'Tandem starters" in MLB?

[DuWayne Steurer]

Someone should play a season of OOTP or something and try this, and post the results. It would be interesting to a sim, or multiple seasons worth, and see what it results in.

[Point Beer Is Best]

To satisfy the union (and make this feasible) you'd have to expand rosters or look at the taxi squad idea. More players making MLB money = more union dues.

 

One way to satisfy the pitchers is to completely do away with the "Pitching Wins/Losses" statistic. It's basically a useless stat as it is. If that stat is eliminated, you're not longer judged on it.

[MrTPlush]

You aren't going to satisfy their wallets that way. What pitching even cares about wins anyway?

 

A pitcher only going 3-4 innings a start isn't going to be treated nicely on the open market. Big loss in money.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Well, if you win 90 games, you are still going to have someone get those 90 wins.

 

If you have 6 guys piggybacking every 3 days, or 8 guys piggybacking every 4 days, you're still going to get a fair amount of W's if you're pitching well.

[3and2Fastball]

You aren't going to satisfy their wallets that way. What pitching even cares about wins anyway?

 

A pitcher only going 3-4 innings a start isn't going to be treated nicely on the open market. Big loss in money.

 

I don't know. Front Offices are going to continue to look heavily at advanced sabermetrics. ERA-, FIP- etc..... if you post Mariano Rivera type numbers going 3-4 innings once every 4 games, I think you will have tremendous value on the market.

 

I think pitchers like Matt Harvey, Jacob DeGrom, Jake Arrieta etc, if they knew they were only going 3 innings, 4 innings max could really let loose and put up astronomical numbers

[3and2Fastball]

Someone should play a season of OOTP or something and try this, and post the results. It would be interesting to a sim, or multiple seasons worth, and see what it results in.

 

The difficulty is trying to calculate how much more efficient a pitcher will be going from 6-8 innings per start to 3-4. We've seen pitchers like John Smoltz or Dennis Eckersley have all their numbers skyrocket in value (in terms of ERA+, ERA-, FIP- etc) when they only pitch 1 inning at a time (2 sometimes in the case of Eck) as opposed to when they were starters.

[And That]

A pitcher only going 3-4 innings a start isn't going to be treated nicely on the open market. Big loss in money.

#3-#5ish starters may lose out a bit, but all innings will still need to be covered and I'm guessing durable relievers who could pitch 2-3 innings 2-3 times per week could stand to make a pretty decent raise. And #1-#2 type starters may become even more valued.

 

So would the rate of pay per nine innings decrease under the model discussed above? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think it would deviate significantly from the rate of inflation salaries are currently on.

[3and2Fastball]

Here's an article on MLB.com by Mike Petriello that speaks to this very topic

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/157383440

[3and2Fastball]

I'm probably reading too much into a whole lot of things, but when I read David Stearns' quote:

 

"In this industry, the game is, ‘What is the next frontier in baseball and where can we get the next competitive advantage?'"

 

And I think about how the Tampa Bay Rays have somewhat gotten out front with this concept of limiting TTOP (time through the order penalty) and that Matt Arnold, who was a Rays front office person, was hired as the Brewers Assistant GM, I can't help but that think that some form of what we are discussing in this thread will be a part of the Brewers' plan/strategy moving forwards

[MrTPlush]

A pitcher only going 3-4 innings a start isn't going to be treated nicely on the open market. Big loss in money.

#3-#5ish starters may lose out a bit, but all innings will still need to be covered and I'm guessing durable relievers who could pitch 2-3 innings 2-3 times per week could stand to make a pretty decent raise. And #1-#2 type starters may become even more valued.

 

So would the rate of pay per nine innings decrease under the model discussed above? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think it would deviate significantly from the rate of inflation salaries are currently on.

 

I think a lot of people could lose a lot of money. If you debut in MLB under this type of format you are going to be shafted money wise. How much are you really going to pay a guy if he only pitches 4 innings or so? If you aren't a team using this pitching model you are probably going to be weary of paying big money. I think it would be a huge money problem if only a handful of teams were doing it. It is hard to say where money would be allocated in such a situation.

 

If you have a pitcher like Kershaw is he exempt from this funky idea and you let him pitch as long as he wants? Or is Kershaw really only going to pitch 4-5 innings?

 

You also have the roster issue. Is this something you could really do for 162 games of the year effectively? That is pretty questionable.Who knows if it would work or not. What are you going to do when it takes just 3 innings to go through the order twice? That would put a lot of stress on the other guys. What if your starter flops in an inning? Do you just let him get shelled for 4 innings before taking him out or do you burn up some of your other pitchers too to finish the game?

