Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci has a good column on the relationship between an increase in innings pitched from season-to-season and injuries suffered by young pitchers. Here's an excerpt:
One small part of such understanding is monitoring the innings of young pitchers from one year to the next. More than a decade ago, drawing on the advice of pitching coach Rick Peterson, I developed a rule of thumb that pitchers 25 and younger should not increase their workload by more than 30 innings. It's the same theory as training for a marathon: you risk injury by jumping from a 10K to the marathon instead of incremental increases. I called it the Year After Effect because the wear and tear often was followed by regression or injury the next year.
* * *
In recent years a new term has come into the game to prevent injuries, not just treat them: prehabilitation. Governing the workload of young pitchers has become standard procedure. Shutting down healthy pitchers in September, for instance, is a common occurrence.
* * *
Personally, I think one of the benefits of teams shutting down a young pitcher after he throws a certain number of innings is that it is a bright-line rule and takes the matter out-of-the-hands of the pitcher's manager, whose incentives may be short term and thus not always match those of the pitcher or general manager. Of course, the decision to shut down a pitcher is a team-based and not league-based decision, with some teams--and their managers--more protective of their pitchers than others.
So a thought: should the MLBPA try to collectively bargain a bright-line rule with the owners that would institute a league-wide limit on the number of innings thrown by a young pitcher, depending on his age?
Such a rule would surely attract criticism, especially since young pitchers, like all pitchers, are not equally susceptible to injury. For example, physically larger pitchers seem to be more durable than smaller guys, while pitchers with certain kinds of windups cause their arm more tension. A bright-line could consider a player's height/weight, but more likely it would only consider his age and number of innings pitched. Alternatively, instead of innings pitched, the rule could be based on pitches thrown - the same idea (and drawbacks) would be there.
Whatever a bright-line rule on innings pitched lacks in nuance and player-specific accuracy, it might still save some careers. It would also ensure that young pitchers don't fret about criticisms that they're more worried about their arms' health than their teams' success -- it wouldn't be the pitchers' choice, after-all, they would have to shut down after throwing a certain number of innings.
The troubles of the Jets continue. Two massage therapists have filed a lawsuit claiming that they lost their jobs after complaining about "sexually suggestive text messages" from Farve while he was on the Jets in 2008.
I was interviewed yesterday by Maggie Gray of Sports Illustrated Video to discuss:
University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Stephen Burbank, the Special Master of the NFL for grievances with the NFLPA, began a hearing today in New York City for a grievance filed by the NFLPA. The NFLPA alleges that the NFL breached its fiduciary duties under the CBA by -- according to the NFLPA -- taking less from TV networks for broadcast contracts in exchange for the guarantee that the NFL would be paid by those networks in 2011, regardless of whether there is a league lockout. The NFLPA characterizes the NFL's contract strategy as "lockout insurance" and claim that it contradicts the CBA. The NFL, in contrast, argues that it did not breach any duties and, moreover, that it has discretion in its business decisions for broadcast contracts. If the NFLPA wins, it would provide added motivation to NFL owners to agree on a new CBA before the current one expires on March 4.
I was interviewed by Public Radio's Marketplace show this morning to discuss the hearing - for an interview transcript and link to audio, click here.
A few facts to follow up on the post by Michael on the suspension of five Ohio State Football players. Thankfully, the Coach did allow the players to participate in the Sugar Bowl on the condition that the juniors agreed to return to the school for their senior year rather than throw their hats in the NFL lottery ring. How charitable.
That Coach Jim Tressel recently had his contract extended for two years so he can continue to earn $3.5 million annually from The Ohio State University, a tax-exempt state university and recipient of millions of dollars in state and federal funds.
Speaking of tax exempt status, I am glad to report that the Sugar Bowl Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization, making your contributions tax deductible. The CEO of the foundation, Paul Hoolahan, receives annual compensation of $645,386 for his fine work.
For playing in this great game, Ohio State receives about 17 million dollars.
Now you know why the NCAA was so upset about these kids besmirching such charitable endeavors by accepting those free tattoos.
Congrats to Joe on negotiating the contract for Okajima, who was an all-star in 2007 but who struggled at times last year. Given the Sox's recent acquisitions of Carl Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez, along with an improved bullpen, Okajima has a legitimate chance of winning another World Series ring.
Stefanie Loh of the Patriot News examines the five game suspension of Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor and several other players for selling their championship gear and pocketing the profits - a violation of NCAA rules but, from the players' standpoint, a way of obtaining the fruits of their otherwise unpaid labor.
She interviews Geoff and me for the story. Here's an excerpt:
All season, the waters of college football have been muddied by stories of student-athletes breaking rules by trying to make money or receive benefits that, per NCAA rules, they are not eligible for due to their amateur status.
But as a 2009 ESPN.com story showed, a bona fide football star can be a multi-million dollar asset to his university. The University of Florida’s football revenues totaled $132 million in Tim Tebow’s sophomore and junior seasons combined. In exchange, the only monetary compensation the quarterback received was his scholarship worth $13,160 per year, and a minimal monthly stipend.
* * *
Patriot News: Is there any feasible way we can find a happy medium and compensate the student-athletes while not creating dissension?
Rapp: You could allow for a fairly modest stipend. Like what grad students make teaching introductory English in exchange for $20,000 a year. Then, if you’re Terrelle, you have something in your pocket, and it reduces temptation. The real problem is that most universities couldn’t afford to give their student-athletes $10-20,000. For most universities, it would mean the end of their programs.
McCann: How would other athletes be compensated? And how would Title IX work into it? If you’re only paying the players from programs that make money — at most schools that is men’s basketball and football — other players would say “I should be paid too” and the school would say, “You’re not contributing enough to the market.” It would certainly complicate college sports, and I imagine some schools would have to cut programs to pay for this.
I went on to say that another response -- though not a complete solution -- would be for the NFL, NBA, and WNBA, and their respective players' associations, to collectively-bargain a lowering of their age/experience eligibility restrictions. Here are the current rules:
The NBA requires that U.S. players be 19-years-old and one-year removed from high school.
The WNBA requires that U.S. players be four-years removed from high school or at least 22-years old.
The NFL requires that players be three-years removed from high school.
Those rules are applied in all cases and make no exceptions for a young player's extraordinary talents (i.e., there is no Lebron exception) or his/her financial hardships.
Lowered eligibility would mean that college football and basketball players who would be drafted if they were eligible could then leave college (or not go to college) and pursue those leagues and thereby earn income for their labor. These are the same players who, because they are the best, presumably generate the most fan interest and are thus the most deserving of gaining compensation for their services. To be sure, some of these players would prefer to attend/remain in college, develop their games, and obtain a college education - the choice, though, would be theirs.
None of this is to say that other college student-athletes don't deserve to be paid for their athletic achievements, but if only some can be paid, it would seem that players who are 1) good enough to turn pro and 2) would turn pro but can't because of arbitrary age limits should be first in line.
Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci has a good column on the relationship between an increase in innings pitched from season-to-season and injuries suffered by young pitchers. Here's an excerpt:
