ESPN MLB

In the Times, Michael S. Schmidt has some shocking information about injuries:

The problem is representative of a larger trend in Major League Baseball that has left people in the sport grasping for an explanation: the amount of time players were out with injuries increased 26 percent from 2006 to 2008. This year's numbers, midway through the season, are similar to those from last year, when players spent more time on the disabled list than ever before.

--snip--

Peter Nash, the director of underwriting for Sportscover, a syndicate of Lloyd's of London that insures contracts for teams and players, said that over the last decade, teams have been giving more contracts based on performance. A hitter, for example, may receive more money if he plays in at least 100 games or hits more than 30 home runs.

"We used to have to cover clubs much more when they were giving large contracts without the incentives,” Nash said. "Now we are being approached by the players and being asked to insure the incentives in their contracts to make sure they make money even if they get hurt and can't play.”

Umm, no. That thing about "performance" incentives didn't seem right, and it's not. Games played? Sure. Home runs? No. As one American League executive told me last night, "Performance bonuses can only be tied to quantitative stats -- at-bats, plate appearances, games played, innings pitched -- and cannot be tied to any qualitative or performance-based stats such as hits, home runs, strikeouts. The only quality-based bonuses we can give are for recognized awards: ERA or batting championship, Rolaids Reliever of the Year, etc." That little bit of misinformation aside ... As near as I can tell, four explanations for all this DL time are advanced:

• Players make so much money these days that they're less willing to play in pain.

• Greater use of MRI technology has allowed team doctors to diagnose more injuries.

• Teams are more often inventing (or exaggerating) injuries in order to create roster space.

• Testing for stimulants has "deterred players from taking substances that for many years enabled them to play through pain."

The first of those is patently ridiculous, as commentators have been suggesting that high salaries would kill players' motivation to play for at least 30 years and it hasn't happened yet.

The second of those doesn't make a great deal of sense, either. I don't doubt that doctors are diagnosing injuries earlier than they once did, but an injury's an injury; if you don't catch that torn ligament today, won't it show up eventually and lead to even more DL time because the healing process wasn't started earlier?

The third thing is happening, but certainly can't account for anything like a 26-percent increase in injury time.

Which leaves just the fourth. At least among the explanations we've been given. And I'm pretty skeptical about that one, too. I don't have any experience with serious stimulants, let alone with playing through pain. So I can't dismiss the notion that players used to avoid the DL by eating greenies and whatnot. But, again: 26 percent worth? Also, little pills can't actually heal anything, you know? I would guess that most stints on the disabled list aren't because of pain so much as actual physical damage, and you don't fix those with pills; you fix them with rest and rehab.

I have my own theory. I think maybe baseball players are simply pushing the limits of what their bodies are able to do. They're working out year-round, they're bigger and stronger than they've ever been -- historically speaking, anyway -- and maybe it's just too much. It might be possible for pitchers to throw 102 miles an hour ... But would you want them doing that? Would you expect them to last long, throwing 102 miles an hour? I would not.

Anyway, that makes as much sense as anything else I've seen.