MLB’s players have become less and less durable over time, MLB.com’s Anthony Castrovince writes. Castrovince notes that last year, only 56 players appeared in at least 150 games, and only 37 got 650 or more plate appearances, the lowest numbers in each category since MLB expanded from 26 teams to 28 in the early 1990s. The reason seems to be that teams (including minor-league teams) are reluctant to have players play through injury. “If you have a superstar player and you’re a young coach or manager in the minor leagues and you ask him to push through and he gets hurt, guess what? That’s not going to be very good for you,” says Cardinals manager Mike Matheny. Castrovince points out that the number of days players spend on the disabled list has increased over the past five years (although players stayed somewhat healthier in 2014 than they did in 2013). More aggressive policing of steroids and amphetamine use is likely a significant factor in increased DL time throughout the big leagues. Here are more quick notes on injuries.
- The Marlins have announced that Henderson Alvarez will start tomorrow against the Braves. It will be Alvarez’s first start since April 12, having since missed a month with shoulder trouble. Alvarez’s return will be a big boost to the 16-20 Marlins, who will get a pitcher who finished 12th in Cy Young balloting last year after posting a 2.65 ERA, 5.3 K/9 and 1.6 BB/9 over 187 innings.
- Orioles prospect Bobby Bundy (not to be confused with former top draft pick and fellow Orioles minor-leaguer Dylan Bundy) will have surgery for a knee injury Monday, Steve Melewski of MASNsports.com tweets. It’s a tough break for Bundy, who emerged as a good starting pitching prospect in 2010 and 2011 but missed the entire 2013 season and chunks of 2012 and 2014 as well with a series of injuries. Bundy had pitched 15 innings of relief for Double-A Bowie this season.
FYI, Bobby Bundy is Dylan’s older brother.
Interesting to see the impact that the amphetamine ban has in all likelihood had on the past seasons. It’s very easy to overeact to the standings this early…but watching how teams react to the dog days between the All Star Game and Labor Day has gotten very interesting.
You do know that players have been using amphetamines since the 1950s, right?
Yes, I’m aware of that. Thats why it’s interesting to see the player reaction later in the season. Greenies were boosting the players through most of the modern age.
I see what you’re getting at, but players were using amphetamines like crazy throughout the ’60s, even in the historic low-offense era from 65-69. I just don’t know what we can glean from their ban and its effect on season performance. I wonder what seasonal breakdowns were, by first half/second half , throughout the amphetamines era. It would require a much bigger database and work than I could accomplish, but it would be an interesting endeavour.
When the ban went in place I thought it would be more telling than the steroid ban. And it’s played out that way. Of course,.I don’t have more than visual evidence…but my history in the game and circumstantial evidence doesn’t make my view incorrect or even unpopular. So many things go into performance…a stimulant would just be one.
The mound during the 60’s was also high..and the game shifted to speed. It was ebb and flow. Also have to consider that the pitchers were popping greenies too. It’s been pervasive by acknowledgment. Teams would have jars available with various color amphetamines.
There’s no doubt that a modern 162 game travel schedule will wear players down. Bill Lee once said to cut down the schedule and greenies wouldn’t be necessary.
I’d be inclined to believe that performance would tail off during the summer; it’s an incredibly long season with relatively few days off and, especially as baseball expanded to hot-weather cities, it wears on players. I just wonder how the data would compare from the ’60s to, say, the ’90s, because players from each era were using amphetamines, but the results were very different.
You’d probably have to account for the steroid spike from about 1985 on. Steroids might also give an amphetamine like effect. Also, we’re talking about statistics in the way we’d discuss a seismographic reading. What appears as a large scale shift in stat output season to season wouldn’t be noticeable to the naked eye…same way we wouldn’t be able to tell the league leader in a category for marginal talent in a single viewed game
Steroids probably helped keep players on the field, simply because they maximized the effects of a player’s workouts. I don’t know which “steroids” most players took, because there’s a lot of them. I don’t know that most increased a player’s energy level, although being in better shape probably did.
Steroids could also likely have a bit of a placebo type effect on a players psychology as well
I can tell you without looking…my speculation of course….but offensive output likely tailed in late summer. That’s where the “dog days of summer” term comes from. Its also the time of the season where the scouting reports had gotten around the league. Its the place where upstart teams go to die.
I think it’s also when nagging injuries become more problematic for players. Playing through a little pain in April probably leads to having a lot of pain in August.
Sure…and the pain is what made the greenies an enabler. I’m not saying they were as pervasive in 2005 as 1975…but they were there.
