Lucas Giolito has an elbow issue.

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Vegas has the Sox at 77.5 wins. (NYY 94.5, BAL 89.5, TOR 87.5, TB 84.5), fwiw.

 

[6-5 Sadler]

Every model that's doing its job will always have results like this. Some players and teams will exceed expectations, some will fall short. Acuna has the highest WAR forecast at 7.5 - they are not forecasting that the league leader will be at 7.5. Highest HR is Judge at 48, Avg. Arraez .316, OBP Soto .421, SLG Alvarez .592. Some players will surely exceed these amounts, but for each player and team they're showing the mean result.

Slight correction on this…their projections are the median projections. So you should expect 50% of the league to be above and 50% to be below. And historically I think they’ve done fairly well in hitting those percentiles.

Dan Szymboski had a good tweet about it last month relating to the AL East:

The top ZiPS projected median team in the AL East is the Orioles, at 90 wins.

Yet 90 wins would only win the AL East 11% of the time in the projections. Right now, I have the average win total needed to win the AL East as 95.7 wins.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

Slight correction on this…their projections are the median projections. So you should expect 50% of the league to be above and 50% to be below. And historically I think they’ve done fairly well in hitting those percentiles.

Dan Szymboski had a good tweet about it last month relating to the AL East:

Edited, thank you!

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

Slight correction on this…their projections are the median projections. So you should expect 50% of the league to be above and 50% to be below. And historically I think they’ve done fairly well in hitting those percentiles.

Dan Szymboski had a good tweet about it last month relating to the AL East:

I'll point something else out though - Fangraphs acknowledges that their forecast does not account for an org's depth very well.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-new-way-of-looking-at-depth/

That said, this year one thing was on a lot of our minds: depth. I’ve written a lot about how well our playoff odds reflect reality. They’re pretty good! But there’s always been an obvious problem with them. They use static rosters, which means they don’t account for the fact that some teams are more vulnerable to injury or underperformance than others.

The big weakness of this plan? Let’s take a look at the Braves’ depth chart for a simple example. Ronald Acuña Jr. is projected for 679 plate appearances. In every one of the 20,000 simulations we run each time the model updates, we pencil Acuña in for exactly 679 plate appearances. But that’s not how things have gone. Last year, he had 735 plate appearances. In 2021, he had only 360 thanks to injury. Obviously, the Braves would be a good deal worse if Acuña were to miss time, but because of the way we run things, we’re not capturing that possibility (though should some misfortune befall Acuña, the depth charts and the playoff odds would reflect it in a hurry).

After plenty of trial and error, though, Appelman and team have come up with a really cool solution. It’s a variation on the original idea, in fact. Rather than thinking of it as a playoff odds tool, the idea is to create a grid that shows how each team’s expected winning percentage changes as we remove the top players from the roster. First, we calculate the full-strength numbers against neutral opposition, which are what you can see on our projected standings page. Then we lop off the player with the most projected WAR and increase the plate appearances (or innings pitched) of the guys below that player on the depth chart to refill the team’s playing time.

Let’s use Acuña as an example again. He’s projected to be the Braves’ best player, of course. Our process gets rid of his entire season and replaces it with plate appearances for other players on Atlanta’s roster. Jarred Kelenic is second on the depth chart, but he can’t get all 679 of Acuña’s plate appearances; he’s already projected for 525 plate appearances as the team’s everyday left fielder. Even Cal Ripken Jr. couldn’t top 1,200 plate appearances in a year, so Appelman’s algorithm is a bit more complicated than that.

As you can imagine, that makes the Braves a lot worse. Specifically, when we recalculate their expected winning percentage without Acuña, they fall from a .598 team to a .567 squad. That 31-point decline is the biggest that any team in baseball would suffer if their best player got completely replaced by backups. That makes sense – Acuña has the best projection not just on the Braves but in all of baseball, and Atlanta’s options behind him are lackluster. For comparison, the Cubs project to suffer the smallest decline in performance. We have Nico Hoerner down as their best player, and we like a lot of the options behind him; Nick Madrigal, Michael Busch, and Patrick Wisdom can absorb a lot of infield innings between them with admirable aggregate projections.

