Piggyback 8 man rotation

[adambr2]

So we obviously have a major bullpen problem that doesn't seem to be getting better. Let's be frank -- the bullpen as currently constructed will likely cost us too many games to get to the postseason. We can't do nothing. In the absence of replacing most of them, or making expensive trades, what else can we do? What about just getting rid of them? A 4 man pen only -- Knebel, Barnes, Hughes and Hader. Peralta, Drake, gone. So instead of fixing the weakness, just get rid of the weak past of it, limit the use of the pen and use our strength -- starting pitching, to fix it.

 

To do that, we'll need an 8 man piggyback staff. I tried to pair up guys with someone dissimilar to the other to give opposing hitters a different look, which wasn't always possible.

 

SP1 Guerra/SP8 ??

SP2 Anderson/SP7 Davies

SP3 Nelson/SP6 Suter

SP4 Garza/SP5 Woodruff

 

- I have no idea who to use as the 8th SP. There are a lot of candidates -- Espino, Lopez, and Blazek are the first 3 that come to mind. Ideally, it would be nice if Hader is eventually that guy and Taylor Williams moves into his pen spot, but I don't think either is quite there -- yet. Heck, Corbin Burnes doesn't look that far away.

 

- Each starter is limited to a maximum of 4-5 innings or 80 pitches, in order to be available every 4 days, not 5. Exceptions in certain circumstances - day off coming up to allow extra rest, for instance. In general this should allow the rotation to take 7-9 innings most days.

 

I fully realize this isn't happening. So don't roast me too bad. There's risks involved, pitchers are by nature creatures of habit, so if this backfired, nobody comes out looking good. Even if a manager was gutsy enough to try this, it would more than likely be in a year with nothing to lose, not a time when they're sitting in first place.

So this is more just to start a discussion thinking outside the box a little bit, and I'd just be curious to see what people think would and wouldn't work about it.

[FVBrewerFan]

Didn't you make this same post a few months ago? And several people explained in detail why this can't work?

[adambr2]

Didn't you make this same post a few months ago? And several people explained in detail why this can't work?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. I've brought it up before but only in passing, never in detail, and it has never once been discussed. Show me the thread or posts where "several people explained in detail why this can't work" and I'll take down the post. If not, perhaps you could just explain your opinion of why it can't work rather than just assuming something that didn't happen.

[jerichoholicninja]

Someone made a post awhile ago and it was torn apart. This post is made a few times every year and gets torn apart. However, no team has ever actually tried it so who knows what the results would be. Personally, I don't think you can do this with your whole pitching staff, especially in the NL. However, with starters throwing fewer innings and most pitchers these days being 2-pitch guys, piggybacking is going to happen to some extent. I just can't believe it hasn't happened already.

[pacopete4]

Didnt the Rockies do it a couple years ago? And yeah it has been brought up in the last. I know I've suggested it before here. I'm not sure there was a thread dedicated to it or not though. I see roster expansion with six man rotations befor piggybacking happens though.

[adambr2]

Someone made a post awhile ago and it was torn apart. This post is made a few times every year and gets torn apart. However, no team has ever actually tried it so who knows what the results would be. Personally, I don't think you can do this with your whole pitching staff, especially in the NL. However, with starters throwing fewer innings and most pitchers these days being 2-pitch guys, piggybacking is going to happen to some extent. I just can't believe it hasn't happened already.

 

I do think it'll happen at some point, but it'll have to be an organizational movement, not just one manager's idea IMO.

 

I am totally open to hearing the cons of why this wouldn't work too, I just don't like the idea of rejecting a new baseball idea just because it was radical (this is not directed at you, just saying in general).

 

Baseball has evolved many times over the years with many changes that were at various points in time deemed too radical to ever work. Heck, I don't believe the 5 man rotation even became the norm until the 90s (going solely off memory there).

[NYChez]

The need to pinch hit later in games could hurt this strategy. Also, what if Jimmy Nelson is tossing a 2-hit shutout in a close game after 80 pitches? Are you going to replace him with Suter? I wouldn't mind trying a Davies/Hader piggyback on a trial basis.

[jerichoholicninja]

Didnt the Rockies do it a couple years ago? And yeah it has been brought up in the last. I know I've suggested it before here. I'm not sure there was a thread dedicated to it or not though. I see roster expansion with six man rotations befor piggybacking happens though.

 

Not exactly. The Rockies did a 4 man rotation where starters were pulled at 80 or so pitches. They only did it for a few months so it's tough to take anything from it. Factor in Coors Field and them generally not having good pitchers and you really can't take anything from it.

[pacopete4]

The need to pinch hit later in games could hurt this strategy. Also, what if Jimmy Nelson is tossing a 2-hit shutout in a close game after 80 pitches? Are you going to replace him with Suter? I wouldn't mind trying a Davies/Hader piggyback on a trial basis.

