In my OL, there's a team (actually in first place) using the 1964 Gaylord Perry as a starter. He started 19 games in '64, while relieving 25 times and pitching a total of 207 innings (fewer than 5 per appearance).

The results: In the first 5 innings of each appearance, totaling 164 innings in all, Perry has given up 50 runs.

After the 5th inning, 25 innings total, Perry's given up 59 RUNS!

That's some serious in-game fatigue!

The in-game fatigue process is one of the most important things WIS needs to fix, in my opinion.

But this is also a case of buyer-beware. The in-game fatigue issue is well documented, and the challenge of using pitchers with high IP and low IP/G (including 27 Cy Moore) has been mentioned many times in these forums.

i thought my post would be useful for anyone who doesn't quite grasp the importance of in-game fatigue. It seems to be rather unforgiving. Whenever this pitcher steps onto the mound for inning 6, it's time for fireworks, as the runs allowed goes up not a little, but by a factor of 7.

it definately needs to be fixed...i would think they could base it on how long a pitcher worked per start, not per appearance.

Perry averages 4.69 IP/G and throws an average of 16.16 pitches per inning. making 75 pitches close to his upper limit.

I'm sure this has been answered, but is it just too much for WIS to calculate the pitches/inning for every pitcher in baseball history? Or is there some other reason they base fatigue on IP instead of pitches? I'm aware of the issues, just not sure if a reason has been given.

Seems stupid that a guy who throws 100 pitches in 5 IP could be less fatigued than a guy who throws 80 over 7IP.

I'm sure I'm missing the point, and I'm sure this is one of the issues of which you're aware: Nobody has any idea how many pitches Bob Caruthers or Lady Baldwin threw in any given season.

Quote: Originally Posted By Jtpsops on 5/24/2010I'm sure this has been answered, but is it just too much for WIS to calculate the pitches/inning for every pitcher in baseball history? Or is there some other reason they base fatigue on IP instead of pitches? I'm aware of the issues, just not sure if a reason has been given.

Seems stupid that a guy who throws 100 pitches in 5 IP could be less fatigued than a guy who throws 80 over 7IP

My computer froze after reading these. Thanks a lot. I'd try to help you, but you're so far off I wouldn't know where to start.

How am I far off? As far as I can tell, the complaint over this issue has been that fatigue is based on innings pitched, when a guy could take anywhere from, say, 50-100 pitches to complete 5 innings of work and thus all IP are not created equal.

pitcher fatigue is based on pitch count not innings pitched. You are right about not all innings are created equal. Pitchers average pitches thrown per inning vary. Some guys may average 14, some 15, some 16 and some even more than that. Based upon their average IP/G and their average PC/IP you can figure out pretty much how far into a game a guy can go before fatigue wipes him out.

There is a thread out there that helps calculate pitch count per inning pitched. Elbirdo did it. I bumped it to the front page.

Then I was mistaken...I always thought people were saying it was based on IP/G and that's why everyone was in an uproar