We’ve run this process pretty far down the roster – until we’ve eliminated each team’s top 10 projected performers, to be precise. These depth charts look pretty dire; remove any team’s best 10 players, and things get a lot worse! To stick with the Braves as an example, try to imagine them without Acuña, Austin Riley, Michael Harris II, Matt Olson, Ozzie Albies, Sean Murphy, Strider, Fried, Morton, and Chris Sale. Our method thinks that they’d be a .452 team (against league average opposition) if those 10 missed the entire season.

The upshot, is the Sox (at .501) are the 14th best team in baseball at full strength (including Giolito). Remove everyone's best player, we're 17th. 2 players, 21st. 3-7 players, more middle of the pack. Remove the 8 best players from each team, and we're 8th! 9 players, 5th. 10 players, 11th.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I'll point something else out though - Fangraphs acknowledges that their forecast does not account for an org's depth very well.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-new-way-of-looking-at-depth/











The upshot, is the Sox (at .501) are the 14th best team in baseball at full strength (including Giolito). Remove everyone's best player, we're 17th. 2 players, 21st. 3-7 players, more middle of the pack. Remove the 8 best players from each team, and we're 8th! 9 players, 5th. 10 players, 11th.

Continuing commentary from the article:

In terms of broad conclusions, the teams least affected by dropping their 10 best players are largely the ones that are already bad. The Rockies, Athletics, Nationals, and Royals are all in the top 10 of least-affected teams, and they sport four of our five lowest projected winning percentages at full strength.

The teams with the most to lose in such a complete roster destruction are basically just the best teams. The Braves see their winning percentage decline the most, with the Astros and Dodgers hot on their heels. Some interesting exceptions to this rule: The Cardinals, Rays, and Cubs have projected full-strength records above .500 but all finish in the top 10 for least-injury-impacted. In other words, they have capable replacements in addition to starters good enough to compete for the playoffs on their own merits. Those are the types of teams that our current odds method tends to underrate. The Brewers and Reds only miss that group because we think they’re just worse than .500 at full strength; in other words, the entire NL Central has pretty excellent depth.

In fact, the Braves project for a .501 winning percentage even if we remove their top five players from the depth chart. In some ways, sure, they’re a thin team. But one way to weather an injury storm is to be so dang good that the rest of your starters can pick you up, and that’s where Atlanta is this year.

When you lop six players off of each team, the Dodgers have the best projected winning percentage. At seven players, the Rays take a tiny edge, and with each remaining gradation, they have the best projection. The Cardinals aren’t far behind by that point. But even with 10 players gone, the Braves have the seventh-best projection in the majors. It’s a completely different way of thinking about depth than I’m used to, but I think it’s a really cool result.

The best part about all of this? With enough massaging and reformatting of the way we do our playoff odds, and with plenty of careful calibration to handle how often to call up each injury scenario for each team, we can eventually integrate this knowledge into our projections. In some potential future, the Braves might be missing their top two players – or some combination of the middle players that affects their winning percentage in a similar way – while the Phillies and Mets have pristine health. How would the division go in that case? That could be one of our runs.

One note to pre-empt a question I’m sure you’re wondering about: lopping off a team’s best players in order doesn’t exactly reflect reality. Neither does having those players miss the entire season instead of some portion of it. That’s true. But we’re trying to create an abstraction here, because all models are abstractions of reality in one way or another. We think this is a pretty good one – it’s telling us something useful about team composition that our existing option misses. I think it’s fascinating, and I hope you will as well.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I'll point something else out though - Fangraphs acknowledges that their forecast does not account for an org's depth very well.

