is up by 3. He looks great, shows no signs of fatigue. You’ve talked to the pitcher and your pitching coach and they both say that he looks fine and should be able to handle the 9th inning. You have a good and well rested bullpen. Do you have him pitch the 9th?
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It depends on whether he has been adequately conditioned to go longer. If this is early in the season, only weeks removed from spring training, the answer is an easy “no”.
And, given modern conditioning practice, it’s almost certain that he hasn’t been adequately conditioned to go longer, so even in July or August the answer is probably also an easy “no”.
But if this is Bob Lemon in 1946 (he was 27; when he was 26 he was just coming back from WWII) or Daisuke Matsuzaka, the answer might be yes.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry, I typed a Lemon when I meant a Feller
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Out of curiosity
What if the hypothetical is the same but his pitch count after 8 is 105? Or 110? I know we’re talking about fine distinctions here, but if 115 in that situation is probably an easy “no,” I wonder at what point it becomes borderline or a “yes”.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re not only talking about fine distinctions, you’re talking about rare cases in which the only available indication of possible fatigue is the pitch count.
Again, the answer depends on prior choices that the organization has made regarding the way the pitching staff has been assembled and prepared. A ‘70s-era pitching staff would typically have been constructed and conditioned to keep the starter in the game in the scenario you describe. A 21st-century pitching staff has almost certainly not.
The main point of the discussion here, to which all of this is subject, is that I can expect no difference in the occurrence of injury if I prepare and use my pitching staff the way they did in the ‘70s, when the guy would stay in, or if I do it the way it’s done now, when the guy would come out. All the rest of this is dessert topping for those not sated by the main course.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It really isn't that rare
...for a pitcher to pitch well for 8 innings, throw about 105 pitches and not show fatigue. In fact, that is going to happen multiple times in a season for each team.
We can talk all we like about how we think a team should condition their pitchers. But the reality that I am interested in is real MLB pitchers who are not conditioned as they were in the 70’s. In this environment, I’d monitor pitch counts closely.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It really isn’t that rare for a pitcher to pitch well for 8 innings, throw about 105 pitches and not show fatigue.
That you and I can detect, sure. If I’m the pitching coach, I’m supposed to know when the guy is having trouble repeating his motion out of fatigue or becoming increasingly subject to some fault that indicates fatigue. The Royals have had 62 pitching coaches over the last few years, and I’m sure that at least one of them knew his stuff and his staff well enough for that.
I have to ask, if I told you that you could get 20 or 30 more top-notch innings from each of your really good starters over the course of the season just by conditioning them better, without any increased risk of injury, would you say “No, thanks” just because of your belief in the primacy of pitch counts?
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say "Yes, please"
I’m not saying your ideas on pitcher conditioning are wrong (although I am skeptical). I’m just more interested in the more realistic and practical question of how managers should handle pitchers during games, given the nature of current MLB pitcher conditioning.
Similarly, I’m all in favor of a 4-man rotation and an 11-man pitching staff, but that is strictly academic. It can be interesting to talk about - like the flat tax or cold fusion - but it just doesn’t have much to do with the real world.
Also, if you get 20-30 more innings from SP’s (roughly one more inning per start) will those “top notch innings” actually be better innings than you’d get from the bullpen? Even with a good starter, when you’re going the third or fourth time through the lineup, I think a good bullpen is going to be more effective.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even with a good starter, when you’re going the third or fourth time through the lineup, I think a good bullpen is going to be more effective.
Then the Tom Tango book is for you—because, as he shows in the paragraph prior to the one I quoted earlier:
The actual result the fourth time through the order is an improvement (for the pitcher) from the third time through the order. Remember, the fourth time through the order typically means the pitcher has thrown at least 100 pitches.
Of course if you have options in the bullpen who are superior to your best starters, you might choose to use them anyway. (But then you’ll subject yourself to second-guessing about why those guys aren’t starters themselves, naturally.)
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the numbers look like that...
...because the guys who are allowed to go a fourth time through the lineup are the better pitchers who are pitching at their best in those outings. That doesn’t mean that we should expect any and every pitcher to pitch better their fourth time through the lineup, if we start pushing more starters deeper into games.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why the question was about your “really good starters”, not the whole staff.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fourth time through the lineup...
...I’m more optimistic about a good inning from Soria, Nunez, Gobble (against lefties) or Mahay (against lefties) than any of our “really good starters.”
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I said, that’s a fine trade-off. But what if I were to tell you that your really good starting pitchers will very likely do better the 3rd time through the lineup if you sometimes let them have a shot at the 4th?
