Pitch Perfect
August 5, 2016
The national rules of high school baseball for the 2017 season will require for the first time that state high school associations adopt policies and procedures that limit the number of pitches that an individual player may make over a specified number of days.
Presently, Michigan High School Athletic Association rules state that a student may not pitch more than three consecutive days regardless of the outs pitched, and shall not pitch for two calendar days following that in which the player pitched his 30th out.
In the past, there has not been consensus among Michigan high school baseball coaches or support by the MHSAA Baseball/Softball Committee to impose a specific pitch count; and the new national rule does not prescribe what the maximum count should be or how it should be applied.
The MHSAA will convene a group of coaches and administrators this month to discuss the many questions created by the nebulous national mandate. The group’s challenge is to craft a rule that will not result in students pitching more than they do under the current rule, especially at earlier grade levels, and a rule that is as simple to monitor and manage as the current rule.
The proposal of this study group will be reviewed by baseball coaches and school administrators throughout Michigan before submission for action by the Representative Council in December.
Michigan’s climate and culture within high school baseball probably makes a change in the MHSAA pitching rule unnecessary for the high school season. And sadly, any change made for high school play is likely to have little or no effect on the summer and fall ball that may be much more damaging to young arms than the high school season which often is much more restrained in the number of games per day and per season than non-school baseball.
We can hope, of course, that the additional focus on pitching risks at the high school level will be seen and taken seriously outside the high school season.
The Seeding Disease
May 1, 2018
I have yet to hear one satisfactory reason to advocate for seeding an all-comers, 740-team high school basketball tournament. But this I do know: Advocates of seeding are never satisfied.
Seeding high school basketball tournaments has become the rage since the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament, still just a 68-team affair, became a billion dollar media business. Many people assume that what is used for this limited invitational college tournament is needed and appropriate for a high school tournament that involves 11 times as many teams.
The NCAA pours millions of dollars into the process of selecting and seeding its 68-team tournament, combining a variety of data-based measurements with the judgments and biases of human beings.
One of this year’s questionable selections to make the 68-team field was Syracuse ... which sent our more highly touted and seeded Michigan State Spartans back home early in the tournament.
Meanwhile, low-seeded Loyola-Chicago upset four teams on its way to the Final Four, and became the favorite of fans nationwide. Which argues for upsets. Which argues for randomness.
Which argues against seeding. Why pick the No. 1 seeds of four regions and have all four glide to the Final Four? What fun would that be?
A local sports columnist who is an outspoken advocate for seeding our state’s high school basketball tournament actually wrote a published column advocating for “more Loyolas” in the NCAA tournament, and he explained how to make that happen. Which, of course, seeding is designed to not make happen, but instead, to grease the skids for top-seeded teams.
When the NCAA Final Four brackets for San Antonio resulted in two No. 1 seeds on one side, playing in one semifinal game (Kansas and Villanova), while the other side of the bracket had a semifinal with a No. 3 seed (Michigan) and a No. 11 seed (Loyola), there was a call for more finagling ... for reseeding the semifinals so that the two No. 1 seeds wouldn’t have to play until the final game.
It was poetic justice to watch one No. 1 seed clobber the other No. 1 seed in a terrible semifinal mismatch.
The point is this: Seeding is flawed, and advocates of seeding are never satisfied. If we take a small step, they will want more steps. If we seed the top two teams of Districts, they will lobby for seeding all teams of the Districts. If we seed all teams of Districts, they will ask for seeding Regionals. And, if we seed the start of the tournament, they will want a do-over if it doesn’t work out right for the Finals.
Seeding is a distraction, and an addiction.