Relief Aces/Bullpenning: Wave of the Future or Sabermetric Fantasy World?

[3and2Fastball]

I've heard Brian Kenny of MLB Network and others discussing utilizing a pitching staff of Relief Aces/Bullpenning, in which you have each pitcher throw 2-3 innings once every 3 games.

 

Game 1: Pitcher A/Pitcher B/Pitcher C

Game 2: Pitcher D/Pitcher E/Pitcher F

Game 3: Pitcher G/Pitcher H/Pitcher I

 

And continue that "rotation"

 

Those 9 pitchers plus 1 long reliever for blowout games and 1 "closer"

 

Is this a way for a small market team like the Brewers to compete without signing and/or developing that traditional ace starting pitcher or two? Is this the kind of thing that works on paper or in Strat-O-Matic but wouldn't work in the real world?

 

We've already seen trends towards this in the MLB postseasons lately.....

[3and2Fastball]

I look at Jimmy Nelson (for instance). These are career batting numbers against:

 

1st Plate Appearance in a Game .241/.321/.380

2nd Plate Appearance in a Game .277/.360/.433

4th+ Plate Appearance in a Game .357/.514/.571

 

2015 Batting Stats Against:

 

1st Plate Appearance in a Game .235/.299/.374

2nd Plate Appearance in a Game .263/.350/.417

4th+ Plate Appearance in a Game .500/.632/.857

 

Clearly, the more times in a game a hitter is facing Nelson, the harder he is getting hit. Plus I can imagine how much better he might pitch if he knew he was only going to pitch for 2 to 3 innings and then could go rest....

 

Plus, in the NL, more frequent pitching changes would allow you to pinch hit for the pitcher much more frequently, effectively giving you a "DH" in the pitchers spot over half the time if not more

[jackailius]

I've been advocating for quit a while to have 10 pitchers pair up to each throw 4 innings every 5 games and then have 2 in the pen to split the 9th/extra innings. I think it also helps mitigate our need for a true ace as well if you can pair them well ie someone like Davies to start the game and then a pitcher with a higher velocity or a Righty for the 1st 4 innings and a lefty for the next 4 innings.

[FVBrewerFan]

I'm always open to thinking outside the box on stuff like this. One immediate concern I see is decreasing the value of the pitchers. Would be impossible to trade anyone as a SP, since they're not stretched out. You would never be able to land one in FA, and worse never be able to keep your own pitchers.

 

Plus, expect a ton of pressure from the players themselves, their agents, and the union. Because this would kill their value in arby years, and again once they become a FA.

 

Also, I don't know that you can find 9 pitchers effective enough to use that often. Look how hard it is every year for most times to find a consistent #5 starter, or even #2-5 starters. Now you're adding 4 more guys automatically pitching every 3rd day of the season.

 

It's interesting in theory, I just don't see it working in practice.

[MVP2110]

I could see something like this but wouldn't an extra inning game kill a team that did this?

[3and2Fastball]

I could see something like this but wouldn't an extra inning game kill a team that did this?

 

That would certainly be a concern. How many pitchers does an NL team usually carry? 12? That would allow for 2 long relievers

[igor67]

I don't see pitcher quality being an issue, quite the opposite even among good starters their first vs. second time through the order numbers are so much better that the pool of guys you could run out there who would give you solid results is much larger. Your long relievers could probably be rotated in in place of a regular guy every once in awhile as well to get them work with some little break for everyone else.

[jerichoholicninja]

Myself and others here have been advocating for this or something similar for a couple years. The #1 thing preventing this from happening is fear of trying something new. Which is surprising considering how much the game has changed in even just the last 10 years. When the Rockies tried something similar to this with a 4 man rotation a couple of years ago they were ridiculed. After they gave it up it was deemed an expected failure. Really their pitchers just sucked no matter how they were used. However, and I'd have to look at the numbers to be sure, but I think their "starters" actually put up better numbers under the system. The other thing preventing it from happening is the agents, the union, and the players themselves. How can pitchers get paid what their worth is they can't pitch enough to even qualify for a win or a quality start will be what they will say.

 

Eventually some team will really commit to doing this and whomever makes that call will be deemed a genius even though the stats have been screaming for it to happen for years.

[brewcrewdue80]

It's a hidden mix when it comes to the Pitchers and value. You know there are guys that their option is just the bullpen. You'd have to gravitate to finding a few of them. Vs. the SP types. Now being told you are a 6th, 7th, 8th inning type bullpen guy negates a bit of your expected value. But if youre that type, and now give them the stretch it out 1-3, 4-6, 7-8 innings. Pitching you're talking 120IP vs under 70 these days, that value is going to increase for them. Not the 3-6.5million, but instead 7-10million in pay for an example.

 

You'd also run in to the likelihood of quicker call-ups. Instead of 5years to develop in the minors you run them up in 3 let's say because Innings Limits are a concern, nor so much as Pitching 6 and developing a 3rd or 4th pitch.