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but then we have the problem
that Gooble and Mahay are underused as LOOGYs and on and on…
by royalsreview on Apr 17, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, at some point you want to stop thinking about the large number of possible ways to configure an 11- or 12-man staff and commit yourself to something.
But what we’re basically talking about is whether Hillman’s current configuration and use is sensible, as he apparently will, at least on occasion, keep good starters in the game when he has good options in the pen.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
But what if I were to tell you that your really good starting pitchers will very likely do better the 3rd time through the lineup if you sometimes let them have a shot at the 4th?
Sounds great, if you can prove a causal relationship there, then I’d be all for it.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not theoretical, as pitch count limits are. As we’ve already agreed, what I’m suggesting has worked pretty well in practice in the past, as frontline pitchers were routinely more effective through the later innings when they regularly pitched them.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
one minor thing
no matter how you look at it, a pitch count is not quite the same as other stats… it is a simple count of how many times a specific motion has been made
i think there is room in the debate for all kinds of qualifiers, and the like, but, it seems fundamentally logical to me that at some level it would need to be paid attention to
like, a track coach just saying, “i don’t keep track of miles logged, just individual workouts” etc
the human body has limits, and throwing a baseball is not a natural or contained motion
PAP might be gobbledydgook, but there has to be a certain point where almost all pitchers - always room for freaks, but freaks make bad standards for everyone else - begin to have problems, either in an individual start, or at a cumulative level
ok… that was basically a pointless comment by me
by royalsreview on Apr 17, 2008 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if we’re taking the filters off, how about this—
Absolutely the riskiest thing you can do as a professional baseball player is to stand in the batter’s box. You can lose your vision or even get killed if the wrong pitch comes your way at the wrong time, when your reflexes are too slow. Presumably with every swing a batter takes and every pitch he has to process he becomes more fatigued. As the season wears on and a players wear down, the hypothetical point of fatigue at which batting becomes unacceptably unsafe must inch closer to the start of each successive game. At what point does the batter become unfit to bat?
In reality we simply assume that batters will prepare themselves appropriately for the hundreds of at bats they will be given and the thousands of pitches they will be thrown, any one of which has the potential for catastrophe. Should we keep our hitters safely “fresh” by limiting their at bats, or the pitches they see, or something along those lines. The risk is out there!
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but
in terms of season ending injuries, guy’s dont usually swing a bat and then miss 1.5 seasons (sweeney notwithstanding)
by royalsreview on Apr 17, 2008 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but I’m not talking about how often catastrophe occurs, or even how. I’m talking about an activity which is inherently risky, for which the severity of the outcomes are the worst we know, and for which fatigue probably makes some kind of difference.
Of course it sounds like a dumb idea now, because I just made it up. But what if I were able to show you numbers that prove that guys are less productive in the three weeks after they’ve seen 100 pitches in a week’s worth of plate appearances than they are after they’ve seen fewer? By about, say, 1%? (I don’t know that this is true, but it certainly could be true, given that the weeks in which they see more pitches should correlate at least weakly with weeks in which they’re hitting above their mean performance.) Would we say that this is evidence of a fatiguing effect that we should institute limits to reduce?
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting that you bring up Dice-K
who wore out badly down the stretch last year.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Apr 17, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Averaged 108.t pitches per start last year and led all of MLB total PAP. Clearly he was considered by the Red Sox well-conditioned to continue in the scenario NYRoyal described.
If he’s an exemplary case according to James’ findings, he’ll be better this year. That’s why I brought him up.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
108.7, but I missed the “7” key. Too much typing today.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily better than last year, of course, but better than the pitcher most similar to him who was not “abused” last year under the PAP system, whoever that was.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, yes,
I understand what James’s research would indicate, and “only time will tell.” You’ve already stated about him what I was likely to state: Francona ran Dice-K out there for some very long outings. And repeatedly. Heading into September, Matsuzaka had ERA of around 3.80. During the final month (or maybe three weeks, I’m kind of typing on the run) the fatigue was showing. I watch the Red Sox pretty much every day, and Matsuzaka was clearly dragging in his last couple starts. His ERA ended up inflating in a way that did not reflect, in my opinion, his ability or the way he had pitched previously. It was as if Francona hadn’t noticed that Dice-K got an extra day of rest during his time in Japan.
I’d argue, going forward, that if Matsuzaka improves this year, it will have a lot to do with Francona handling him better. A healthy, not-worn-out Matsuzaka could challenge Beckett for best starter on one of the best teams in baseball. Matsuzaka might not have displayed that much of a hangover this April if you go by ERA, but his control has been off. Now, perhaps he will get over this relatively quickly, but I think there’s a connection between Matsuzaka’s heavily workload last year, his September fade from goodness, and his control to start the year. He’s no hothouse flower, but the Red Sox need to be more careful with when it comes to repeatedly pushing the pitch count.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on Apr 17, 2008 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My question would be...
