No, I haven't tracked it.  I wonder if it's possible to go back and check.  Also, this midseason check is a bit premature.  Although Olivares is approaching last season's pitch total - he missed 7 starts because of injury that season.  A more accurate number for him would be the previous season in which he had about 3300 total pitches.

Olivares just threw 122 pitches and is showing 46(71).  Everyone else is 100.

As far as recovery, like I said earlier, I haven't touched the rotation except for the one time I swapped Pall and Olivares in order to let Pall recover.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/21/2012 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Have you tracked their recovery rate per start from the beginning of the season to this point of the season?

Some have said that fatigue recovery slows down as the season progresses.  I challenge that.  Would like to see some numbers if you have them.

I assume you're referring to me.    If that's what I said, I misspoke.   If it's not, you misremembered.

I believe fatigue takes a bigger dip.   85 pitches might result in a 47% in game 1 but drops to 35% in game 150.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/20/2012 11:42:00 AM (view original):
Not at all. I push my pitchers pretty hard all season, and definitely have seen recovery rates drop as the season progresses.

mchale's the one who's claiming that recovery rates slow down as the season progresses.  That is what I disagree with.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2012 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/21/2012 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Have you tracked their recovery rate per start from the beginning of the season to this point of the season?

Some have said that fatigue recovery slows down as the season progresses.  I challenge that.  Would like to see some numbers if you have them.

I assume you're referring to me.    If that's what I said, I misspoke.   If it's not, you misremembered.

I believe fatigue takes a bigger dip.   85 pitches might result in a 47% in game 1 but drops to 35% in game 150.

What you're experiencing is not uncommon.  It has to do with how rested the pitcher was before his start.  Not all 100% rested are the same in terms of how it affects fatigue.

Yes.  Except I don't start pitchers until they've had a full day of rest at 100%.    Are you saying my 100% is more like 100.1% while others are 103.9% even if they don't have the full, extra day?

What I'm saying is that the upper end of the fatigue scale for a typical starting pitcher might be somewhere like 130-140 or so, but is only displayed as a max of 100.  What the actual number is appears to be dependent upon his durability/stamina combo.  I've never bothered to try to figure out the formula.

But in your example, assuming that every pitch accounts for around 1% fatigue, if he starts the game at 132% (showing as 100%), his 85 pitches will bring him down to 47% after the game, where if he started only at 120% (again, showing as 100%), his 85 pitches will bring him down to 35% after the game.

That's why I've been saying all along that, with respect to fatigue, all 100%'s are not the same.

So you think starting fatigue can be 140%?   That seems insane.

Maybe we've been arguing the same thing but I was working with 99.6% and 101% while you're thinking 140%.

Out of curiousity, have you ever tried using a pitcher over and over again until he drops below 100%?   Like 5 pitches for 10 straight games?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2012 12:12:00 PM (view original):
So you think starting fatigue can be 140%?   That seems insane.

Maybe we've been arguing the same thing but I was working with 99.6% and 101% while you're thinking 140%.

Out of curiousity, have you ever tried using a pitcher over and over again until he drops below 100%?   Like 5 pitches for 10 straight games?

Yep.  Did it with a couple of pitchers, some with starters DUR/STA, others with relievers DUR/STA.

Player 1 (DUR/STA = 67/27) - signed as a minor league FA, fully rested:

1.  Did not pitch - 100
2.    5 pitches - 100
3.    6 pitches - 100
4.    6 pitches -   100
5.    7 pitches -   100
6.    5 pitches -   100
7.    8 pitches -   98 (100)
8.    5 pitches -   78 (100)
9.    6 pitches -   53 (100)
10.  5 pitches -   33 (96)
11.  Did not pitch - 96 (100)
12.  Did not pitch - 100
13. 25 pitches -   58 (100)
14. Did not pitch - 100
15. 25 pitches -   19 (83)

Player 2 (DUR/STA = 34/76) - did not pitch for 18 HBD days, then:

1.  13 pitches - 100
2.  20 pitches - 100
3.  17 pitches - 100
4.    6 pitches -   98 (100)
5.    6 pitches -   92 (100)
6.    7 pitches -   85 (100)
7.    7 pitches -   78 (100)
8.    8 pitches -   70 (99)
9.    7 pitches -   63 (92)
10.  5 pitches -   58 (87)
11. 11 pitches -  47 (76)
12.  Did not pitch - 76 (100)
13.   4 pitches -   72 (100)
14.   6 pitches -   66 (95)
15. 10 pitches -   56 (85)

Let's look at player 1 above for example.  Once he started dipping below 100% in game 7, every pitch he threw "cost" around 4% fatigue.  We can see when his two day recovery fell below 100% in game 10 (and again in game 15) that his fatige recovery was around 63% or 64% (I believe there are fractions and rounding coming into play, hence the occasional slight difference in numbers).