 

Yes. Good point. Maybe fits an AL team more so. Why hasn't an AL team signed 7-8 starting pitchers and done this? 4 innings apiece.

[MadThinker88]

Someone made a post awhile ago and it was torn apart. This post is made a few times every year and gets torn apart. However, no team has ever actually tried it so who knows what the results would be. Personally, I don't think you can do this with your whole pitching staff, especially in the NL. However, with starters throwing fewer innings and most pitchers these days being 2-pitch guys, piggybacking is going to happen to some extent. I just can't believe it hasn't happened already.

 

I thought Tony LaRussa tried something similar with Oakland during the summer of 93... Starters only went 3 IP and then it was turned over to another pitcher for 3 IP and then 3rd pitcher or matchups to finish the game...

[JosephC]

I think this would be a worthwhile experiment with a bad team. If the Brewers were 10 games back I wouldn't mind seeing something like this. It would probably get Hader, Woodruff...include maybe Lopez and/or Wang regular work every 4th day in the 50-70 pitch range. But being in first place presents a problem, and also with Anderson and Nelson really emerging I'd hate to have strict pitch counts on them in games when they are pitching well because of the 3 days rest factor.

 

Looking into the crystal ball and it's not hard to imagine teams moving to this type of pitching model in the future. Good chance an active roster expansion to 26 players could facilitate the move. With the way starting pitching is protected there is a good chance many of the big market teams will add a sixth starting pitcher to the rotation. It allows them to protect the big-money arms with 4 or 5 less starts per season while also letting those big-money arms earn that money by pitching late into games like true ace pitchers do. But with small-market teams often having trouble filling out the back end of the rotation, a model of 3 day 3-3-3 or 4 day 4-4 could very be a better option rather than having a mediocre fifth starter and a sixth starter who has no business being in a major league rotation. Limited roster spots plays a role in preventing these types of models but with a 26th roster spot that would make a 13 man pitching staff standard and IMO make these types of models more realistic.

[Crash2303]

if you do this, it should not be done based on pitch count or innings, but rather number of times through the lineup. the better pitchers still fair well 3rd time through, but most back-end rotation guys have inflated numbers the third plus times through, especially in the meat of the order. piggy-backing could really benefit the #4-5 starter. and you obviously still have the flexibility to keep a guy in longer if he's throwing lights out. but, generally, statistically, hitters adjust. and the other positive benefits of potential reduced stress on bullpen

[Baldkin]

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=33505

 

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=34932

[FVBrewerFan]

Didn't you make this same post a few months ago? And several people explained in detail why this can't work?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. I've brought it up before but only in passing, never in detail, and it has never once been discussed. Show me the thread or posts where "several people explained in detail why this can't work" and I'll take down the post. If not, perhaps you could just explain your opinion of why it can't work rather than just assuming something that didn't happen.

 

Sorry Adam, as Baldkin just posted the threads. I knew they were out there, but obviously not started by you. I was trying to just ask in a non-judgemental way, but when I posted at zero dark thirty I can see how it doesn't read that way.

 

Others have chimed in already again, but for me it's very simply a matter of giving as many innings to your best pitchers in a given game, and the course of the entire season as possible. Nelson's last start, Anderson's string of a few games when he was lights out are a couple examples. When your starter is throwing well, you want as many innings as possible. What you don't want is guys like Suter and worse automatically getting 3-4 innings every 4th day. And if you make an exception, the whole system starts to break down.

 

It works in the minors because winning isn't the primary goal. It's evaluating talent, getting enough innings for everyone, etc. I mean, in theory, it could work in MLB too if you have 8 starters who are all more or less the same but that would be pretty rare.

[monty57]

If the Brewers had tried this going into the season, it would have been abandoned 2+ innings into the season when Guerra went down with an injury. With the proposed four-man bullpen, whoever "SP8" is would have been forced to pitch 7 innings, no matter how he was pitching. Of course he wouldn't be able to do this, so they would have had to use "SP7" and "SP6" to finish the game, and after the game they would have to option five guys from their bench to bring up relievers and scrap the whole idea.

 

Sometimes pitchers need to be pulled early, and sometimes they should be kept in for the whole game. This strategy doesn't allow for that. If the game were played by robots who do exactly what is expected of them every time out, it may have some credence. Since it is not, this strategy could not work. What happens when Nelson is throwing a shut-out and is pulled because it's Suter's turn to throw, and he gives up five runs before recording an out? You don't have another reliever to replace him, so does he just keep pitching?