That's a really nice way of looking at impact players and depth. Of course, when a player goes down you can always trade, and I doubt the model pulls up guys from the farm who might get added to the 40 man - say, in the case of a catastrophic injury to a player on a 1 year contract.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

That's a really nice way of looking at impact players and depth. Of course, when a player goes down you can always trade, and I doubt the model pulls up guys from the farm who might get added to the 40 man - say, in the case of a catastrophic injury to a player on a 1 year contract.

Correct. They only pull from players projected to get any playing time for the year. After they exhaust those guys, it's straight replacement players.

We have to take a few shortcuts to handle cuts of that magnitude, because there aren’t always enough players listed at each position to make it work, and some very deep backups end up with over-allocated playing time, but at the point where you’re wondering who should pick up J.P. Martínez’s projected playing time from among the Braves’ non-listed options, the overall effect on their winning percentage is quite small. That means that there are some weird discrepancies here and there when you get all the way down the playing time ladder, but they’re tiny in magnitude and as best as I can tell, not worth worrying about. We think the Braves improve from a .452004 team to a .452197 team, for example, when we remove their 10th-best player and backfill all that playing time, but that just comes down to which replacement-level player we’re handing that playing time to. A quick clarifying note here: Since the model can only work with our existing depth charts, only players projected for at least one plate appearance or batter faced enter into our calculations. That doesn’t perfectly match reality, but this far down the depth chart, most teams are picking between a variety of replacement-level players anyway, so we don’t think the model loses much from that limitation.

But of course, they can't project which teams will make deadline deals to improve the team either.

Overall, we should recognize that these projections do a really good job already! It's good that they're seeking improvement, even if small.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

Correct. They only pull from players projected to get any playing time for the year. After they exhaust those guys, it's straight replacement players.



But of course, they can't project which teams will make deadline deals to improve the team either.

Overall, we should recognize that these projections do a really good job already! It's good that they're seeking improvement, even if small.

I'm going to make one more post about this, for the followup/more data post:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-new-way-of-looking-at-depth-tables-supplement/#more-432087

The Sox are projected for last place in the ALE for each iteration of losing players until each team has lost their 8 players, where we jump ahead of the Orioles and Yankees. Take out the top 9 players, and we only trail the Devil Rays. Drop 10, and we're back to last!

The Yankees are in first place at full strength or missing one player. Lop off any more top players, and the Devil Rays lead the rest of the way.


Edit: For context, the Yankees appear to be able to sustain losing Soto, but not both Soto & Judge, when they drop to a .504 winning percentage. Dropping Rodon then drops them below .500. The Devil Rays don't drop below .500 until they lose 5 players.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

One big benefit of these types of projections is that they are unbiased and based on data-- they aren't based on fan or media feelings or biases. They won't be 100% accurate, but I think they have a stronger basis in reality than the guesses of people who love the Red Sox or hate the Red Sox. Including mine.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Fangraphs projects the AL East to be much worse than last year and a lot more competitive, with BAL -16, TB -13, and TOR -4 wins from a year ago, and NY +7 and BOS +3.

Biggest projected win increases are OAK (+22), KC (+20), and STL (+12), while BAL, TEX (-8), LAD (-7) and ATL (-7) show the biggest gap in projected wins vs last year.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

Fangraphs projects the AL East to be much worse than last year and a lot more competitive, with BAL -16, TB -13, and TOR -4 wins from a year ago, and NY +7 and BOS +3.

Biggest projected win increases are OAK (+22), KC (+20), and STL (+12), while BAL, TEX (-8), LAD (-7) and ATL (-7) show the biggest gap in projected wins vs last year.

Every projection every year will show the best teams from last year with far fewer wins and the worst teams with far more. Bill James refers to this as the plexiglass principle.

If a model DOESN'T show this, it's terrible.

Edit: Context - in 2023, it projected NYY -9.5, TOR -4.5, TB-0.5, BOS +3.5, BAL -6, LAD -23, HOU -17, ATL -8, WAS+12, OAK+9, CIN+8.