So backtracking with his pitches thrown in the first six games, it took him around 37 pitches to dip under 100%, one can reverse calculate that his "fully rested" fatigue started at around 246%.  That may be typical for a fully rested reliever.

Looking at player 2, who is your typical starter-type pitcher, the numbers are different.  He didn't dip below 100% until game 4 after throwing 56 pitches.  We can see that every pitch thrown afterwards "cost" him around 1% fatigue.  So we can reverse calculate his starting point for "fully rested" was around 154%.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/21/2012 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Let's look at player 1 above for example.  Once he started dipping below 100% in game 7, every pitch he threw "cost" around 4% fatigue.  We can see when his two day recovery fell below 100% in game 10 (and again in game 15) that his fatige recovery was around 63% or 64% (I believe there are fractions and rounding coming into play, hence the occasional slight difference in numbers).

So backtracking with his pitches thrown in the first six games, it took him around 37 pitches to dip under 100%, one can reverse calculate that his "fully rested" fatigue started at around 246%.  That may be typical for a fully rested reliever.

Looking at player 2, who is your typical starter-type pitcher, the numbers are different.  He didn't dip below 100% until game 4 after throwing 56 pitches.  We can see that every pitch thrown afterwards "cost" him around 1% fatigue.  So we can reverse calculate his starting point for "fully rested" was around 154%.

Player 2's fatigue recovery also appears to be around 29% per day of rest, so even when he's showing as 100%, it may actually take an additional two full days of rest at 100% to bring him back to his "fully rested" number of 154%.

Similar with player 1 . . . he may show at 100%, but may actually need an additional 2 or even 3 more days of rest to reach his fully rested number of 246%.

Not many of us have the luxury to completely rest our pitchers for 2 or 3 days when they are already showing at 100%, which is why fatigue often appears to be an issue after many consecutive days of games.

Well, it seems we were arguing the same thing but in a different way(while disagreeing that ST counts).

Do you not think a pitcher starts ST with 154%(or whatever number you choose)?     Then, let's just say each pitch costs him 1%.    He throws 30(124).  Rests two days and returns to 144.   30 more(114).   2 rest and 134.   And so on and so on.  

 

What say ye?

And you're saying, later in the year, that pitchers will drop deeper into fatigue.     How can you say that without acknowledging that ST counts?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2012 1:46:00 PM (view original):
Well, it seems we were arguing the same thing but in a different way(while disagreeing that ST counts).

Do you not think a pitcher starts ST with 154%(or whatever number you choose)?     Then, let's just say each pitch costs him 1%.    He throws 30(124).  Rests two days and returns to 144.   30 more(114).   2 rest and 134.   And so on and so on.  

 

What say ye?

Yep, I think that's pretty much exactly how it works.

But don't forget the four or five days of "Prepare for Regular Season" that major leaguers get (but minor leaguers do not).  Those days accumulate rest for the pitchers.  Unless you've really overworked your pitchers in ST, they will most likely have accumulated enough rest to get back to their individual "fully rested" starting point, just as they were before the start of spring training.  So essentially, any pitching they had done in ST will have no impact on the regular season because their "fatigue tank" is fully fueled up.

It's the minor leaguers who get work in ST games who get somewhat screwed because they don't get these 4/5 "prepare for regular season" rest days.  They start their regular season at whatever fatuge level they ended ST with.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2012 1:49:00 PM (view original):
And you're saying, later in the year, that pitchers will drop deeper into fatigue.     How can you say that without acknowledging that ST counts?

I'm not saying that at all.  How deep they drop into fatigue after pitching depends on where they started the game at . . . a guy will drop deeper if he started at 103% than if he started at 125%, given the same number of pitches thrown.  It can happen in his second start of the season (game 5 or 6), or at any point of the season.  It's not just "later part of the season".