[JosephC]

if you do this, it should not be done based on pitch count or innings, but rather number of times through the lineup. the better pitchers still fair well 3rd time through, but most back-end rotation guys have inflated numbers the third plus times through, especially in the meat of the order. piggy-backing could really benefit the #4-5 starter. and you obviously still have the flexibility to keep a guy in longer if he's throwing lights out. but, generally, statistically, hitters adjust. and the other positive benefits of potential reduced stress on bullpen

 

http://www.billjamesonline.com/article1004/

 

Here's an article from 2009 with some of the numbers from the 2008 season on how hitters become more effective the more times they see a pitcher and the pitchers become less effective the longer they pitch into games. I doubt the numbers would be that much different today. One thing I can pull up real quick is that starters have an OPS against them of .768 and relievers have an OPS against them of .717 so far this season.

 

If (1) rosters are expanded to 26 players and (2) the NL goes to a DH...to be honest at that point I think it would be foolish for small-market teams to totally ignore this concept. Think of some of the financials involved. 10 years from now top flight starting pitchers probably cost 40 million on the market and even a #3 probably goes for 16-20 million. If the majority of teams use a 6 man rotation that's 162/6 = 27 starts per year and the back end guy(s) sometimes get skipped but the true ace pitchers likely top out at 30 starts. If they average 7 innings per start that puts them at 210 innings per season. Even if the small market team has to pay each piece of a 3rd day group 8 million each, that's 24 million BUT those guys eat up the bulk of the innings every third day (say a group of 3 averages 7 1/3 innings per game....162/3 = the group pitches a total of 54 times per year times 7.33 innings = 396 innings for that 24 million dollar investment). So basically 1 group of 3 would consume nearly twice as many innings as a top flight starter in a 6-man rotation and would cost less money. Very likely less effective but a two-fold drop-off? With 26 man rosters there would always be 4 relievers available and if the team got into a bind they could go down to 12 position players and that would allow a team to carry 5 relievers.

 

I'm not saying that I strongly feel the Brewers should switch to this type of model. But if the roster rules are changed I think there is enough statistical data that shows this might be a pretty good idea for certain teams to try. In a small market and can't even afford mid-rotation free agent starting pitching? Have a bunch of starters that pretty much hit the wall the third time through the order? Have a bunch of hard-throwing young players that you want to see consistent action but don't want to overwork them? Lots of scenarios where this makes sense with a 26-man roster and especially if the DH is there and the team doesn't have to worry about having to pinch-hit.

[adambr2]

If the Brewers had tried this going into the season, it would have been abandoned 2+ innings into the season when Guerra went down with an injury. With the proposed four-man bullpen, whoever "SP8" is would have been forced to pitch 7 innings, no matter how he was pitching. Of course he wouldn't be able to do this, so they would have had to use "SP7" and "SP6" to finish the game, and after the game they would have to option five guys from their bench to bring up relievers and scrap the whole idea.

 

Sometimes pitchers need to be pulled early, and sometimes they should be kept in for the whole game. This strategy doesn't allow for that. If the game were played by robots who do exactly what is expected of them every time out, it may have some credence. Since it is not, this strategy could not work. What happens when Nelson is throwing a shut-out and is pulled because it's Suter's turn to throw, and he gives up five runs before recording an out? You don't have another reliever to replace him, so does he just keep pitching?

 

In my honest opinion you are way overexaggerating the potential pitfalls here.

 

If the Brewers had gone into the year with this plan they would not have abandoned it after Guerra's short start. Why would they need their SP8 to go 7 innings on Opening Day with a 4 man pen that hasn't even been used yet? They would get 4-5 from their SP8, then 2-3 from their pen, which isn't that big of a deal, and likely in the next day or two they could get a full day from their piggyback and get a day off.

 

As I mentioned there could be flexibility in certain situations. Suppose you have a day off, or can get through 6 in 80 pitches. It doesn't need to be a hard 3-5 innings every time. And I'd have no problem using Knebel in the 4th inning to get out of a bases loaded jam with nobody out in a tie game.

 

Is it going to go perfectly with robot like precision every time? Of course not. It doesn't go that way now with the current model. We learned that with Woodruff just last week. Teams make contingencies and sometimes roster moves to adjust and go from there. It doesn't mean that the whole thing can't work, any more than the current traditional model probably seemed laughable 40 years ago.

[FVBrewerFan]

I still haven't seen anyone address how you're going to find 8 consistently effective starters, when finding 5 is hard enough. We're talking about 40 appearances from each starter. Let's say avg appearance is 3.5 innings. That's 140 innings from your 6,7,8 starters.

 

As Joseph mentioned, BP ERA is less than starters. But that's because relievers are used one inning at a time for the most part. In the tandem start model, these guys would be throwing 3-4 innings. So if Nelson or Anderson, etc. are rolling you either A) take them out as scheduled and put in a worse pitcher. Or B) skip the appearance of the 2nd "starting" pitcher. Now he goes 8 days between appearances which would likely impact his performance next time. Or you move him up, now that disrupts others.

