The Future of Pitching

[Thurston Fluff]

I think what is missing in this is how much easier it is to find and develop several pitchers who can go through the lineup once than it is to find those who can go through it three times. If we happen to find a Sherzer fine. But to rely on finding that guy when it is far easier to find and develop several Jeffess's seems a waste of time and resources to me. That said, I don't think the way the Brewers are doing it now is because of some sort of system they think will work in perpetuity. They just happened to have the sort of talent that lends itself to this style of play. I would be disappointed if they suddenly had a workhorse sort of ace pop up in their system but decided to make him fit the mold they are using this season simply because that is the way they do it. So far they seem averse to fitting square pegs in round holes. I hope they continue adapting to what they have over what they want.

[walleye]

I think it's sustainable from a physiology and winning perspective. But only if it is acceptable to players from a financial perspective.

 

None of the Brewers pitchers are being paid at the top of the market, and that's understandable, based on workload.

 

But few will want to come or stay here if more money can be made elsewhere.

That’s very true if other clubs stay with the traditional type of rotations,However if this becomes the new normal most pitchers and clubs will be in the same boat. This is a copycat league and with Milwaukee and Tammy Bay have done very well with the 27 outs philosophy many will follow and at least for now save money doing it.

[Boomer5]

I think it's sustainable from a physiology and winning perspective. But only if it is acceptable to players from a financial perspective.

 

None of the Brewers pitchers are being paid at the top of the market, and that's understandable, based on workload.

 

But few will want to come or stay here if more money can be made elsewhere.

 

That’s the issue. Counsel has come up with a workaround from the mandatory nine digit TOR type.

 

The players union will not like that.

[fondybrewfan]

Bullpenning has obviously gone well this year for us but you also have to have the horses to do it. Bullpens tend to be a crapshoot from one year to the next so it is certainly not a given that the bullpen can repeat this. You are still better off having at least 2 or 3 starters you know can repeatedly go 5-6 innings a start.

 

The only reason this working is because we have a lot of talent in the bullpen; that won't be the case for the Brewers every year.

[jerichoholicninja]

Bullpenning has obviously gone well this year for us but you also have to have the horses to do it. Bullpens tend to be a crapshoot from one year to the next so it is certainly not a given that the bullpen can repeat this. You are still better off having at least 2 or 3 starters you know can repeatedly go 5-6 innings a start.

 

The only reason this working is because we have a lot of talent in the bullpen; that won't be the case for the Brewers every year.

 

I agree we do right now, but that's kind of the point of "bullpenning" is that you don't really need talent for it to work. The numbers show pretty much any MLB pitcher can shut down a lineup one time through.

[NievesNoNO]

I think we're probably in for some changes with how pitching is viewed. However, teams have stacked their bullpens before without great success.

 

I think it's important to remember, the Brewers are doing this to the extreme and under extreme circumstances. These guys are also pitching on some adrenaline. The way the Brewers are utilizing guys right now, over the last month or so, isn't sustainable over the course of a full season. Throwing a ball at max effort even for an inning takes it's tole.

 

I don't think we're going to see an end to the true ace types. The guys that throw even 180 innings will become more rare but the ace types that can give you a quality 200 innings, throwing every 4-5 days will still be in high demand. I could definitely see teams start to chop off their number 5 starters in favor of "bullpenning" games though.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Aces won't go away because they're no longer wanted. They'll go away because they'll no longer be developed in the current sense. This is not going to happen overnight. I give it 5 years for the smaller markets to implement and perfect and another 5 years for the bigger markets to follow suit. The future Max Scherzer's of the world won't be developed to go 200+ innings. The best of the best will still have a distinct role. They'll be the guys who lead the team in innings AND potentially appearances. The future workhorses, or aces, will be relief aces topping out at 150 innings and around 60 appearances. It will probably be harder for some teams to abandon the idea of a 1 inning closer than it will be to stop designating 5 guys to be expected to go 6 innings to start a game.

[homer]

I think Counsell is doing this because it gives his team the best chance to win as constructed. I don't know if this means an organizational change in approach going forward though. If they had a Scherzer, Cole, Nola, etc. on the team you know darn well he'd be out there throwing 7, 8 innings every start.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I think Counsell is doing this because it gives his team the best chance to win as constructed. I don't know if this means an organizational change in approach going forward though. If they had a Scherzer, Cole, Nola, etc. on the team you know darn well he'd be out there throwing 7, 8 innings every start.

