Starting Pitching, Tommy John Surgery, and Baseball Records

There has been a lot of talk lately about Tommy John surgery and why pitchers are not as durable as those from previous eras.  Ask an expert, a former player, a casual fan, or a stat geek and you are likely to get many different answers ranging from "don't throw breaking balls in little league" to "they don't throw enough to be used to the abuse of pitching 300+ innings."  Nobody knows the answer. From a physiological standpoint, I find it hard to believe that throwing more is an adequate answer considering these injuries are not muscle injuries, and thus do not respond to overwork the way a muscle might.  On the other hand, I could be wrong, as early muscle memory may provide protection.

From my perspective (and from Jason's, I'm sure), I have a far greater interest in how protecting pitchers from major injuries by limiting innings and having pitch counts affects the game, the statistics, the records, and how Hall of Fame criteria might change.

Pitch counts are changing the way we view the game and the way we have to interpret statistics.  Pitchers rarely complete games.  Complete games now feel like no-hitters felt in the early 90's.  They are fairly rare.  Pitchers are also at the mercy of a slew of relief pitchers to get wins.  This is interesting because advanced statisticians will tell you that wins are not predictive of actual pitching success.  I agree with this in the current era of short pitching outings.  20 wins meant a heck of a lot more when pitchers would pitch regularly into the 8th or 9th inning.  Pitchers are pitching less innings, and wins and losses are much more random events than in the past.

If baseball continues on the current trajectory, we are unlikely to see another pitcher win 300 games, record 3000 strikeouts, or complete more than a handful of games in a career.  It is already becoming apparent that we are having difficulty evaluating statistics in this era.  An example is Mike Mussina.  Mussina won 270 games and had a great winning percentage.  He also had an ERA of 3.68, which is typically well above the HOF cutoff.  However, he pitched for New York for a good portion of his career, and short porches are not good for the ERA.  How do we deal with 270 wins and a decent, but slightly high ERA?  My guess is that voters will have a difficult time deciding when it comes to Mussina.  He bridged the gradual change from workhorse starter to inning and pitch restrictions.  In my opinion, the winning percentage and consideration of his time in Yankee stadium should be enough to get him in.  He was a great pitcher and one of the best of his era.  However, he never hit that magical 300.  Will he be punished because he could only start every 5 days instead of 4?  Or because he likely left games earlier than pitchers would have 20 years earlier and lost them due to shoddy relief work? WAR would suggest that he is in (he has a higher career WAR than Tom Glavine, who is in).  I will be very interested to watch in the future.

Sadly, we will probably see very few pitchers approach even 270 wins.  CC Sabathia is 33 and has over 200 wins.  He will likely win quite a few more games, although he has had difficulty staying healthy lately.  Otherwise, we are in for 250 wins becoming a major landmark and 200 wins becoming a relative rarity.  How do we deal with this?  How are we as fans supposed to interpret these new thresholds as baseball progresses through the pitcher protection era?  I don't really have an answer.  Perhaps advanced statistics will provide the answer.  Only time will tell.