Down For The Count? A Look At Rangers Starters’ Workloads
Matt Harrison delivers a first-inning pitch against the Royals on Thursday, May 6th.This piece begins with a short history lesson.
Way back in 1987, Craig Wright and Tom House wrote a book titled, The Diamond Appraised. House was the pitching coach for the Rangers at the time; Wright was a former Rangers statistician and an early devotee of the analytic approach known as "sabermetrics." In their book, Wright argued that in order to avoid damaging young, developing hurlers, clubs should avoid asking such pitchers to average more than 100-110 pitches per start.
About a dozen years later, dermatologist, Royals fan, and Baseball Prospectus co-founder Rany Jazayerli extended Wright's work, developing a metric known as Pitcher Abuse Points (PAP). A few years after that, BP's Keith Woolner built on Jazayerli's system; he presented evidence that (simplified somewhat) throwing more than 120 pitches per start was significantly correlated with pitchers' future injury risks (not to mention ineffectiveness in their next several starts), and adjusted PAP accordingly.
What does this have to do with anything Rangers-related in 2010? Just a bit more history. Shortly after Nolan Ryan joined Texas as its president in February 2008, USA Today's Bob Nightengale reported:
Ryan is determined to change the pitching philosophy in Texas. He would love to confiscate every pitch counter used by coaches. It drives him batty when he watches pitchers being pulled from games because their pitch count hits 110 or 120.
"We have to change this mindset," says Ryan. "Some of the guys have been on a pitch count since Little League. It should be tailored to the individual.
"These pitchers have to realize what their capabilities are, and build up their stamina. I remember it used to be that 300 innings was the benchmark for an ace. If you were a starter, you were expected to pitch at least 250 innings. Now, you may have one guy go 200 innings on your whole staff.
"That's why you see 12, 13 pitchers on every team.."
Ryan expressed these sentiments to the Rangers front office and coaching staff. He may be a softy at heart and always a gentleman, but when the boss talks, you better listen.
"He made suggestions along those lines about pitch counts," Rangers manager Ron Washington says. "So we're trying to keep them out there as long as they can. We have to be smart monitoring what they're doing, but if you got the horses, you can let them go a bit."
Baseball media types around the country picked up the refrain: Nolan Ryan thinks pitch counts are useless. This was overhyped, of course: Ryan never said he didn't think pitch counts were useful – just that they should be flexible, depending on the pitcher. And he had a good point. Pitchers differ, and so do specific game environments and in-game situations. Pitching coaches and managers should certainly take those factors into account when determining how long a starter remains on the mound.
At the same time, Ryan's comments were a source of concern to some. Sure, there were aces who pitched 300 innings in a season, and there was a time when a 250-inning season was expected from top starters. What goes unnoted in this sort of nostalgic narrative, however, is the inherent survival bias.
What sort of attrition resulted from the sort of workload Ryan cited? It's impossible to say with any certainty. But for those apt to bring up Bob Gibson as an exemplar of the good old days, consider this: would his contemporary Sandy Koufax have registered more than 6 extraordinary seasons if he hadn't thrown so many pitches each year? Now ask yourself how many other talented pitchers burned out along the way before ever making their names? And how much have MLB's efforts to increase offensive output weighed against starting pitchers' capabilities to log the sort of inning totals they were racking up when Ryan (or Gibson, or Koufax) was in his prime?
OK. History lesson over. Fast forward to May 1, 2010. Matt Harrison is on the mound for the Rangers, facing the Mariners in Seattle. The Rangers stake him to an early 3-0 lead, cashing in on a subpar performance from Seattle ace Felix Hernandez. But after a 1-2-3 first, Harrison begins to struggle; he gives up two singles and a walk in the second, and then three singles and a walk in a 2-run third. At this point, he has thrown 68 pitches. The Rangers score two in the next frame to maintain their lead, but the Mariners get another one back in the fifth, and by the time Harrison finishes an error-marred sixth, he's thrown 127 pitches.
Jump ahead five more days, to May 6. Harrison is now on the mound in Arlington, versus the Royals. He feels tightness in his biceps in the third inning, but completes five frames, throwing 95 pitches. Two days later, the Rangers announce that the 24-year old lefty will go on the disabled list with biceps tendinitis.