 

[VORP Speed]

Continuing commentary from the article:

They should have just called this analysis the "Why do we massively underrate the Rays every year analysis". It's a combination of what they're outlining plus probably not fully capturing the upside of young players or improved performance from optimal utilization.

 

[jon abbey]

They should have just called this analysis the "Why do we massively underrate the Rays every year analysis". It's a combination of what they're outlining plus probably not fully capturing the upside of young players or improved performance from optimal utilization.

Fangraphs is understaffed and very good at many things, but predicting the upcoming season is not one of those. We would almost certainly do a better job if we group voted on win totals here.

 

[zenax]

Final 2018 Projected Standings--Bleacher Report
NYY 95-67
BOS 90-72
TOR 82-80
TBR 71-91
BAL 70-92

Actual Standings at end of season (+/- Wins above/below projections)
BOS 118-54 (+28)
NYY 100-62 (+5)
TBR 91-72 (+20)
TOR 75-89 (-7)
BAL 47-115 (-23)

I don't have the time to go over every projected season but I think the above gives some idea of how projections are not always reliable.

 

[chrisfont9]

Final 2018 Projected Standings--Bleacher Report
NYY 95-67
BOS 90-72
TOR 82-80
TBR 71-91
BAL 70-92

Actual Standings at end of season (+/- Wins above/below projections)
BOS 118-54 (+28)
NYY 100-62 (+5)
TBR 91-72 (+20)
TOR 75-89 (-7)
BAL 47-115 (-23)

I don't have the time to go over every projected season but I think the above gives some idea of how projections are not always reliable.

People betting on stuff like this are insane. I think the NBA and maaaybe the NFL is an opportunity to play the prediction game, but that's it. It's why you play the games. Hell, baseball might be the only major sport whose regular season isn't too long, or not by much anyway. You really do need six months to find out who teams actually are. By contrast, the NBA, we know who most teams are by New Year's if not sooner.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Final 2018 Projected Standings--Bleacher Report
NYY 95-67
BOS 90-72
TOR 82-80
TBR 71-91
BAL 70-92

Actual Standings at end of season (+/- Wins above/below projections)
BOS 118-54 (+28)
NYY 100-62 (+5)
TBR 91-72 (+20)
TOR 75-89 (-7)
BAL 47-115 (-23)

I don't have the time to go over every projected season but I think the above gives some idea of how projections are not always reliable.

Sox didn't win 118, they won 108 (+18).

Point still holds though. Projections only have so much usefulness. A lot can happen in the six months of a season (good and bad).

 

[bosockboy]

View: https://twitter.com/bradfo/status/1765731482432057349?s=46

 

[HfxBob]

View: https://twitter.com/bradfo/status/1765731482432057349?s=46

I think there was a report some years ago that the Red Sox generally don't insure contracts, presumably because the premiums tend to outweigh the recoveries.

 

[DeadlySplitter]

View: https://twitter.com/Sean_McAdam/status/1767271261141401714

 

[Rovin Romine]

Good luck Lucas!

 

[bloodysox]

Need one of Montgomery/Snell so badly now... honestly going to be pissed if we don't sign one of them.

Without an addition I'm pretty confident that we're going to run into the exact same problem as last year where the bullpen crashed and burned due to overuse. And somehow our rotation is currently in even worse shape than it was last year. Season is going to be a complete dumpster fire without making any moves.

 

[YTF]

Need one of Montgomery/Snell so badly now... honestly going to be pissed if we don't sign one of them.

Without an addition I'm pretty confident that we're going to run into the exact same problem as last year where the bullpen crashed and burned due to overuse. And somehow our rotation is currently in even worse shape than it was last year. Season is going to be a complete dumpster fire without making any moves.