 

And considering are they going to tire out in the case of an extra inning game? Well, I'd think arms that are pitching 30s to 70s in a pitch count could pitch in a pinch on 2nd days rest. 3 of them will be pitching tomorrow's game. You could probably pull one and rotate the 9 in that respect. There isn't a consistent starter based on this rotation. It'd be like this:

1,2,3

4,5,6

7,8,9

1,2,3,4

5,6,7

8,9,1,2 on and on and now you're looking at maybe 125IP with the extra say 3games pitched through the all season. You have these guys with 60-70 Pitch limits, or the 3IP limits. And if they are that effective many won't reach 50pitches in their turn. So then maybe in a close game #3 for that night goes 4 or 5IP as needed up to that 70pitch limit.

 

I dunno, it's interesting. Say you found yourself blessed with 7 really good of the 9. You are effectively giving the fans more chances to see them pitch every 3rd day vs the standard 5. You'd be guaranteeing every 3 game set a chance to see them pitch. This vs. say maybe over 3weeks before pitching a home game due to the 5day rotation.

 

The idea maybe includes arms not succumbing to TJ as frequent. Or maybe it leads to more frequency due to the higher expected velocity?

 

I think it won't happen anytime soon. I'm going to guess this will have to be shown at the college level with a college team/conference doing this and actually winning a championship to bring this idea to higher attention.

[rwa12]

It could work. I think it would be ideal for someone like the Brewers last year, who had depth in mediocrity, and little else. I think you throw it out the window if you have quality SP. Why waste high end talent at 3 inning clips? You could rush people through the minors faster, as you don't really need a third pitch to get through the lineup once. What happens when someone is lights out after 3 innings? You pull him regardless?

[reillymcshane]

A few things about this:

 

1. It's a fascinating idea and I've always wondered if it would really work.

 

I've even considered a 13 man 'rotation' where you have four guys a game - basically get them try and limit them to only having to go through the rotation once a game. You have a 13th guy for mop up action, extra innings, etc.

 

If a guy pitches every third game, that's 54 games. Say they average 2.1 IP, that's 126 IP in a season.

 

2. I think the time someone would try it in its purest form would be an expansion team. No star pitchers - just a bunch of mediocre guys who are happy for a gig.

 

3. As noted, the plan goes awry when you have really good pitchers. I mean, you got Clayton Kershaw so you want the guy out there 250 innings.

 

Perhaps you could build a hybrid system to accommodate players like Kershaw. Let them pitch their 6-7 innings - that sort of thing.

 

4. Regarding your 'extra' man. Ideally you get a knuckleball guy. Have someone that could throw 5 inning back-to-back-back without any issue. The guy might not be that good - but he could clean up blow out games, and go deep into extra innings if needed. Just a thought.

 

5. The system would eliminate 'match up' pitching (for the most part). You might regret the flexibility of bringing in a player to face one or two batters - that sort of thing.

 

6. One interesting thing to committing to a plan like this is that you don't over pay for pitchers. You're not drafting them with your high picks, you're not giving them $25M a year contracts. That means you could really focus on drafting and developing hitters. At least, theoretically.

 

7. Teams are always looking for advantages. Let's be honest - the cost of young starting pitching can be enormous. With this system, you can find those guys who don't quite cut it as 6 inning starters - or wipe out relievers - and acquire them - likely at a far lower cost than other pitching prospects.

 

I would love to see someone try this. As I said, I think an expansion team would offer a great opportunity to give it whirl.

 

The other situation I would love to see it happen is with a club with really bad pitching - and a bad farm system. I'm thinking the LA Angels. Their major league staff is pretty awful, and their minor league system is pretty bare. So why not give something like this a chance.

[3and2Fastball]

I'll tell you what, it sure works in Strat-O-Matic. However, despite being a complete Baseball nerd, I recognize that and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee somewhere.

 

But put it this way, at this point in their careers, are Jimmy Nelson & Wily Peralta more likely to turn into Max Scherzer or Wade Davis?

 

Wade Davis age 25 4.45 ERA, 85 ERA+, 1.375 WHIP, 29 starts, 184 IP

Jimmy Nelson age 26 4.11 ERA, 96 ERA+, 1.286 WHIP, 30 starts, 177 IP

Wily Peralta, age 25 3.53 ERA, 107 ERA+, 1.304 WHIP, 32 starts, 198 IP

Wily Peralta, age 26 4.72 ERA, 84 ERA+, 1.537 WHIP, 20 starts, 108 IP

 

Now I recognize not every "failed starter" is going to produce like Wade Davis, there is more to it than that, alot more. But man oh man, with the kind of stuff Peralta has, you let him air it out for 2 or 3 innings and that is it, he could really be effective.....

[Patrick425]

Sounds interesting. Perhaps a team that it out of it by mid-season could give this theory a try. Trade away most of their starters before the deadline and go with the bullpen rotation for the rest of the season. Although, unless you have other starters in the waiting for next year or money to spend on FAs, you are pretty much stuck with this process the next season as well.