Did Harrison's six-inning, 127-pitch (and subsequent five-inning, 95-pitch) outing contribute to his injury? Again, nobody can state that definitively. But it's worth noting that, heading into Sunday's games, Harrison was fourth in MLB in Pitcher Abuse Points, and the Rangers were the only team in the majors with four starters (minimum of 20 IP) in the top 40 of PAP. (Rich Harden was down the list at 89. The Angels were the only other team with four of its starters in the top 50 in PA, though the Giants had four in the top 51; the Red Sox had five in the top 58; and the Yankees had four in the top 75.)
There's potential selection bias here, of course: successful starters tend to throw more pitches than their less effective colleagues, since the former tend to go deeper into ballgames. And at least some front offices and coaching staffs are no doubt aware that they have pitchers who are able to throw more pitches, and use them appropriately.
But for Colby Lewis, C.J. Wilson, and especially Matt Harrison to be in the top 40 in PAP raises some disconcerting questions. Scott Feldman's performance this year also gives pause for thought. The righty's workload increased dramatically in 2008 and 2009, and while his decreased velocity and lack of movement this year may be due to mechanical flaw, the possibilities of arm fatigue and/or injury also rear their ugly heads.
Looking at Harrison, specifically: the young southpaw is coming back from surgery from Thoracic Outlet Syndrome. He threw only 72 innings in 2009. So it's not immediately obvious why Texas decided to push him to 127 pitches over six innings in an early 2010 outing, and then 95 more over five innings in his next start. At least two competing hypotheses have been raised:
1. Harrison's a workhorse; he can take it.
2. Harrison's an expendable arm, and the Rangers wanted Holland up anyhow, so they were willing to slag Harrison.
Neither of these makes a ton of sense. At 24 years of age, there's relatively scant evidence that Harrison is a workhorse – especially coming off a major surgery. He's never thrown more than 170 professional innings in one season. Give that, it seems somewhat reckless to have asked him to throw 127 pitches in one six-inning start. Yes, the Rangers had played a 12-inning game the day before, and yes, the team was facing the 12th of 20 consecutive days of games. But there were relievers who'd been spared pitching on both April 28 and 29, and of those used on the 30th – namely Oliver, O'Day, Francisco, and Feliz – none threw more than 15 pitches.
As for the idea that it's acceptable to toast a 24-year old arm, no matter how certain it is that he's not destined for a starring (or even starting) role – or how ready a greater talent is to join the starting rotation? That just doesn't seem like a legitimate big-league strategy.
And before this all gets blamed on Ron Washington (or even Nolan Ryan): in Sunday's in-game Dallas Morning News chat, Evan Grant told Adam Morris (of Lone Star Ball) that Rangers pitching coach Mike Maddux is primarily responsible for decisions on when to pull a starter.
I'm not quite sure what to make of all of this. Like many others, I had been ready for the whole Ryan/Rangers/pitch count story to fade into the Ethernet. But while Pitcher Abuse Points may not be gospel, neither are they (sorry) a load of pap. I know the Rangers are second in the majors in starters' PAP (trailing the Rockies), thanks in part to Harrison's total, which exceeds that of some teams' entire rotations. I know Harrison, Lewis, and Wilson are one of only four starting trios in the major leagues that have averaged at least 104 pitches per start in 2010, and that the other three all have at least one guy with a history of shouldering that sort of load. I also know that the Rangers have heavily emphasized the conditioning and durability of their starters, and that they may well believe their pitchers are a match for some elevated pitch counts. Maybe they're right.
But with Matt Harrison on the DL so soon after a six-inning, 127-pitch performance, and with open questions about all four remaining Opening Day starters, and with Derek Holland now in the rotation? Color me a bit worried about the way that Texas is taxing its starting pitchers in 2010.
41 Comments | in Analysis, The Season
Reader Comments (41)
Nolan admitted that when went with this pitching plan that it would be a weeding process. I like Harrison but if he can't take he can't stay.I bet he ends up in the pen when he gets back. There are some who think they have over used the bullpen so it is a no win catch 22 deal for the rangers. As for one thing in this article I guess these stat dorks have a stat for everything Pitcher Abuse Points. Now I have heard it all I would like to see the guidelines for that scale. The way pitchers are treated now is just along the lines of how our whole society is bottom line it is called the wussafucation of America that is the bottom line I can't really even believe what the rangers are doing with the starters is even an issue. I guess some of you would have pulled CJ the other nite to huh? Not me.