There are many things contributing to our recent offensive downturn. Relief pitcher usage has changed..and there are some very hard throwers in pens now. Another thing I’d venture…and this is from live game observation..and it’s a viewpoint of the scouting community…but players “baseball instincts”_aren’t as honed as they have been in the past. I can prattle on why this might be the case..x
I’d agree with the modern pen changing things a lot – pitchers just throw harder and with more “stuff” than they ever have, by far. And most teams have a bunch of those guys in the bullpen, which shortens the game and limits offense. I don’t know about the “baseball instincts” thing; it’s possible that because baseball isn’t getting all the good athletes anymore there are just less instinctive athletes playing the game, but also so many players from places where baseball instruction is just about non-existent or extremely underdeveloped. Although, as a guy who played little league and high school ball I can say the instruction at those levels was pretty suspect too.
I see it the other way. Remember all the SS that came out of San Pedro De Macoris, DR? Those guys fielded grounders on fields strewn with rocks growing up…they developed the ability to read a hop…..so they got to a manicured pro field and it was on. They played A LOT. My contention is that more American players now are over programmed….TOO much coaching and too many organized games. Not enough sandlot ball where even things like reading a fly ball…or developing fly ball routes can be done over and over and over. I know its my view… But its a discussion that has come up with high level members of at least three different mlb orgs. They say it in unison.
One thing that’s not a stretch to conclude is that amphetamines have been more of a “performance enabling” drug than enhancer. Players probably need to drink lots of coffee to get that same effect. A study of coffee consumption by mlb clubhouses since the ban would be interesting. I’m waiting for Starbucks to sign on with MLB as the Official Legal Stimulant Supplier of Major League Baseball. The Seattle Mariners have a clear advantage due to the fresh local market.
No amount of coffee consumed will get you near the effect of amphetamines or amphetamine like drugs. I’ve been prescribed adderall (which is amphetamine based) for almost a decade, and I cannot imagine that any amount of coffee (constant consumption with two iv’s simultaniously distributing caffeine directly into the blood stream) can even approach the impact of a 10mg adderall.
Most likely coffee doesn’t provide that….players have even mentioned it. But wouldn’t adderall have the reverse effect (non stimulation) for those who are prescribed it legally? Assuming an.ADD/ADHD diagnoses.
Adderall and other amphetamine based add/adhd medications do not have a reverse effect. The reverse effect that is normal discussed in a mental response to the medication, not a physical response. The body’s physical response to the medication does not change because of a add/adhd diagnosis.
I’ve worked as a social worker with teens with autism spectrum and can attest that Ritalin and Adderall have a pervasively different effect from teen to teen. One gets very little relief and another it just cools off within an hour when they are taking their meds regularly.
Have players become less durable, or less likely to play through nagging injuries?
I’d say both.
Actually, there’s not really any measurable difference between player injuries now and in other eras, based on data we have. Difference is that a minor league player who got injured in 1975 didn’t get written about on a website. We have access to much more information now, and that makes it *seem* as though players are getting injured more often, but if we extrapolate the data we have from previous eras it’s mostly a wash.
Cool. Connecting the dots, then; If the injuries are the same, and players are losing more time, then yes they are less likely to play through some nagging injuries.
Possibly; players in earlier eras didn’t have guaranteed contracts so may have been willing to sacrifice a bit more to avoid being jobless, especially because they didn’t really make very much money, except for the stars. We just don’t have any kind of injury database that extends far enough back to make any kind of case for more injuries in the modern era. We do know that players’ careers are longer now than they were in, say, the 1950s, but that has a lot to do with better training, conditioning, nutrition, etc. Teams in the 1950s didn’t even have weight rooms in the clubhouse.
I think Castrovince is using statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost; for support, not illumination.
good post. Careers are also longer because now even the non-stars hang around longer for the money.
There were likely enough players that quit baseball because another career such as selling insurance would provide better more secure incomes for they and their families. Probably enough of this happened to move some percentages.
Certainly throughout much of the early days of baseball most players worked in the offseason; this is actually what necessitated “spring training,” to get guys back into baseball shape. Plus, especially in very early baseball, leagues and teams were pretty fluid, and marginal players got squeezed out pretty frequently. Also, rosters tended to be smaller in early baseball – I think the 1927 Yankees used something like 15 position players all seasonand 8 or 9 pitchers. That probaby forced a lot of guys into other lines of work, especially because baseball players didn’t make much money for the most part.