 

It could be done with one pitcher, I think. For example, if they wanted to be careful with number of innings for rookie pitchers they could tandem them together for part of a season and get away with it.

 

I guess I go back to the concept that you want as many innings out of your starting pitcher as long as he's getting the job done in a game, rather than risk bringing in the tandem starter who is not as good.

[jerichoholicninja]

I still haven't seen anyone address how you're going to find 8 consistently effective starters, when finding 5 is hard enough. We're talking about 40 appearances from each starter. Let's say avg appearance is 3.5 innings. That's 140 innings from your 6,7,8 starters.

 

As Joseph mentioned, BP ERA is less than starters. But that's because relievers are used one inning at a time for the most part. In the tandem start model, these guys would be throwing 3-4 innings. So if Nelson or Anderson, etc. are rolling you either A) take them out as scheduled and put in a worse pitcher. Or B) skip the appearance of the 2nd "starting" pitcher. Now he goes 8 days between appearances which would likely impact his performance next time. Or you move him up, now that disrupts others.

 

It could be done with one pitcher, I think. For example, if they wanted to be careful with number of innings for rookie pitchers they could tandem them together for part of a season and get away with it.

 

I guess I go back to the concept that you want as many innings out of your starting pitcher as long as he's getting the job done in a game, rather than risk bringing in the tandem starter who is not as good.

 

The theory behind this is that it will work because hitters take awhile to figure out any pitcher. It really has nothing to do with how good the pitchers are.

[patrickgpe]

The theory behind this is that it will work because hitters take awhile to figure out any pitcher. It really has nothing to do with how good the pitchers are.

-how does that work when teams play eachother for the 2nd time?

-most of the pitchers in the brewers proposed rotation, all teams have a solid scouting report on and also most batters in the league have faced, so its not going to work.

[pacopete4]

The theory behind this is that it will work because hitters take awhile to figure out any pitcher. It really has nothing to do with how good the pitchers are.

-how does that work when teams play eachother for the 2nd time?

-most of the pitchers in the brewers proposed rotation, all teams have a solid scouting report on and also most batters in the league have faced, so its not going to work.

 

 

Even most crappy pitchers get through a lineup a first time. Decent get through a second time. Has nothing to do with scouting report.

[JosephC]

I still haven't seen anyone address how you're going to find 8 consistently effective starters, when finding 5 is hard enough. We're talking about 40 appearances from each starter. Let's say avg appearance is 3.5 innings. That's 140 innings from your 6,7,8 starters.

 

As Joseph mentioned, BP ERA is less than starters. But that's because relievers are used one inning at a time for the most part. In the tandem start model, these guys would be throwing 3-4 innings. So if Nelson or Anderson, etc. are rolling you either A) take them out as scheduled and put in a worse pitcher. Or B) skip the appearance of the 2nd "starting" pitcher. Now he goes 8 days between appearances which would likely impact his performance next time. Or you move him up, now that disrupts others.

 

It could be done with one pitcher, I think. For example, if they wanted to be careful with number of innings for rookie pitchers they could tandem them together for part of a season and get away with it.

 

I guess I go back to the concept that you want as many innings out of your starting pitcher as long as he's getting the job done in a game, rather than risk bringing in the tandem starter who is not as good.

 

I think the 3-3-3 man model would work much better because of what you are saying. With the 4-4 model there needs to be some type of inclusion of legitimate starting pitchers. In a 3-3-3 man model the team could function with all relievers. MLB average this season is 38 plate appearances per game, so if the 3-3-3 is counted on for 7 1/3 innings on average it comes out to 31 batters per game, or roughly 10.3 hitters faced for each piece of the 3-3-3. There is no batters getting a third chance to see the same pitcher on the same day, and the number of batters that get to see a pitcher a second time on a day would be limited. Things that really mess with this model are the limited amount of relievers that would be available with a 25 man roster and the necessity to pinch-hit. If rule changes are eventually implemented there is plenty of data that shows this type of model could be a more effective model than the current one.

[FVBrewerFan]

That actually sounds worse. So you would need a rotation of roughly 9 guys. Do you really think the 4 guys who round out the rotation would be more effective than quality starters just because they don't face a line-up 3 or 4 times?

 

Just seems like something that sounds good on a computer, but in practice would have horrible results. So you're asking guys like Suter, Wilkerson, Lopez, etc. to each pitch 150ish innings for the season? I can't imagine that ending well. I don't care if every appearance they only face the line-up once, there's no way they could hold up pitching multiple innings every third day.

 

Believe it or not, I really am open to thinking outside the box. I just can't wrap my head around why you wouldn't want to give the most innings possible to your best pitchers.

[MrTPlush]

Why not just have a giant bullpen. Forget starters!

[pacopete4]

Why not just have a giant bullpen. Forget starters!

 

Our bullpen makes me forget our starters every night.