@Mike: I've added a link to Woolner's write-up of his analysis at Baseball Prospectus. That should give you the info you're asking for. And in and of itself, Wilson throwing 113 pitches in his complete game versus the Royals Friday night didn't particularly bother me, no.
And an edit, to provide a further link to Woolner's PAP FAQ.
I absolutely understand the fans interest in the topic.
However, leaving Washington out of the equation, and with all due respect to proponents of expert analysis by keyboard, I'll defer to the 2 guys with 40+ years of Major League pitching performance between them.
No amount of conditioning will make it ok for the team's starters to throw 127 pitches. Number of pitches per starts is not necessarily a leader board you want your staff to be on top of.
Interesting article. Pitch counts are a good means of monitoring work loads, when you have a properly designed conditioning program that is designed on the individuals needs. Pitchers conditioning program should not be all the same. Each is as unique as the pitcher.
As for the injuries that are currently puting these pitchers on the DL, Bicep tendenitis is a declaration injury and when a pitcher is losing is velosity and control, that is a warning sign of over-training and sympathetic fatique. This problem can be fixed if the strength coach understands the problem and the signe.
In the case of the rangers, neither their medical staff or strength coach are up to the task. Hence this is just a preview of what is to come for the Rangers pitching staff.
Well all I know is we waited till May this year before we had to put a pitcher on the DL. That has to be a record for the longest stint we have gone with the same pitchers.
I agree in the thought that this higher-pitch-count philosophy will weed out just who can and can't "make the cut." So long as it doesn't mean we start to see our rotation slowly wear down and get injured.
With the rest of the AL West struggling this season, I think our biggest focus should be on keeping the rotation healthy and have them in peak condition come September/October. If that means sending Harden to the DL (which I anticipate happening regardless) or if Lewis shows signs of wear in July or August, give him a DL stint to recuperate.
You mentioned article ideas. Don't hear much about Ranger hitting prospects (perhaps there's a reason). Are there any that bear watching in Frisco or OKC? Perhaps, if warranted, an analysis or article on that subject would be interesting.
On that note, does Craig Gentry have any potential?
Overall I like Ryan's philosophy but 127 pitches for a pitcher coming off surgery is a bit obscene. We should have someone in the pen who could have come at Ichiro.
I watched Jamie Moyer pitch the other night and while he's not a hard thrower, he's obviously a freak of nature. Ditto Nolan and Bob Gibson.
I believe that certain pitchers are born with rubber arms... Nolan was obviously one of them and as a result, his perspective on the matter may be a tad skewed.
I was looking at a Nolan Ryan baseball card the other day and his durability is off the freaking charts. He pitched his face off each season, regularly logging 30+ starts and 300+ innings. The only pitcher (in the Bigs) that could POTENTIALLY log that many innings is Roy Halladay.
So, there's no way to guage which pitchers have a Nolanesque arm... the only way to find out is through trial and error... but that's a pretty steep price to pay if you're wrong.
I would be very curious to see Nolan's pre Texas and post Texas numbers. You would obviously have to somehow account for his age... but I think the heat may have played a factor, as it should with the 2010 pitching staff.
Speaking of age, what do the stats show is the prime year for a pitcher to log big innings/pitch counts? In other words, does a 28 yr old pitcher have more durability than say a 24 yr old?
@Pabloesque: I think the definitive studies on these issues are yet to be conducted, but based on what I've read, the consensus seems to be that, in general, starters who have survived a professional workload to age 28 are at less risk of injury from high pitch counts than still-developing 24-year olds with less of a track record.
The problem, of course, is the "in general"; again, so much of this conversation hinges on particular pitchers and their circumstances. I think the situations of Wilson, Lewis, Feldman, and especially Harrison are interesting with respect to durability, given their trajectories as starters.
And/but: this gives me a chance to be clear (if I wasn't above). I cited PAP in this piece as a measure that's interesting to think about. I also think there's a number of issues with the metric, which is one reason why I linked to Sean Forman's piece questioning some of Woolner's methods and conclusions.
I believe pitch counts and PAP can be useful as exploratory tools, and that's how I've tried to present and employ them here. That said, I don't agree with some of the ways they've sometimes been utilized or described in the last decade or so. I hope this piece will spark some folks to do more reading, thinking, and commenting...
The real issue is that Harrison is logging all of these pitches but is not able to get out of the 5th or 6th inning.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2007-03-01-japan-pitchers_x.htm
I'm on full force with Nolan's credo. They've been doing it in Japan for years (link). It's all about what you were conditioned to do. If you've been limited to 90 pitches an outing and then go for 125 pitches, you could be in trouble.
