Then if he’s the #4 starter, it’s possible that he would only make 2 starts in the playoffs altogether.

Very doable.

The decision of how to use Joba Chamberlain can never be “empirical.” My point is that people are touting the Verducci data as if it were highly valuable, empirical data, and it isn’t. It’s very provocative information, and it might be true. But I don’t care how convincing it seems to people, it can’t, at least in the form I’ve seen it, stand up to even half-assed scientific scrutiny.

Decisions in the real world are made on the basis of both objective data and subjective opinions. I’d like to have the opinions of actual baseball people and professionals with knowledge of athletic performance before I make my decision.

KT: So, Tank, do you think they should limit Joba’s innings?

TF: I can’t answer that, I don’t have enough information.

KT: But you wrote about the Verducci rule, so you are well read on this subject. Based just on what YOU know, now, would you limit his inning.

TF: I can’t answer.

KT: Sure you can, you are just refusing to.

TF: No, I can’t.

KT: Why, you have knowledge of the Verducci rule. Based on your knowledge, and opinion, what would you do.

TF: My knowledge of the Verducci rule leads me to believe that whether it is true or false, and to what degree, is entirely unknown. It is no better than guessing to base a decision on the Verducci rule. Furthermore, there must be other factors that predict how much work a pitcher can safely handle. I don’t know any of these factors either. So, basically, you’re asking me to decide on the basis of what I know, and I know nothing.

KT: You mean, like Shulz on Hogan’s Heroes, you know ‘nuthink?’

TF: Exactly.

KT: Right, funny. But seriously, based on what you DO know, can you tell us what you’d do?

TF: Oy. Pick a number from 1 to 10.

KT: 3.

TF: Ok, since you picked an odd number, I’ll say let him pitch as many innings as he wants this year. How’s that?

For the record I think there is a case to be made to blow the innings limit, that is the goal is to win a championship now. I do not agree with it, but it is a perfectly reasonable line of thinking. Saying that it is riskless move for the future is silly.

Definitely. But having conflicting incentives affects numerous aspects of everything in baseball, and probably every other endeavor where people must make difficult and costly decisions.

Of course any manager considers motives when asking others for advice, to seriously question the wisdom of your experts for this reason is sort of like saying you are afraid to go up in an airplane because gravity exists.

TSJC’s question is not the same. Again, it’s like asking a layman whether or not he thinks the surgeon should do a sigmoid resection or a pelvic exenteration. Yeah, you can say “based on what YOU know” all you want, but it’s still a meaningless question.

For decades, there were no known or set guidelines on the usage of young pitchers. Some were subjected to very steep increases in workload, others broken in gradually. None of these instances were ever charted specifically. Now some person comes along and does a quasi-statistical, pseudo-scientific look at some data on pitchers, and the entire educated-fan universe has become “expert” on the development of young pitchers.

Sorry, I refuse to go there. It’s a meaningless exercise. How you decide to use a particular young pitcher is a serious decision that must be made by people with knowledge and experience about pitching, including, among many other things, their knowledge of things like Verducci’s “year after” data.

You’re asking me to decide something based on having, at best, half of the relevant information on my hands. The minute I give an answer, someone will spin it or otherwise impugn something about my biases toward pitching, etc. Nothing good comes from it.

In the original post, Joe wrote, using a new car analogy
…The idea is to keep [mileage/engine stress/speed] at a low limit until [the car is] broken in. Then you can gun it. Same deal with Joba. Of course, anyone is at liberty to disagree, though I’ve seen few convincing arguments to the contrary.

My aim here was to give such an argument. Or at least if not exactly to the contrary, an convincing argument suggesting that maybe the current thinking about innings limitations is not a valid one.

Going beyond that is for the rest of you guys. I don’t want to play.

Mark: Joe, as of right now who is the AL MVP?

Joe Morgan: That’s difficult to answer because the season is not over,

KT: The question was “as of right now.”

Theoretical Joe Morgan: Right, and it’s hard to answer because of what will happen in the future.

KT: But…the question is: right now, who’s the MVP. Like, now. At this moment.

TJM: But I can’t answer that, because I can’t tell the future.

KT: Hang on. Let me try something. What time is it.

TJM: No way to tell.

KT: Because you don’t know what time it will be in the future?

TJM: Correct.

KT: Fair enough.

Just a question but can’t all those people have incentives pervese to the situation at hand?
Pitching coach may want a pay raise (or manager job) and pitching Joba 200 innings is more likley to get him to that goal. Why would he care if he breaks down next year or 2-3 years down the road?

I am not saying you shouldn’t ask them. But to use that as your end all method is foolish at best.

FO hopefully has long term interests at play and knows that Joba value long term is > short term incentives.