 

One issue may be that if a pitcher throws his 2 or 3 innings and is just mowing down hitters and making them look silly, then the next guy comes in for his turn and gets lit up, there will be a lot of 2nd guessing after the game that perhaps the "hot" pitcher should have been allowed to pitch another inning or two. I could just see the fan outcry in this type of situation, especially in a crucial game during the pennant stretch. It seems like there would be a lot of temptation my managers to stick with the hot hand in any given game and throw out the game plan (or, as mentioned in another post, a lot of angry pitchers sitting on the bench watching the next pitcher fall apart and give the game away).

[3and2Fastball]

I look at the way Andrew Miller was used in the 2016 postseason as ideal http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=millean01&t=p&post=1

 

Aroldis Chapman, however, was overused because he didn't have enough rest in between pitching http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=chapmar01&t=p&post=1

 

The Indians got 27 IP out of Miller in 10 game appearances in the postseason, the Yankees got 20 IP out of Chapman in 13 game appearances

[Boomer5]

They sort of have this in the lower minors with the piggy back system.

 

One thing is the players union would never go for it because the starting pitcher is such a premium paying position. This would essentially pay most everyone like a reliever except for the rare elite guys.

[homer]

I feel like the Yankees sort of moved in that direction last year with their three headed monster of Betances, Miller, and Chapman. If the Yankees had a lead after 6 innings there would be no reason to leave the starter in there.

 

I do agree with others than the agents would pitch a fit if this came to fruition. There'd have to be a sea change in how pitchers are valued in order for someone to take this on.

[Boomer5]

One thing that I would do is invest the money in the low minors to developing 2-3 knuckleball pitchers. A guy who could eat innings like that would be gold.

 

Those guys are rare, but could that be because no one really invested in developing that position as a position in itself, as opposed to a pitcher per se? Sort of like how the soccer style kicker changed the FG in the 70's and 80's.

[AKCheesehead]

I'd love to see it happen.

 

I think it would need a team with mostly/all young unknowns and possibly some reclamation projects as well for their staff. Nobody who would chirp about trying something new.

 

AND, this group would have to have enough talent to make it a success. Not the half-hearted attempts that have been made in the past by the Rockies, and before that by TLR when he was with Oakland. Those staffs would not have been successful in any usage format.

 

IF that perfect storm came together and a team had a successful season with it, you can bet others would copycat.

[TURBO]

Good luck getting any pitchers to come here as free agents if we were the only team doing it... You better have a pretty strong bunch of really young, controllable guys if you want to even consider pulling this off.

[FVBrewerFan]

Yea, for the reasons I mentioned near the top (Devaluing pitchers, union issues, etc.), and some great points from others, this wouldn't work.

 

What happens if one or both of the first 2 are lights out, or get rocked. With only 1 or 2 options left in the BP, those guys would have to pitch virtually every day, which is not workable. Give the guy more innings that got pulled the previous start? Less to the other guy who may actually be pitching better? And having 3 guys slotted every night, odds are one of them will be off.

 

Yea, they use piggy-back starters in the low minors. They have no choice, as they want/need to limit the innings and have a look at more guys in the starts role. But that's only 2 pitchers slotted for each game, not 3 which is a pretty big difference. Oh, and winning isn't the only goal in a MiLB game.

 

Here's what I think could work. Develop relief pitchers to be able to pitch more than one inning. Better, yet several innings. That would go a long way in getting close to the OP's plan. It would offer a lot more flexibility than having a strict structure of 3 pitchers every game.

 

That would give you the best of both worlds. If the SP can give you a QS, great. If not, you have several options to put in the game that can give you 2-4 innings. You're only using one other pitcher, rather than the blowing through 4 guys.

 

Again, I hate to throw water on this idea because I am always looking for different ways of doing things.

[NievesNoNO]

Interesting. I think some hybrid of that might work or be worth trying; maybe the 5th spot in the rotation. I think a full 3-3-3 schedule would be too rigid when accounting for pitchers throwing well or poorly on a particular day, but I could completely see this viable to fill out the 5th spot in the rotation instead of paying the cost of an avg. FA pitcher or rotating guys through to see who sticks.

[FVBrewerFan]

Except that essentially shortens the BP by two pitchers. If they ever expand the roster, some of these concepts would be a lot more feasible. I mean, something like you just suggested would work in Sept after roster expansions. And that especially makes sense at that time of year if you're out of the playoff chase and want to limit innings for a few starters.

[Thurston Fluff]

You would have to draft very differently and never try to get a Ben Sheets type pitcher. Which pretty much means you are always skipping the top pitchers in the draft for lesser pitchers. I just don't see how that makes a pitching staff better. Passing on the next Ben Sheets for two of the next Salomon Torres is not something I am in favor of.

[jerichoholicninja]

You would have to draft very differently and never try to get a Ben Sheets type pitcher. Which pretty much means you are always skipping the top pitchers in the draft for lesser pitchers. I just don't see how that makes a pitching staff better. Passing on the next Ben Sheets for two of the next Salomon Torres is not something I am in favor of.

 

I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion.

[3and2Fastball]

I think you take a Ben Sheets type pitcher, and instead of him starting once every 5 games, he's pitching 2 or 3 innings once every 3 games. If you have Games on Sun, Mon, Tues, Wed, he is pitching in both the Sun & Wed games instead of pitching on Sunday and not being available again until Friday.