Prepared to be pissed, because I don't think the Sox go for 4 years on either and I don't think a "pillow contract" benefits the team for what it might cost. They need a starter for sure, possibly two, but with the Bello extension done and the Casas talks I think they will try to scrape by with whomever they can pick up and spend whatever they had budgeted for this season on youth with an eye toward the future. I do share the same concern about possible overuse of the pen. I'd hoped for one of Houck or Whitlock to help sure up the back end should Martin or Jansen get traded. Now it seems both are going to be needed in the rotation and depending how things shake out there's a possiblity that Winckowski could be moved from the pen to the rotation. Hopefully a couple of the arms that Breslow brought in will be able to step up and pitch some meaningful innings.

 

[AB in DC]

I've given up on Snell/Montgomery at this point (sounds like neither of them want to sign here anyway), but the FO does to sign someone else for the rotation just to avoid burning out the bullpen.

 

[mikeford]

I don't know how anyone could look at the way this team has operated financially for the last 5 years and think there is a PRAYER they spend more money on pitching this spring.

 

[LoweTek]

Apologies if it was discussed earlier in the thread. I didn't look back through it all. Where was the "pending a physical" part of the Giolito signing? Whatever physical issues are analyzed Before an FA acquisition didn't detect this issue? The guy goes down a week into Spring training after a few rounds of PFP and whatever number of bullpens? It seems the Sox need to get a little better at the health evaluation of FA acquisitions.

 

[jtn46]

Need one of Montgomery/Snell so badly now... honestly going to be pissed if we don't sign one of them.

Without an addition I'm pretty confident that we're going to run into the exact same problem as last year where the bullpen crashed and burned due to overuse. And somehow our rotation is currently in even worse shape than it was last year. Season is going to be a complete dumpster fire without making any moves.

I disagree, year is looking like a bust, invest in extensions for our young guys, keep payroll open for a nice FA class next year or a trade that has us taking on a big contract. If they need to sign some vet starters to eat innings do that.

 

[YTF]

I don't know how anyone could look at the way this team has operated financially for the last 5 years and think there is a PRAYER they spend more money on pitching this spring.

They've got a pitching centric CBO who may possibly present a greater case concerning the damage the franchise can do to itself via over/misuse of a pitching staff. I think that they spend more, most likely not a lot, but guys are going to be cut during spring training and there are a couple of low cost FAs still available.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Apologies if it was discussed earlier in the thread. I didn't look back through it all. Where was the "pending a physical" part of the Giolito signing? Whatever physical issues are analyzed Before an FA acquisition didn't detect this issue? The guy goes down a week into Spring training after a few rounds of PFP and whatever number of bullpens? It seems the Sox need to get a little better at the health evaluation of FA acquisitions.

I can't imagine any pitcher is signed to an eight figure salary without a full physical including some sort of scan/test of his shoulder and elbow. I also don't think it can be assumed that the injury happened before he was signed and was missed by the Sox medical team. Why is it so hard to believe it could have happened during a bullpen or during one of the two games he appeared in? Or while working out on his own before camp but after he signed the deal?

 

[VORP Speed]

I can't imagine any pitcher is signed to an eight figure salary without a full physical including some sort of scan/test of his shoulder and elbow. I also don't think it can be assumed that the injury happened before he was signed and was missed by the Sox medical team. Why is it so hard to believe it could have happened during a bullpen or during one of the two games he appeared in? Or while working out on his own before camp but after he signed the deal?

Good thing he wasn’t doing Boras holdout spring training!!

 

[geoflin]

Apologies if it was discussed earlier in the thread. I didn't look back through it all. Where was the "pending a physical" part of the Giolito signing? Whatever physical issues are analyzed Before an FA acquisition didn't detect this issue? The guy goes down a week into Spring training after a few rounds of PFP and whatever number of bullpens? It seems the Sox need to get a little better at the health evaluation of FA acquisitions.

According to this he tore his UCL while facing the Twins on March 1.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/03/11/sports/lucas-giolito-surgery-contract-red-sox/

 

[AB in DC]

Wasn't the surgery today? Surprised no one has said anything about it.

 

[jon abbey]

Wasn't the surgery today? Surprised no one has said anything about it.