 

That's the point, they don't and the pursuit of one is foolhardy. You'll never be able to keep them long-term. And once they leave you can't just flip-flop back overnight to the model Tampa is pursuing. The math of not giving teams multiple looks at a pitcher is too enticing to ignore. Many of the best pitchers in the game become mediocre and downright bad their 2nd and 3rd times through. The ones whose numbers hold up are true unicorns. Too scarce to continue to model around. And too valuable to only impact 30-35 games.

 

The Brewers are almost assuredly going to have a traditional 5 man rotation to start 2019. This is a process that will take time. But you can already see they way they are lining guys up that the phasing in has begun.

[topper09er]

The system you propose has pitchers essentially pitching on a schedule, just like a normal rotation only every 3rd day, whether you realize it or not; it's the only way you can get it to work over a long stretch of time with all the innings you have to cover, you need all 12-13 pitchers over every 3-game cycle. There is very little flexibility in when to deploy which pitcher. Which takes away the main advantage you have with a Hader; that you can choose when to deploy him, i.e when he can improve your chances of winning the most.

 

This is what I came to say, if you do something like this you lose the ability to choose your best pitchers for the highest leverage situations. I don't think it maximizes value

[adambr2]

Josh Hader is showing the folly in having your best arms impact only 1 of every 5 games. You say there will always be room for a Scherzer every 5 days. I say there's even more use for a Scherzer locking down a game every 2-3 days. Not in the sense of being used as a 1 inning closer. But to be used as a guy you introduce into a game you have the lead to shut down the heart of a lineup and then stay on through to the last out. Today's aces will be future guys who come into games your team has the lead and then cover the final 3-4 innings. Instead of 30-35 starts, they can impact 60 games.

 

You need both guys who come in to lock down games, and guys who get you to that point in the first place. Max Scherzer can do almost what Hader can do, except in 220 innings rather than 80. He should stay in that role. Hader got better as a reliever, because he could get by using only his two good pitches, and because he could go all out for shorter bursts. Hader is exactly the type of pitcher who should be a reliever rather than persist as a starter, because they're simply better in that role. But the guys who actually can reliably perform to that insanely high level over 200+ innings should keep doing that. That type of talent is in short supply, and whoever you get to pitch those remaining 120 innings will do a worse job of it.

 

Times through the order penalty is real, we all know (or should know) that, it's not exactly news. But when you have someone who performs the same the third time through the order as he does the second (Like Scherzer has for his career), then why would you cut his innings total in half? Having one guy like that means you don't have to use your 2-3 inning guys that day, and you can use them better on the 4 days where you don't have Scherzer.

 

Max Scherzer isn't immune to this line of thinking, either, though. He has a .480 OPS against the first time through the order! The 2nd, and 3rd time through, it drops to .638 and .645. Still good, but we have 9 guys who are better the 1st time through than Scherzer's 2nd or 3rd! That shows how powerful this analytical approach can be.

 

This is why I just don't get the criticism when a starter is pulled and people say "Why? He was cruising."

 

Well, Buehler was cruising yesterday too. It's just math and odds. Your reliever the first time through is still more likely to be more effective than your starter on his 3rd trip through the order.

[homer]

I think Counsell is doing this because it gives his team the best chance to win as constructed. I don't know if this means an organizational change in approach going forward though. If they had a Scherzer, Cole, Nola, etc. on the team you know darn well he'd be out there throwing 7, 8 innings every start.

 

That's the point, they don't and the pursuit of one is foolhardy. You'll never be able to keep them long-term. And once they leave you can't just flip-flop back overnight to the model Tampa is pursuing. The math of not giving teams multiple looks at a pitcher is too enticing to ignore. Many of the best pitchers in the game become mediocre and downright bad their 2nd and 3rd times through. The ones whose numbers hold up are true unicorns. Too scarce to continue to model around. And too valuable to only impact 30-35 games.