As long as we are starting our players in the minors with this philosophy and sticking to it, I think it would give us a definitive advantage over the rest of the league.
maybe if the starters could get into the 7th inning on 110 pitches (15.7 pitches per inning) more regularly -- they wouldn't have to throw so many pitches.
Feldman -- 18.8 P/IP and 5.286 IP/GS
Harden -- 19.2 P/IP and 5.029 IP/GS
Harrison -- 18.4 P/IP and 5.667 IP/GS
Lewis -- 17.1 P/IP and 6.367 IP/GS
Wilson -- 15.6 P/IP and 6.867 IP/GS
Any wonder why C.J. and Colby have appeared to be our best pitchers so far this year? You can't
The starters are struggling a lot and struggling early. You can't take them out in the 4th inning 3 out of 5 starts each go-around in the rotation. The bullpen will be dead by July.
127 pitches for a young player is just plain stupid; however, it isn't like the Rangers have many options. Mathis probably should have come in for Harrison to start the 6th, but again we can't keep bring in the bullpen in the 5th and 6th innings.
The starters have to start getting more efficient and get deeper into games on less pitches; otherwise the depth the Rangers supposedly have in regards to starting pitchers is going to get tested.
Of the studies listed, the one that has the strongest evidence for a direct relationship between pitch counts and injuries is the one that focuses on starts > 120 pitches.
Very quantitative monitoring of a pitcher's performance might be one of the next advances in baseball management However, outside of this 120 pitch threshold, it is hard to pin anything on pitch counts alone.
So I am concerned with how they handled Harrison that particular game, but I am not concerned in general.
A little bit of context to the pitch numbers is also useful. The Rangers in 2010 have had their starter exceed 200 pitches in 22 of their 32 games. This places them in the top quarter of the AL, with Boston, LAA, and Rays having as many or more 100+ pitch games than the Rangers.
The Rangers are on pace to have their starters throw 100+ pitches in 112 games. Over the past few years the Rangers were far, far below this, which clearly shows the emphasis being placed on the starting pitchers in the management's design of the team.
Perhaps, an alarm should be considered mid-season if they remain on this pace. No other team in the past few years has exceeded 100 games wherein a starting pitcher threw 100+ pitches. If the Rangers keep this pace, they will have performed an experiment of sorts.
One thing that gets lost in all of this pitch count talk is How many of these pitches are high stress pitches..ie Fastballs, sliders, cutters...There is not much stress on a major league arm from change ups and curveballs...I would be interested to see the break down of pitch type within the 127 pitches discussed above...
@Jack Legg
I agree, although I thought curveballs were considered high stress. I know in High school, our coach wouldn't let any of us throw curveballs due to the thought of damaging our elbows. Maybe it was just because we were sub-par high school baseball players.
There really should be some kind of moratorium on silly pitch count articles for a period of time after the great Robin Roberts passed. The guy threw 28 complete games in a row at one point. It makes it very hard to get worked up over a single 120 pitch outting.
Another angle to consider is that with Holland throwing so well in AAA, Harrison is going on the DL in a situation when if there were not a Holland, he would have just skipped his turn in the rotation. Not saying that Wash burnt him up on purpose to create an injury so that Holland could take his place, but saying that what may not be much of an injury is now a trip to the DL to give Holland a chance and Harrison time to get his mechanics back on track.
@Bucky: There is a large number of factors outside of strength and conditioning that can and does contribute to tendinitis, chiefly among this number is the rate of force applied to a tendon. This particular aspect of the pitching motion is not something that can be duplicated in a weight room - unless you've got pitchers throwing bullpens in your weight room.
Specifically tailoring a training regimen to a specific pitcher is not going to change his genetic predisposition to repetitive use injuries, though, obviously, it will help slow down that process. Such tailoring will also not fix problematic mechanics whether they're caused by conformational changes in the skeleton or by unhealthy movement patterns.
Blaming the trainers, doctors, and strength coaches for Harrison's tendinitis is silly.
In hindsight, perhaps letting a guy coming off Thoracic Outlet surgery throw 127 pitches was a bit much. But just a couple of years ago we were bemoaning Rangers starters not clearing the fourth inning. They aren't being asked to complete games, just go an extra inning.
