Idiocy of enforced pitch counts

I saw this article in the SF Chronicle today, and agree completely with everything Bruce Jenkins has to say about pitch counts actually hurting young pitchers instead of protecting them.

It's time to stop coddling pitchers

My personal opinion is young arms should avoid unusually high pitch counts more than 140 or 150 pitches, but a regular dose of 110 to 130 pitches per start isn't going to do lasting damage, and will tend to strengthen their arms over the long haul. A team that tries to keep their young phenom pitch counts below 90-100 pitches per start is getting a very poor return on its long term investment.

Interesting read, and I tend to agree. Here's another good article, I put a lot of stock in anything Hershiser has to say about pitching.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=4359938

I honestly believe a lot of this "coddling" is just a continuation of a mind set developed by these modern day "feel-gooderies" we call schools.

I think if managers used their eyes instead of their pitch-counter, everything would be better off. Some days a guy is cruising, in a rhythm throwing low-intensity, and 130 is easy. Other days, like Justin Verlander throwing 133 in the playoffs after being in trouble early and throwing 97+ early on, that same 130 is waaay too much (obviously playoffs are different but that game stands out to me). Some days, a guy is just done at 90 pitches. No rhythm, battling for every out, getting out of jams, high intensity pitches, etc. A guy's pitch count should depend on what he actually looks like.

Then again, if we want to save arms, how about not having guys like Strasburg who throw 95+ with an awesome curve and change start throwing a slider, which really does hurt the arm? His UCL will be in shambles again in a few more years.

It's funny you brought this topic up because I was thinking about no-hitters that could have been. In the last six years I have seen 3 minor league pitchers (class A) go deep into the game with a no-hitter(6.2 - 7.2 inn) only to get pulled because of pitch counts. In all three instances the relief pitcher(s) gave up one or more hits and in one case lost the game. I saw one other game where the pitcher was allowed to finish and did in fact throw a no-hitter. In fact he almost threw a perfect game. He walked one batter with two out in the 7th. I think there were three reasons this guy was allowed to finish 1. It was Triple A, 2. He had already pitched in the majors earlier in the year and won his first three starts. 3. He only threw 103 pitches
I think if he had gotten up around 115 they would have pulled him. Great articles. I agree with you guys 100%.