View: https://twitter.com/PeteAbe/status/1767649253730435177?s=20

 

[jim_vh]

I'm getting an ominous vibe from the silence about the surgery. I think usually they make an announcement that the surgery went well and they expect a full recovery by now.

 

[findguapo]

View: https://twitter.com/PeteAbe/status/1767909914188374047

 

[Skiponzo]

View: https://twitter.com/PeteAbe/status/1767909914188374047

IIRC Story got the bracing procedure done last year and was able to come back in season. SS throw a lot but obviously not as much as pitchers so while I assume the recovery for Lucas will be longer than Trevor's, I am encouraged that he might be ready to go for the entire 2025 season. Thinking positively.

 

[simplicio]

Yeah bracing is good news, gradual return to throwing starting around 5 months rather than 9-12 for TJS.

 

[OilcanDroid]

Apples to oranges, but Brock Purdy had the same procedure last year about the same date, came back for all of training camp and started game one this past season.

 

[Cassvt2023]

This is good news. Hoping for a full recover, a normal offseason, and a strong, healthy 2025. I wonder if he will be around the team during some of his rehab?

 

[CR67dream]

I'm getting an ominous vibe from the silence about the surgery. I think usually they make an announcement that the surgery went well and they expect a full recovery by now.

Reverse Jinx!!

This is great news, couldn't have asked for better. Very good chance he could be at or near full health by the start of next season, with a strengthened elbow to boot. If that elbow had been causing some of his troubles as of late and it wasn't just the personal stuff as speculated, he may be in a really good place to do some good things when he gets back.

 

[Yo La Tengo]

Reverse Jinx!!

This is great news, couldn't have asked for better. Very good chance he could be at or near full health by the start of next season, with a strengthened elbow to boot. If that elbow had been causing some of his troubles as of late and it wasn't just the personal stuff as speculated, he may be in a really good place to do some good things when he gets back.

This creates an interesting contract issue: If Giolito opts in for 2025, then throws fewer than 140 innings that year, the club gets a $14 million club option (or $1.5 million buyout) for 2026. If he reaches that 140-inning mark, the option will become a $19 million mutual option or the $1.5 million buyout.

That 140 inning threshold will be something to watch next year.

 

[SouthernBoSox]

This creates an interesting contract issue: If Giolito opts in for 2025, then throws fewer than 140 innings that year, the club gets a $14 million club option (or $1.5 million buyout) for 2026. If he reaches that 140-inning mark, the option will become a $19 million mutual option or the $1.5 million buyout.

That 140 inning threshold will be something to watch next year.

I'd be very surprised if they didn't work something out. Giolito doesn't want to push himself after major surgery to hit a innings total and the Red Sox don't want to be in a situation where they try and avoid an incentive hurdle from a player.

They'll work something out prior

 

[simplicio]

That 140 innings clause makes me wonder if all parties were aware of some existing damage to begin with.

 

[moondog80]

I'd be very surprised if they didn't work something out. Giolito doesn't want to push himself after major surgery to hit a innings total and the Red Sox don't want to be in a situation where they try and avoid an incentive hurdle from a player.

They'll work something out prior

The Sox also have the option of offering the QO. That might lessen the urgency.

 

[Rovin Romine]

That 140 innings clause makes me wonder if all parties were aware of some existing damage to begin with.

Possible, but I think it really comes down to the recent Sale/Paxton experiences.

Here, the 140 IP is a good proxy for health/effectiveness - Giolito won't get it as a swingman or a reliever, and it works out in the modern Red Sox context to aprox. 25 starts or so. And per Giolito's history, he can hit that in about 4.5 months of starts (leaving 1.5 left over.)

If you look at the Sox last year, Bello had 28 starts/157 IP. Crawford had effective mixed usage with 23 starts and 129 IP. Compare to: Houck 21/106, Sale 20/102, Paxton 19/96.