While a bad break for Harrison, that's why the starting depth has been built the way it has. A Harrison or a McCarthy may fall to the wayside, but others will rise up to accept the workload. Holland's up, Hunter waits in the wings, Perez, Scheppers, Beavan and others continue to develop.
dirty refers to number of pitches per inning. I tend to watch these numbers more than the number of pitches in total. Of course, the pitcher that averages 14 pitches per inning is going to have thrown about 125 pitches total, but without the rather obvious strain that a 20 or 25+ pitch inning will. That's been Feldman, Harden, and Harrison's problem all year - the big inning of pitches...or more than one.
I'm definitely not a fan of Pitcher Abuse but no sabermatrician ever tells us why the guys pre-1980's could throw all of those innings and the guys today can't. Answer me that. It was more than Nolan Ryan - it was practically everybody.
@ the three J's (Josh G., Joby, and Jack Legg) - All of you have great points and it shows how much info a manager (and/or pitching coach) must factor in making decisions such as this... it's a job I wouldn't want to be responsible for, fo sho.
Do you think JD and co. use any of these Sabermetrics in making decisions? Obviously they wouldn't make decisions solely off stats alone, but do you think they even look at some of the more obscure stats like PAP?
I'm with Rooster, there's only one way to say definitively that too much is too much, and that's going to take a wait-and-see approach. And again, like Rich P points out, this is why JD built Rotation A and Rotation B. Just like Holland coming in for Harrison... and bringing in Hunter, Moscoso, BMac (if he's ever healthy) when/if the next guy goes down. Maybe JD is way smarter than we are collectively and he built a contingency plan long ago to address this very issue.
Ivy League Education = Brilliant GM (I'm joking).
Oh, and I forgot to thank Josh G. for answering my earlier question... so THANKS Josh!
@james mason:
The short answer is that the pre-1980s guys included the likes of Catfish -- done at 31 -- Hunte,. Don -- done at 26 -- Gullett, and many many others like them.
I understand, but I dont understand. I thought Wash was already concerned that the bullpen was wearing out, although bulllpen guys do not throw 100 pitches a week. If starters dont go as long, won't that wear out the bullpen faster? And wont all the other teams in the league wear out their bullpens faster than the Rangers?
It seems the only answer is to keep fresh guys at AAA, because you can only have 25 guys on the ML roster. However, the AAA pitchers will be worn out the same way, for the same reason.
"...no sabermatrician ever tells us why the guys pre-1980's could throw all of those innings and the guys today can't"
James, yeah, you're right - pitchers used to throw a lot more pitches. Also, more pitchers used to blow out their elbows or shoulders, never to be seen or heard from again.
@Jack.Legg: I'm no expert on pitching; however, I can tell you that if they're thrown correctly, a changeup and fastball should put the same exact stress on the arm. The goal of the change is to get the same exact arm velocity/motion to produce a slower pitch by altering the grip. If a pitcher is putting less stress on his arm when throwing his change, it likely means that he's telegraphing the pitch by lowering his arm speed and making the pitch easy to pick out. As I recall (and I'm sure that Trip will correct me at some point if I'm wrong), the slider is the pitch that creates the most stress on the arm, particularly on the elbow.
Great stuff, Josh. thanks.
Each pitcher is an individual and should be treated accordingly. I think the issue is what are the reasonable parameters of finding what they can take. According to the aforementioned research pushing too far to find their limits can have short and long term effects on their performance. It would be hard for me to think a Ranger fan couldn't come up with a lot of anecdotal evidence too.
I haven't seen anyone mention it, but Feldman threw 217 pitches in his first two games of the season, one of them a one run ballgame, and hasn't looked or performed the same since. I felt a twinge after that second game.
Eric points out the high attrition rate of pre 1980's era pitchers. It's also economically unsound to burn pitchers at that rate today. Davey Johnson, Tony Larussa/Dave Duncan and others started using relievers to win ballgames. Athletes are much more muscular and can generate torque on their tendons and ligaments. There are studies that point out how many more guys throw in the high 90's than did previously. You used to be able to find articles about talent drain due to the other major sports paying much better than they used to. Expansion happened as well.
The benefits of pitchers going deeper in games are obvious. But to discount the risks is foolish. This site has a lot of content dedicated to predictive statistical analysis relating to The Rangers. It seems a little odd that anyone would be reading this stuff and seemingly not pay any attention to that analysis.
... generate MORE torque on their tendons and ligaments.