 

I think you can flip them but most teams don't (some do - White Sox and Sale, Tigers and Verlander, etc. etc.). Also if this trend continues they won't hold the value they do now. Lastly, you can flip to this model faster than finding a five man rotation. For the record, I don't disagree with bullpenning at all - but I don't think a team will shy away from drafting a potential Walker Buehler because the big league team is bullpenning. There will always be a spot for a guy who can mow people down for 7 innings. Even Tampa has Blake Snell.

[homer]

I would imagine the 2-4 inning outing is going to become a very common thing and the 5+ inning out is going to be much rarer in the future. The 1 IP outing will also be rarer though.

 

That's kind of how I see things too.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

GM David Stearns on whether young pitchers Corbin Burnes, Freddy Peralta, Brandon Woodruff would be considered in pen if didn't make rotation in camp: "We're open to anything. We are continuing to blur the lines between starting and relieving."

 

Anyone still have doubts that this happening?

 

I don't expect everyone to agree with the approach but there's no sense continuing to deny that it's coming.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

GM David Stearns said he's not going to "pigeon hole" Junior Guerra as either starter or reliever entering spring training because he has shown he can do both. "We think he's going to be an important member of our pitching staff next year."

 

Undefined roles, moving away from 1 batter specialists, start or relieve, etc.

 

The process is in full swing.

[3and2Fastball]

It is a fascinating development and I'm all for it.

 

The question remains, though, how many innings can you get out of somebody like Hader? He went from having "one of the best relief pitcher seasons of All-Time" to "one of the top 2 or 3 relief pitchers in the 2018 season" in September. Was that because he was starting to get worn down? Or was it just a weird statistical oddity of a few rough outings? I dunno, but I suspect you can't count on more than 80 innings in a season from pitchers like Hader, Jeffress, Knebel.

 

The other question I have is: if you had a pitcher like Scherzer, how best to utilize him? Or better yet, let's say our dreams come true and Corbin Burnes emerges as one of the Top 5 "starters" in Baseball. Is it really more valuable to have him pitch 3 innings on two days rest and max out around 160 innings? Is that physically sustainable? Or is it better to get 210 innings out of him pitching once every 5 games?

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Hader is probably the least affected. In other words, the way he was used is more in line with how they need to start conditioning the other guys.

 

And as stated before, the best of the best, guys like a future Scherzer become the pitchers who wind up leading the team in both innings AND appearances. They actually help you more by impacting more games.

[3and2Fastball]

If Hader, Jeffress, Knebel each go 80 IP, as does presumeably a few more traditional relief pitcher guys, where do you make up the innings from the "each guy goes 120 innings" model that gets a team to 1400? Playing the AAA shuffle game?

 

Trust me, I'm all for this development, just fascinated as to how it will work...

[True Blue Brew Crew]

If Hader, Jeffress, Knebel each go 80 IP, as does presumeably a few more traditional relief pitcher guys, where do you make up the innings from the "each guy goes 120 innings" model that gets a team to 1400? Playing the AAA shuffle game?

 

Trust me, I'm all for this development, just fascinated as to how it will work...

 

AAA shuffle mixed with some going 150-160 and some going 80-90. They have no shortage of arms who would be considered former traditional starters so many candidates to cover the 100-150 innings load. The harder transition will be getting the short relievers extended. This won't occur overnight but they're going forward full steam.

[homer]

it's kinda neat being the front runner on something for once.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

it's kinda neat being the front runner on something for once.

 

It sure is. The dominant numbers that could be realized by a pitching staff limiting consecutive repeat looks by batters is fun to extrapolate. Tampa and Oakland are on this train as well but the Brewers might be diving in deeper right now.

[TJseven7]

Nelson Anderson Chacin Davies Guerra Peralta Woodruff Burnes Suter... count Hader who is comfortable in the role.

(Yes Suter in 2017 1st time thru was 2018 Hader level ops allowed)

 

Where ever will those innings come from they say? We have a lot of "starters." Guys who can use the 1st time through advantage and also grab a 4th when they look sharp and get a few low load innings. 1st time through has math on its side but 2nd time through still has positve math as well. Zach Brown's not far off in this scenerio either.

 

Add in the revolving DH opportunities. Add in the anti-stack approach you force in the NL. A lot of plusses.

 

Add in the ability to dominate 1 time through with a limited arsenal or survive it once with a pitch that's not working.. Quicker pitcher development. Using options to stash rest.

 

Is Hader ready to start? Debatable but he's dominating.