 

Obviously there is something to this idea. We see something very similar every year in the postseason at the end of a series. Sometimes it works and other times you look stupid for taking out a guy doing well for a pitcher who is off.

[And That]

If you have a pitcher like Kershaw is he exempt from this funky idea and you let him pitch as long as he wants?

See my post above, linking to a Mike Petriello piece on MLB.com. Yes - Kershaw would definitely be exempt. The basic idea is to remove starters once they start dropping off in effectiveness, usually the third time through the order. Some pitchers, such Kershaw or Grienke or Arrieta, are obviously going to generally be more effective the third time through the order than the guy out of the bullpen you replace him with. The idea isn't just to replace pitchers for replacement sake, it's to maximize the value of all the pitchers on the roster by removing them at their most likely points of failure.

[QuevedosTongue]

If you have a pitcher like Kershaw is he exempt from this funky idea and you let him pitch as long as he wants?

See my post above, linking to a Mike Petriello piece on MLB.com. Yes - Kershaw would definitely be exempt. The basic idea is to remove starters once they start dropping off in effectiveness, usually the third time through the order. Some pitchers, such Kershaw or Grienke or Arrieta, are obviously going to generally be more effective the third time through the order than the guy out of the bullpen you replace him with. The idea isn't just to replace pitchers for replacement sake, it's to maximize the value of all the pitchers on the roster by removing them at their most likely points of failure.

 

This makes a lot more sense to me. Rather than put pitchers in a "2 times through the order and done" pigeonhole, maybe a team would go into the season with a couple guys that have a longer leash, while allowing the other SPs to earn their way into pitching more. As the Brewers roster stands right now, Garza is the only guy who would have the longer leash (not because he deserves it, but because he is a veteran and asking him to change wouldn't work).

 

I foresee the big problem is that it's just so different from what the industry norm is right now. Getting pitchers to buy into this would be a huge job and it would have to be an organization-wide philosophy. That said, the Brewers are in the perfect position as an organization (rebuilding/retooling, low expectations) to try something like this.

 

I could really see them trying it with the back end of the rotation. Say you give Garza, Nelson, Peralta a bit longer leashes to see if they can go longer into games, but going with a shorter leash for the #4 and #5 SPs. That would also give the team the option of pitching the #1, #2, #3 guys shorter if the bullpen is rested, or having someone suck up innings if need be if the pen is tired. It would likely require at least 1 pitcher to be a swingman for the whole season.

 

This conversation makes me think of the old Dodgers reliever Mike Marshall. Anybody who doesn't remember him, look up his stats sometime. When you look at what RPs do in the game these days, Marshall's numbers are stunning.

[jerichoholicninja]

I don't think it would be tough to get young pitchers to buy into it because that's how they do it in the low minors. Starters below AA rarely go more than 5 or 6 innings. If you continue doing it through AA and AAA it would be old hat for them to do it in the majors. The Pirates started their shifting experiment with their minor league teams and once they saw how well it worked they implemented it in the majors. Eventually some organization will do this with their minor league teams and then we'll see if it works.

[QuevedosTongue]

I don't think it would be tough to get young pitchers to buy into it because that's how they do it in the low minors. Starters below AA rarely go more than 5 or 6 innings. If you continue doing it through AA and AAA it would be old hat for them to do it in the majors. The Pirates started their shifting experiment with their minor league teams and once they saw how well it worked they implemented it in the majors. Eventually some organization will do this with their minor league teams and then we'll see if it works.

 

The guys at the low minor league levels do what they are told. I'm more concerned with convincing the players that are on the 40-man or at least at the "spring training invite" level. I don't think it would be that easy with them and very few (if any) ML pitching staffs are made up of guys that predominantly came through the parent club system. So, the big job would be convincing players that came over in trades or potential FAs that it made sense. Fringe guys wouldn't matter, because they would likely just be happy to have a job. But teams don't win with a bunch of fringe guys.

[jerichoholicninja]

I don't think it would be tough to get young pitchers to buy into it because that's how they do it in the low minors. Starters below AA rarely go more than 5 or 6 innings. If you continue doing it through AA and AAA it would be old hat for them to do it in the majors. The Pirates started their shifting experiment with their minor league teams and once they saw how well it worked they implemented it in the majors. Eventually some organization will do this with their minor league teams and then we'll see if it works.

 

The guys at the low minor league levels do what they are told. I'm more concerned with convincing the players that are on the 40-man or at least at the "spring training invite" level. I don't think it would be that easy with them and very few (if any) ML pitching staffs are made up of guys that predominantly came through the parent club system. So, the big job would be convincing players that came over in trades or potential FAs that it made sense. Fringe guys wouldn't matter, because they would likely just be happy to have a job. But teams don't win with a bunch of fringe guys.

