'Tandem starters" in MLB?

[AKCheesehead]

KROD to the Tigers for Betancourt and PTBNL

(The Royals) used Sabermetrics to flip the game, and I love it. We have seen a paradigm shift. No doubt things will shift again sometime soon enough. We may eventually see "starters" who go 3 innings and a succession of relief aces who pitch an inning or two each in innings 4-9. We actually have already seen it: in the All-Star games

Not to stray any further off topic here, but: I have for years been fascinated by what possibilities might be for a team to commit to playing a season with the "tandem starter" approach the TLR tried in 93 with Oakland. The main premise being to eliminate hitters seeing a pitcher for the 3rd time through the order, have 2 guys paired up to throw say 4 innings each in a game. One of the big hurdles is keeping the starters satisfied, knowing they can't earn a win. It would take strong leadership, young guys, and complete buy-in to commit to something outside the box. Of course it won't happen, but the 2016 Brewers, with their young guys vying and hoping for rotation spots, as well as low expectations, would be as good a team as any to give it a try from day 1. It sure would be interesting.

[jerichoholicninja]

 

They used Sabermetrics to flip the game, and I love it. We have seen a paradigm shift. No doubt things will shift again sometime soon enough. We may eventually see "starters" who go 3 innings and a succession of relief aces who pitch an inning or two each in innings 4-9. We actually have already seen it: in the All-Star games

 

Not to stray any further off topic here, but: I have for years been fascinated by what possibilities might be for a team to commit to playing a season with the "tandem starter" approach the TLR tried in 93 with Oakland. The main premise being to eliminate hitters seeing a pitcher for the 3rd time through the order, have 2 guys paired up to throw say 4 innings each in a game. One of the big hurdles is keeping the starters satisfied, knowing they can't earn a win. It would take strong leadership, young guys, and complete buy-in to commit to something outside the box. Of course it won't happen, but the 2016 Brewers, with their young guys vying and hoping for rotation spots, as well as low expectations, would be as good a team as any to give it a try from day 1. It sure would be interesting.

 

I posted this same idea in a thread over the summer as what the Brewers should do with their young pitchers for the next season or two and it was shot down. It just makes sense since hitter do better the more they see a pitcher. Unless you've got an ace ala Kershaw, Greinke, Price they should go 2 times through the order and call it a day.

[bill hAll Star]

Colorado somewhat tried to do this a few years ago (not necessarily for league-wide SABRmetrics, more because of the Coors factor). It didn't end well for them.

 

That is not extremely relevant, though...I would be interested to see teams do this. I think that pitcher contracts/the union may have a say.

[3and2Fastball]

Colorado somewhat tried to do this a few years ago (not necessarily for league-wide SABRmetrics, more because of the Coors factor). It didn't end well for them.

 

That is not extremely relevant, though...I would be interested to see teams do this. I think that pitcher contracts/the union may have a say.

 

Probably. Starting pitchers command huge contracts and might not be seen as valuable if the only go 3-4 innings at a time

[MrTPlush]

You would create quite a war if you tried to make pitchers only throw 4 innings. Not to mention good luck ever getting a pitcher in FA. You better keep the pitching pumping through the minors. Probably tough to extend them too and not to mention their salary request wouldn't make sense for a guy throwing only 4 innings.

 

MLB would hate you.

[3and2Fastball]

You would create quite a war if you tried to make pitchers only throw 4 innings. Not to mention good luck ever getting a pitcher in FA. You better keep the pitching pumping through the minors. Probably tough to extend them too and not to mention their salary request wouldn't make sense for a guy throwing only 4 innings.

 

MLB would hate you.

 

Until you win the World Series and the every team does it.

 

If starters only pitched 3-4 innings you could have a 4 man rotation. I apologize I'm getting way off topic here.

 

Back to the OT: as the first day has gone by we are getting more & more positive reports on Javi B. He is several years from MLB but the kid has potential. I'll be fascinated to see Stearns' next moves. I'll say this" "expect the unexpected"

[BrewBalls]

Would this consist of a 6 man rotation where each pair pitches every third game? If so, then these pitchers would still be getting close to 180-200 IP per season (i.e 54 games x 4 IP). Its an interesting concept and I would be curious to see it implemented for an entire season. We do have enough available starters to try this if Stearns was inclined to do so.