...to what degree have the Royals prepared their starters to go the distance and throw 107 pitches at this stage of the season? I’m wondering if this was a conscious organizational decision to try and get more out of their starters this year, and if so, what they might have done differently in the spring. Or, is this strictly Hillman going by what he thinks is best in a given game? As 2X2L mentioned at some point in this thread in referring to one of the studies, it would seem that the role of conditioning/preparation is very important with this issue. Will such “large count” games catch up with these pitchers later in the year? We don’t know. Many would say this is likely.
In trying to think of an analogy to this situation, I thought of distance running (admittedly a poor comparison). A runner is not going to significantly extend his/her daily miles run overnight without suffering a drop in performance and/or an injury unless sufficiently prepared to do so over a period of time. But a gradual buildup of miles run/ day or week can be achieved effectively for many.
by cookierojas73 on Apr 17, 2008 2:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s a useful analogy, as runners condition themselves primarily by running and pitchers condition themselves primarily by pitching.
It might be fun to dig up the spring training boxscores and look at how Hillman extended Banny’s and Greinke’s appearances in the Cactus League. If I get a chance I’ll have a look.
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with 2X2L here that
there is really no basis to too stressed about injury risk in these types of situations. I would take exception to the following, though, from one of the linked excerpts:
...The extreme focus on counting pitches in the modern era has not only meaningfully reduced the proportion of pitching that is performed by every team’s best pitchers—thus increasing the proportion pitched by the worst…
Typically, when a decision is being made whether or not to leave a starter in for the 8th or 9th, the team is leading or tied, and thus the team’s best bullpen options stand to come into the game. Bullpens as a whole have about a half-run advantage on starters league wide, and the top of each team’s bullpen is typically better than its starters in any given game. This is particularly true for a team like the Royals who seem to have an excellent bullpen. Further, for all SPs last year, OPS against first time through was .734, second time through .769, third time through .819. So whether it’s out of being tired or the hitters gaining familiarity over the course of the game, starters are going to be significantly less effective in later innings than earlier innings. None of the Royals’ starters are really top line starters, so in terms of winning close games the bullpen should be a better option.
Go Royals!
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on Apr 17, 2008 2:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
An important point
Although the Royals might have a couple top line starters.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes... and I think the obsession with the Closer Role
has led to many more bad pitching decisions and usage patterns than pitch counts
by royalsreview on Apr 17, 2008 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I may be missing something
But I was under the impression that the BP guys are a) in favor of returning to 4-man rots, or at least trying it and b) have made positive comments about how the White Sox have found the sweet spot with starters, conditioning them to pitch over 100 pretty constantly, but not taking it too far
I wanna know what love is, I want you to show me
by LeoBloom on Apr 17, 2008 4:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, in Woolner’s article so frequently cited here, he champions a 4-man rotation with stricter pitch counts. But because this differs both from bygone practice and modern practice, for all we know this could be the worst of all possible worlds: more frequent starts with even less conditioning.
Let’s let somebody else run this experiment. I nominate the Dodgers. Chad Billingsley, what are you willing to sacrifice for the good of the game?
by 2X2L on Apr 17, 2008 7:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not that anyone probably cares,
But, I tend to think there is a little too much worrying about stats and trends and not enough of a realization that we are talking about a game. A game that is very unpredictable and involves athletes who know THEIR OWN bodies. I don’t think any of us have the right to say that Zach or Banny shouldn’t go out and pitch the ninth when THEY THEMSELVES are the ones saying they can do it.
Now sure, these people that study this stuff are very knowledgeable, but how many of them actually played the game? (not rhetorical, I actually don’t know)
I tend to go with: let the players and coaches do the jobs they are payed for because they’ve been doing this their whole lives. As someone said up above, the throwing motion is one that isn’t natural. Injuries will happen no matter what.
by I need more Esteban on Apr 17, 2008 7:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i fing love this website
new banner- Royals Review: We’ve got lawyers!
The first thing I know about someone in a KC hat is that they're loyal.
by grantfunk on Apr 17, 2008 8:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Small tweak
Royals Review: We’ve got lawyers! (and they’ll annoy the hell out of you)
Since I’m one of the annoying lawyers, I can say that.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on Apr 17, 2008 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hells yeah!
The first thing I know about someone in a KC hat is that they're loyal.
by grantfunk on Apr 17, 2008 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