 

I agree about established guys having issues with it but it's not like any worthwhile free agent pitcher is coming to Milwaukee anyway. The fringe guys is where there would be value. If you can take a guy who's generally a back of the rotation guy and have him put up #2 or #3 rate stats because of your system on the cheap that's a huge advantage. You might even have those fringe guys take less to come here because they know their numbers will look better and they might be able to get more money next time they are free agents. You might even be able to get more trade value out of them. There's no reason not to try something like this. The Brewers don't really have any surefire frontline pitching prospects and this team isn't going to be winning anything for a couple years. If you're going to lose, you might as well lose while trying something different than doing the same old thing.

[reillymcshane]

Bill James looks a little different idea - a three-man rotation, but limiting the starter to 5 innings or 80 pitchers. Then you have relievers take over.

 

http://www.billjamesonline.com/the_three_man_starting_rotation/

 

Dave Schoenfield at ESPN talks about the idea in depth as well:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/66690/the-three-man-rotation-could-be-the-future-of-baseball

[Point Beer Is Best]

Bill James looks a little different idea - a three-man rotation, but limiting the starter to 5 innings or 80 pitchers. Then you have relievers take over.

 

http://www.billjamesonline.com/the_three_man_starting_rotation/

 

Dave Schoenfield at ESPN talks about the idea in depth as well:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/66690/the-three-man-rotation-could-be-the-future-of-baseball

 

That's the way you'd have to do it without expanding rosters. The "starters" would have to adjust to the new schedule. You'd probably have to carry more than the one customer long-man in the pen in case the regularly scheduled starter is too fatigued.

 

Pitchers, moreso than any other position in probably any sport, are creatures of habit who have a mindset of knowing what their role is on a team. This would definitely be a shift mentally as well as physically.

[3and2Fastball]

I'm not buying what Bill James is saying, at all. 80 pitches and 2 days rest? Crazy talk.

 

Maybe 50 pitches but not 80.

 

Surprised James is missing the boat so much on this, he's often one of the game's great thinkers. Point is, pitchers are much more effective pitching in short stints. Compare John Smoltz' ERA+/WHIP/FIP/ERA- etc when he was a closer vs a starter. You take a truly great pitcher and let him throw just 2-3 innings max and he can be dominant.

 

In order to make it work you'd probably need one "workhorse pitcher" who can go 7-8 innings every 5 games, to give the rest of the staff a rest. You'd also need more "Ben Zobrist" type super utility players as a team would likely need at least 13 players in the pitching staff, maybe even 14

[CheezWizHed]

I'm not buying what Bill James is saying, at all. 80 pitches and 2 days rest? Crazy talk.

 

Maybe 50 pitches but not 80.

 

How many pitches does a pitcher make during his "between start practice"? I would assume that starting like this would negate any practice pitches, but still be included in the overall workload through the course of the season.

[3and2Fastball]

By far the #1 way to improve offensive production in the National League is to not have the Pitcher bat, as often as possible. Even if you have 2-3 "Designated Pinch Hitters" hit for the pitcher 2-4 times per game (allowing for double switches) you wll have tremendously improved your average runs scored per game, all while better maximizing pitcher efficency.

 

Yes, there will be extra innings games where you run out of pinch-hitters, but that is very much worth the trade in offensive production.

[pacopete4]

By far the #1 way to improve offensive production in the National League is to not have the Pitcher bat, as often as possible. Even if you have 2-3 "Designated Pinch Hitters" hit for the pitcher 2-4 times per game (allowing for double switches) you wll have tremendously improved your average runs scored per game, all while better maximizing pitcher efficency.

 

Yes, there will be extra innings games where you run out of pinch-hitters, but that is very much worth the trade in offensive production.

 

If you're going to do this, why not just have a DH? Seem's silly to do double switches when you could just swap in a DH and problem solved. I think it is silly that baseball is so behind the times with allowing a player to bat that barely ever even takes BP. It's such a waste that it hurts my brain to even think of how stupid it is to allow players who some, are no better than what you could pull out of the stands, to bat at the major league level.

[3and2Fastball]

Well sure you could have a DH in the NL (I hope they never do) and then the subject would simply be maximizing pitcher efficiency.

 

Since the Brewers are an NL team, and there isn't a DH in the NL, I thought it relevent to point out how using the Super Reliever concept while simultaneously taking the bat out of the pitcher's hand most of the time would increase production both offensively and in run prevention.