Pair #1: Nelson/Lopez

Pair #2: Peralta/Davies

Pair #3: Jungmann/Garza

[3and2Fastball]

I think it'd be more like 3 or 4 "starters" who go 3-4 innings at a time (in other words, they never face a batter for a 3rd time in a game). You'd then have a bullpen full of Relief Aces. Flamethrowers in the Wade Davis mold who can pitch 1 to 2 innings at an elite level. Easier said than done, however I think MLB will gradually move towards that, with starters only expected to go 5 to 6 innings and then turn it over to the bullpen. Maybe 5 years from now starters will only go 4 to 5 innings. Hopefully it will help reduce arm injuries....

[trwi7]

Not to mention good luck ever getting a pitcher in FA.

 

Is that a bad thing considering we can't compete for the very best free agent pitchers?

 

Suppan - released before his contract was over

Wolf - released before his contract was over

Lohse - removed from rotation in last year of his contract

Garza - removed from rotation in the second year of a four year contract

[BrewBalls]

I think it'd be more like 3 or 4 "starters" who go 3-4 innings at a time (in other words, they never face a batter for a 3rd time in a game). You'd then have a bullpen full of Relief Aces. Flamethrowers in the Wade Davis mold who can pitch 1 to 2 innings at an elite level. Easier said than done, however I think MLB will gradually move towards that, with starters only expected to go 5 to 6 innings and then turn it over to the bullpen. Maybe 5 years from now starters will only go 4 to 5 innings. Hopefully it will help reduce arm injuries....

The problem would be finding enough "relief aces" to fill out your bullpen since the majority of relievers are inconsistent and struggle with control issues. Its hard enough to find quality late innings relievers let alone more to pitch 4-6. At least with my version, you are limited your bullpen to the final few innings.

[AKCheesehead]

I think some pitchers would be on board once they started to maximize their effectiveness. With smart game planning, I think a team could get pretty good performance out of mid level pitchers. Sure maybe their win totals would be lower but in theory so would their ERA.

[DHonks]

It's a nice idea, and some starters could earn their way out of it. But it would also keep guys fresher. Wish slightly lower work loads, guys would probably be more ready in the 1st inning (we've seen Sheets and Nelson struggle with this) and perhaps able to throw every 4th day.

[DHonks]

Also, it would encourage teams to be creative with their bench players. I'm surprised there hasn't been another Brooks Kieschnick.

[3and2Fastball]

One of the ideas I've seen thrown around by the Sabermetric crowd is the idea of "Openers". i.e. you'd have Craig Kimbrel or Wade Davis pitch the first 2 innings of a game. In especially the 1st inning you are guaranteed to face your opponents Top 3 hitters. Ideally you'd want your best or one of your best pitchers throwing against them, then you'd go with your "middle guy" who is a former "starter/traditional starter" for 3-4 innings and then turn it over to relief aces

 

I've also seen lots of talk of TTOP (or "time through the order penalty") in which they've shown that pitchers do significantly worse the more times a hitter sees them in a game. By limiting pitchers to 3 or 4 innings, the opponent would never get a 3rd at-bat vs them in a game.

 

Also, in the National League, it would be advantageous to almost never have a pitcher hit. If you could pinch hit for the pitcher almost every time their turn in the order came up, you'd be essentially creating a huge offensive advantage over your opponent (at least until the rest of the league caught up)

[Point Beer Is Best]

A couple of issues that could arise.

 

First, If you limit tandem starters to 3 or 4 innings max, what happens when they are in a groove? If a guy retires 9 of the first 10 batters he sees, are you really going to take the ball from him? You pretty much have to take him out to keep everyone on schedule, and then will be heavily criticized on the occasions when this backfires.

 

Secondly, if you switch pitchers enough to the point where you could pinch hit for them each time (or do a double switch), you will burn through your bench in a hurry. Things will be pretty interesting when a game goes into extra innings and you have a starting pitcher on a rest day manning left field.

[645]

When all things are equil a pitcher with a history of injuries can not command as much money as a pitcher that has never been injured.

 

An idea like this would help pitchers stay heathty and if it works in the end it would cost the teams more money

[AKCheesehead]

A couple of issues that could arise.

 

First, If you limit tandem starters to 3 or 4 innings max, what happens when they are in a groove? If a guy retires 9 of the first 10 batters he sees, are you really going to take the ball from him? You pretty much have to take him out to keep everyone on schedule, and then will be heavily criticized on the occasions when this backfires.

 

Secondly, if you switch pitchers enough to the point where you could pinch hit for them each time (or do a double switch), you will burn through your bench in a hurry. Things will be pretty interesting when a game goes into extra innings and you have a starting pitcher on a rest day manning left field.

 

If we're using twice through the order as a benchmark, a guy could technically go 6 innings max. I'd think anyone would be hesitant to pull a guy who's faced the minimum through 6, or is in a similar groove. Have his pitching partner work an inning or two to finish the game, then maybe extended work in a bullpen session or make him "pitcher A" 4 days from now. I'm sure there are plenty of managers who could work it out. Probably not Ned or Ron, but some could...