How about Woodruff? Probably not. Doing well.

Peralta Burnes... up sooner than you'd expect. Doing their job in big games.

 

Short stints are easier to navigate.

 

The game is built for this. Our payroll can't afford aces. Why trade a bundle of assets for them for a few years when you can draft college developed arms who bust less and rush them to mlb success with less needed development. You open the door back up to take smaller arms who don't look like they will be able to hold up over deep pitch counts and not spit on their value as just reliever options.

 

Lots of lots of plusses. More chances at players who hold value in some way.

 

Not only getting pitchers to the mlb sooner... but also getting use from arms that in a traditional sense are over the hill.

 

There are more than a few things.

 

And is there any statistical data about a batters ability to adjust to changing velocity and styles from one AB to the next? One would assume facing Suter then Peralta would mess a person up real good. Does that exasperate the 1st time thru numbers to any degree? If it does these numbers get silly tilted.

 

That's something to consider as well because we are collecting some odd ducks. Suter Claudio to Hader... Davies to power arm RHP. Difficult release points and strange tempos.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

TJseven7, you hit on just about all of them. Another benefit is greater velocities as witnessed by Woodruff. When he's called on as a traditional starter he's topping out around 93-94. When he was called on to cover 3-4 innings at the most he's dialing it up to 96-97.

 

I'll bring this one out of the can as a refresher - every pitcher on the Brewers postseason roster had better numbers in 2018 their 1st time through a batting order than Ben Sheets career 2nd time through. The numbers hold up with just about any pitcher the Brewers employed in 2018 at any time. In other words, throughout Ben Sheets career, you would have been better off removing him after 3-4 innings and replacing him with just about anyone. The key is you have to have the horses. If your staff is comprised with a bunch of specialists and short guys it's not sustainable. But if you have a staff full of long men and multiple inning relievers, combined with a group stashed in AAA you can limit exposure multiple times through. And the stats to be realized doing so are eye-popping.

[KeithStone53151]

TJseven7, you hit on just about all of them. Another benefit is greater velocities as witnessed by Woodruff. When he's called on as a traditional starter he's topping out around 93-94. When he was called on to cover 3-4 innings at the most he's dialing it up to 96-97.

 

I'll bring this one out of the can as a refresher - every pitcher on the Brewers postseason roster had better numbers in 2018 their 1st time through a batting order than Ben Sheets career 2nd time through. The numbers hold up with just about any pitcher the Brewers employed in 2018 at any time. In other words, throughout Ben Sheets career, you would have been better off removing him after 3-4 innings and replacing him with just about anyone. The key is you have to have the horses. If your staff is comprised with a bunch of specialists and short guys it's not sustainable. But if you have a staff full of long men and multiple inning relievers, combined with a group stashed in AAA you can limit exposure multiple times through. And the stats to be realized doing so are eye-popping.

 

This type of strategy works in short stints, but won't work over the course of the season. It works in the playoffs when you played 5 games in 7 days with 2-3 days of rest between series. It will work in September when you have 18 pitchers. It won't work in April, when we play 27 games in 30 days and only really have the ability to rotate 2 or 3 guys max from AAA. You'll have guys that are ineffective and need to be pulled right away. You'll have extra inning games that blow your strategy to smithereens. You'll have a guy that can't be optioned dealing with a blister, or a tight muscle, or the flu...that you don't want to put on the DL because it's a 3-4 day thing...so he's basically wasting a roster spot. And then we're the NL, so you'll run into situations of being tempted to pull your pitcher 1-2 innings before you want because you're down 2 runs and have the bases loaded with 2 out and the pitcher up. You're idea is theoretically sound, but it relies too much on a perfectly mapped innings plan and won't work in practice...at least not over the course of the entire season.

[FVBrewerFan]

This is why "TOR" starters don't fit the Brewers plan, they are the most over-priced assets in all of MLB. Starting pitchers in general, actually. Exceptions of course, but as Free Agents they are over-priced. Why? Because teams feel the need to get that old school 7 innings from them every start, ignoring how the vast majority of them really suffer the 3rd time through a line-up.

 

Now, if you stumble into a guy like Burnes who CAN do that, great. Even in his arby years he would be cost-effective. But going out and getting a SP in FA for multiple years and massive salary is a really bad idea.