the season's going to fall apart over one 133-pitch game? right.

I find it interesting at how much we baby today's pitchers and their $15 M salaries. How was it that pitchers prior to 1950 could pitch every four days and sometimes even doubleheaders. I know there were large medical risks, and that changes were needed. I have read numerous materials that state that a person should not pitch above 120 pitches and should not pitch more than 100 twice a week. Likewise, with the 8 warm-up pitches per inning and the 30 before the game, we are talking about close to 200 pitches. However, Schilling has had 130 pitch games before, and he has pitched to the ripe age of 39. I agree with Eric, we don't need to worry.

David didn't say the season is going to fall apart, Eric. I think what he meant is that this effort could have lingering effects on Schilling's health, and if that is the case then it most certainly will impact his (and the Red Sox') season negatively. It may be that Schilling will suffer nothing from the 133 pitches, but for me last night's managerial effort was very poor. Francona's job is to risk-manage, and he didn't do that, in the slightest. He pushed the envelope, and doing that in April with your most important pitcher is incredibly irresponsible.

I think the weather lent itself to a higher, not lower pitch limit. With the cold temperature, the body is going to sweat less, retain more energy. Plus, having been loosened up, it's easier to stay in the flow. On a night like last night, it's harder to come in from the bullpen than it is for a starter to stay in the game

I find it interesting that that high-priced ballplayers are percieved as 'babied', as though they've demanded as part of thier exhorbitant package that they not have to work a full day. Most of them are like Schilling -- they never want to come out of the game!

The 'babying' is nothing more than management of a significant investment. Yes, the Bob Fellers of old pitched a lot more, but remember that they were not all that highly paid and even the best players were generally working under a one-year contract. If I'm an owner and I've committed to paying a pitcher $50 million over the next four years, I'm gonna be more than a little irritated if my manager blows his arm out in August of the first year.

In the old days, if he gets hurt you don't give a contract next year.

Regarding the cold weather/hot weather thing, I don't know if I have anything scientific to add -- I imagine some players enjoy the cold, others the heat. How the body reacts physiologically is nothing I am an expert on. What I do know is that last night Schilling was sitting on the bench (was he in the clubhouse? Next to a heater?) for darn near 1/2 hour during the top of the 7th, having already thrown 110 pitches. For me, it was astounding that he was allowed to throw any, much less 23, additional pitches. And I hate pitch counts.

Again, this isn't about just last night, but about the long term effects of throwing that many pitches. I would probably have the same opinion even if it had been 75 degrees in Cleveland.

It is entirely possible that one game could harm him. If you look at Chris Carpenter - the year he had a dead arm at the end of the year and had to miss the playoffs, he had 1 high pitch game. In the years he didn't have a dead arm, he didn't have any really high pitch games. The sample size isn't large enough, but it's suggestive, anyway.

Re: today's players being babied.

I remember, years ago, reading the great book The Glory of Their Times, interviews with old ballplayers. Almost every one of them talked about how the players today will go on the disabled list with a hangnail and how back in the old days they were tough and played with pain.

Funny thing, though. When these guys talked about how their careers ended, almost everyone of them said something like, "Well, I got hurt one time, and tried to play through it, and it kept getting worse, and eventually I had to retire." They never made the connection between playing with pain and shortening their careers.

Now, you could make the argument that with free agency, ownership has less incentive today to protect a player's future, since they have no guarantee that the player's future will be for their team. But from the player's standpoint, it makes perfect sense. And it can't be just a coincidence that since they started "babying" players, careers have gotten longer.

Jeff comments that ownership has less incentive today to protect a player's future. I agree with that. Thier behavior is completely the opposite, though.

I've often wondered why teams, especially small market, low payroll teams, rush players to the majors. Using my Tigers as an example, they brought Jeremy Bonderman up at 19 and let him get beat up. From a developmental point of view, that my be fine, and he appears to be developing into a top-flight big-league pitcher. But in the end, all they accomplished was getting him to abitration and free agency a year earlier than necessary.

They certainly could have found some other stiff to lose 19 games in 2003, so the team got no great benefit out of it.

Granted, you want to get your best players on the big-league team, but you'd think you would leave a guy at Triple-A until he was more than ready to go. Then you get at least five really productive years at a reasonable cost instead of two 'learning years' and the three good ones.