[3and2Fastball]

.... if you switch pitchers enough to the point where you could pinch hit for them each time (or do a double switch), you will burn through your bench in a hurry. Things will be pretty interesting when a game goes into extra innings and you have a starting pitcher on a rest day manning left field.

 

That would indeed be a huge challenge. How many times have we seen rallies end with 2 outs and the pitcher coming up? And then there is the intentional walk of the 8 hole hitter in order to face the pitcher with 2 outs. With the game very much in a pitcher's era, teams have to find creative ways to manufacture more offense. But yes, needing more pinch hitters and more relief aces does not add up to 25

[DuWayne Steurer]

Here's a brief rundown of our starters from last year, using only OPS against

 

Jimmy Nelson

1st time through order - .672

2nd time through order .762 (ouch)

3rd time through order . 600 (surprising)

 

Taylor Jungmann

1st time - 676

2nd time .750

3rd time .672

 

Wily Peralta

 

1st time .822

2nd time .806

3rd time .846

 

Zach Davies (small sample of course)

 

1st time - .402

2nd time -.948

3rd time (31 PAs) .440

 

Matt Garza

 

1st time - .673

2nd time - 1.023 (oof)

3rd time - 810

 

 

Not much of a conclusion to be drawn here..... the data is all over the place, and of course it's only 5 pitchers. Both Nelson and Jungmann were better the 3rd time through the order than they were the 2nd time through. (same with Davies, in a very small sample). Again, I don't know that this means anything....... I just think it means you have to look at a lot more guys before you draw a definitive conclusion that batters are better the third time they see a guy than twice.

 

I think you do have to take a long hard look at what kind of effect you'd have on a guy and a team's routine before you take this kind of drastic effect to tinkering, and really really study the numbers and see if the numbers support the conclusion that you're coming to (are you really more effective facing batters only twice?) if you're going to do this, because the drawbacks are plenty, as have been pointed out (Using more pitchers daily, using your pinch hitters up sooner in a game, potentially).

 

I'm against it. I think the better solution is "draft and acquire good pitchers."

[DuWayne Steurer]

Ok, so I did some (very minimal) research.

 

Leaguewide (NL only)

 

1st time facing a SP - 684

2nd time facing SP - 731

3rd time facing SP - 771

 

So leaguewide, it averages out. I would still (obviously) not want this to be a blanket thing applied to every starter. And for all the reasons stated in this thread, I'm not in favor of this kind of strategy anyways, unless the league suddenly decides to adopt 28 or 30 man rosters.

[Boomer5]

This would completely change the economics of the game because while the Grienke's and Kershaws will make the coin, the Garza's, Wolfs, and Lohse's, of the world would not.

 

I think there is legitimate merit to the idea but the MLB players union would lose their mind fighting this.

[And That]

The Rays kind of did this in 2015. Best starting rotation ERA in the AL.

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/157383440/starting-pitchers-should-throw-fewer-innings

 

SP 1st time through order: .705 OPS

SP 2nd time through order: .731 OPS

SP 3rd time through order: .771 OPS

RP 1st time through order: .699 OPS

 

That leaves us with a situation where maybe the ideal scenario is one (or two, if you can get them) traditional stud starter who goes as far as he can, like Archer. Then include three or four "short starters" who go 15-18 batters (not outs, a big difference), and back that up with an ever-rotating army of fresh arms who get 2-5 outs -- fewer starters and relievers, more pitchers. Don't like paying $17 million a year for a fourth starter? This is a good way to avoid that, though it also presents some difficulties in getting pitchers who won't be seeing individual wins to buy in.

[And That]

I think one way to counteract the union's qualms over the decreasing reliance on starting pitchers would be to expand MLB rosters by 2 or 3 spots, and/or to have a taxi squad of some sort. IIRC, Doug Melvin has been a proponent of the taxi squad idea.

[pacopete4]

How could the union fight this? A manager has every right to pull/put in whoever the heck they want to. If a pitcher doesn't like it, there are 29 other teams he can sign with when he is a free agent.

[And That]

How could the union fight this? A manager has every right to pull/put in whoever the heck they want to. If a pitcher doesn't like it, there are 29 other teams he can sign with when he is a free agent.

There has been labor peace in MLB for 20 years, but there is no guarantee of that continuing. The CBA is up next year. If teams start short-circuiting the ability of players to earn money, that is absolutely an issue the union would bring to the bargaining table.