@Dave...agreed but its not the motion of the arm that causes the stress on the arm...its the nature of the release that makes it a high stress or low stress pitch on the arm...the release of the change up(while arm motion is the same) is a relaxed release out of the hand...the finish does not cause the stress that the wrist snap of the fastball does...Same is true of the slider with the added stress of a different release...CB does have a bad rap as being a high stress pitch at the younger levels but when thrown correctly it is a lower stress release
at Trip Somers: I guess from your vast knowledge of training professional pitchers...then you maybe correct. NOT! If you fail to look at each pitcher as an individual.. then you can best design the program for them. Providing negative work specificly for the bicep group and working specific aspects of his physical limitations will provide a great platform for success.
The genetic issues has nothing to do with bicep tendonitis!!!
This abuse scale is just flat crazy is there one for abuse of bullpen pitchers. That is a more likley in this day & time Like using a bullpen guy three days in a row. My thought is I trust Mike Maddux, Wash & Nolan Ryan more than I do some stupid scale that makes no sense anyway.
Nice article Josh.
While I still swear up and down that R.A. Dickey might have continued to have a decent season had the Rangers not taxed him in that 120+ pitch outing vs Boston years and years ago, with Harrison I feel like they are trying to see what they have.
Ultimately he's thrown over 600 innings in the minors -- and really hasn't been dominant in anything other than A ball. 1.30+ WHIP in AA, 1.40+ WHIP in AAA. Not horrible, but certainly not #'s that say "we gotta get this kid up quickly". He got a shot in the Rangers rotation the last few years for no other reason than they didn't have anybody else.
Has he pitched some good games in the bigs? Sure. Though you'll notice almost all of them were against teams near the basement in league hitting. Against average and above average hitting teams, he's been torched. Just like no-name pitchers with otherwise little success have completely shutdown the Rangers over the last 10 years, it is possible for one of ours to do it to other teams.
My opinion? Harrison has pedestrian stuff. He doesn't have good enough command to nibble, but when he forces it over the plate it gets hit - hard. Even in his decent outings this season, there have been some screamers that found gloves.
He's 24 and a lefty, so I'm definitely not in favor of dumping the guy -- especially with the starting pitching issues this team will have post-ASB (lets face it, Harden can't be relied upon and Wilson is going to hit a wall once he hits those 80+ and 100+ IP barriers). But right now you go with your best and hope that division lead grows enough to survive the July/August pitching swoon.
As to Harrison's minor league numbers, I think he was very young at about every stop.
Also, more pitchers used to blow out their elbows or shoulders, never to be seen or heard from again.
Not anymoreso than today's pitchers. The advent of TJ surgery plus other radical medical benefits makes this less of a problem.
For every pitcher that had a short career, there are 5 who had a long one. I do think 120+ pitches is ridiculous but I also think that the newfangled world of statistics finds something and runs with it without actually considering the fact that they could actually be wrong.
@mhayden: All good points. Entering the season, I figured the Rangers would be best off if they helped Harrison showcase his reportedly improved velocity with OKC, bill him as New and Improved! after his TOS surgery, and then sell him high as part of a larger package, possibly at the deadline. That sort of deal could come back to sting, but given the pitching the Rangers have in the minors, and given their needs at the majors, and given what Harrison's shown so far...
So part of what surprises me about Harrison's high-pitch, low-inning outings is that he is still young, and a left-hander ~ and as you point out, that's a valuable commodity in the majors. I'm still hoping Harrison gets sent to AAA when he recovers from the tendinitis, but given the start to his season, I don't imagine his trade value is quite as high.
Finally this is my first time I pop in here. I discovered a lot of remarkable substance on your webpage specially its conversation.
@Bucky (again): Tendons (and muscles, bones, and ligaments, as well) are sensitive to the rate of force applied to them. No matter how well trained a pitcher is, the rate of force applied to the biceps tendon during a pitch CAN NOT BE DUPLICATED IN A WEIGHT ROOM. There is no way to train for that except by throwing pitches at high velocities.
Your last comment is simply ridiculous. Genetics plays a very large role in determining what kind of training and performance loads a particular person can handle. Genetics determine the body's ultimate ability to heal (including inflammation and tissue repair), get stronger (supercompensation caused by training stimuli), and apply force.
Tons of guys bust their asses every day in weight rooms and on baseball fields. Almost none of them will wind up throwing even a single 95 MPH fastball in their lifetimes.