 

[nvalvo]

According to this he tore his UCL while facing the Twins on March 1.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/03/11/sports/lucas-giolito-surgery-contract-red-sox/

That 140 innings clause makes me wonder if all parties were aware of some existing damage to begin with.

See Geoflin’s post. They certainly knew that he had some damage. Going from “that ligament looks pretty rough” to an estimate of when it will fail is just not a precision thing, and again, every mid-career pitcher has some sort of elbow damage.

 

[LogansDad]

See Geoflin’s post. They certainly knew that he had some damage. Going from “that ligament looks pretty rough” to an estimate of when it will fail is just not a precision thing, and again, every mid-career pitcher has some sort of elbow damage.

Hell every pitcher over the age of 10 has elbow damage. I am currently reading "The Arm", a 2016 book by Jeff Passan who spent 3 years researching and looking into the pitching injury epidemic and what teams were (or weren't) doing about it at the time.

I am not that far into it, but it is absolutely scathing on the way parents and coaches treat their kids even at young ages. (This is probably a post that is better suited to the other thread, honestly, but I am not far enough in the book to really speak intelligently on it over there)

 

[VORP Speed]

Hell every pitcher over the age of 10 has elbow damage. I am currently reading "The Arm", a 2016 book by Jeff Passan who spent 3 years researching and looking into the pitching injury epidemic and what teams were (or weren't) doing about it at the time.

I am not that far into it, but it is absolutely scathing on the way parents and coaches treat their kids even at young ages. (This is probably a post that is better suited to the other thread, honestly, but I am not far enough in the book to really speak intelligently on it over there)

The risk of messing up your elbow is totally worth it to potentially play Major League Baseball. It’s as simple as that. This isn’t like CTE and football. It’s not really the end of the world if you shred your UCL, just means you have to go get a real job, which you will have to do anyway if you don’t keep up with the competition.

 

[cannonball 1729]

Hell every pitcher over the age of 10 has elbow damage. I am currently reading "The Arm", a 2016 book by Jeff Passan who spent 3 years researching and looking into the pitching injury epidemic and what teams were (or weren't) doing about it at the time.

Jeff Passan is a heck of a writer, but he knows nothing about how to read a scientific study. Like when he tweeted a link to a study, saying:

The Inverted W causing Tommy John surgery is a myth. Repeat: The Inverted W causing Tommy John surgery is a myth. http://t.co/ODcoQO4IoI
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) May 20, 2015

to which the author of the study he was citing said:

I told (Passan) that our data showed an increased injury rate requiring surgery in pitchers who exhibited the inverted W, it just didn't reach statistical significance. Because it did not reach statistical significance I can't make the claim that the inverted W increases injury risk.

My hunch is that it does.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Jeff Passan is a heck of a writer, but he knows nothing about how to read a scientific study. Like when he tweeted a link to a study, saying:


to which the author of the study he was citing said:

The pitcher who was supposed to be the next coming of Walter Johnson, or maybe Roger Clemens. OK, maybe Curt Schilling. But, he had the inverted V pitching form and some writers were putting out warning articles about him. Look what happened to Stephen Strasburg.

 

[derekson]

The pitcher who was supposed to be the next coming of Walter Johnson, or maybe Roger Clemens. OK, maybe Curt Schilling. But, he had the inverted V pitching form and some writers were putting out warning articles about him. Look what happened to Stephen Strasburg.

Given the fact that he's the pitching coach for the Dodgers now, maybe we're seeing second order effects of the first wave of guys using max effort?

My other real thought about this is simply the fact that since the early 2000s we've had a more analytic approach to roster construction. This change has resulted in much deeper lineups. Could a pitcher from 30 years ago, much less 50 years ago, even face a lineup that's 9 deep like the ones teams run out today without using more effort? I seriously doubt it. Almost every single team back then had a few no hit guys at the bottom of the lineup. The injury numbers also need to account for the fact that the NL has a DH now, so NL pitchers no longer get an inning that was a breather with an automatic out.

(maybe this is more applicable to the Frailty of the Modern Pitcher thread)