The Future of Pitching

[True Blue Brew Crew]

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.

 

Right. You don't cap a guy at 4 innings if he's unhittable. But people need to take a look at how many complete games Brewers pitchers have thrown under Counsell. It's not that they didn't have guys capable of throwing them. It's because you're not going to take the risk, numbers-wise, to expect a pitcher to keep rolling 3-4 times through. So when a starter who is rolling comes out after 5, people will harp about "what-if?". Well, the counter-argument is what if leaving that pitcher in would have lead to a collapse? Because the numbers with most of these guys suggest that leaving them in leads to crooked numbers.

 

I keep hearing how it's "unsustainable". Take a look at the Brewers 2018 season. They rarely let their starters go past 5-6 innings even when they were putting up zeros. Not sustainable? LOL. It's already begun and been done. That's what all that shuffling is for. That's why they non-tendered 2 LOOGYs and spent a high draft pick to replace them with a lefty can can go multiple innings. They're stockpiling the MLB club and the AAA club with long arms so they can limit multiple times through the order by their pitchers even more.

[long ball]

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.

 

Once they went to it, the Rays used the opener for like 60% of their starts and they had the best team ERA once they started using it.

 

Sure they got a big boost from Snell having a legit ace type season, but I think the concept has been proven to an extent. You need the right roster, but the Brewers have sorta built that roster already.

[KeithStone53151]

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.

 

Right. You don't cap a guy at 4 innings if he's unhittable. But people need to take a look at how many complete games Brewers pitchers have thrown under Counsell. It's not that they didn't have guys capable of throwing them. It's because you're not going to take the risk, numbers-wise, to expect a pitcher to keep rolling 3-4 times through. So when a starter who is rolling comes out after 5, people will harp about "what-if?". Well, the counter-argument is what if leaving that pitcher in would have lead to a collapse? Because the numbers with most of these guys suggest that leaving them in leads to crooked numbers.

 

I keep hearing how it's "unsustainable". Take a look at the Brewers 2018 season. They rarely let their starters go past 5-6 innings even when they were putting up zeros. Not sustainable? LOL. It's already begun and been done. That's what all that shuffling is for. That's why they non-tendered 2 LOOGYs and spent a high draft pick to replace them with a lefty can can go multiple innings. They're stockpiling the MLB club and the AAA club with long arms so they can limit multiple times through the order by their pitchers even more.

 

In 2018 our bullpen was constantly overworked and we seemed to often be in situations where we only had 2 or 3 guys able to pitch on a certain days. We lost quite a few games because we had to leave certain guys in to eat innings.

 

This strategy has a better chance to work in a Tampa Bay situation, where they had Archer and Snell as established guys...and then used openers/multi-relievers in 3 spots. If you staggered 2 or 3 starters properly, you'd have a better chance to get effective innings with a couple piggyback rotation spots and not overstress the bullpen.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Once they went to it, the Rays used the opener for like 60% of their starts and they had the best team ERA once they started using it.

 

Sure they got a big boost from Snell having a legit ace type season, but I think the concept has been proven to an extent. You need the right roster, but the Brewers have sorta built that roster already.

 

Another great point, thanks long ball. Every initial out getter doesn't need to be in a tandem or piggybacked. If you acquire a Kluber and continue to get 5 good innings out of a Chacin, then you complement that with 3 tandems. Even Chacin was essentially piggybacked, just not with a designated mate. And if you're a small market and never come up with the means to have any TOR-type workhorses, you don't throw up your arms and trot out a traditional 5-man rotation and call on guys to do something they'll fail at. As good as we like to think our Ben Sheets of past was, or our Burnes, Woodruff can be - they turn into average pitchers, if not worse, when they go through a lineup a 2nd time - SO FAR. They key is cutting these guys off when the data shows those lose effectiveness. And the Rays leading ERA shows the results of limiting exposure. That's not saying someone like Burnes can't become a stand-alone, every 5th day guy. It just means you maximize his effectiveness even if he doesn't.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

In 2018 our bullpen was constantly overworked and we seemed to often be in situations where we only had 2 or 3 guys able to pitch on a certain days. We lost quite a few games because we had to leave certain guys in to eat innings.

 

Seemed?

 

The Brewers 96 regular season wins and NL pitching ranks "seem" to suggest the pitchers were used to just about absolute maximum effectiveness given the likes of the rotation arms they trotted out there.

 

I don't know how anyone could look at 2018 and think the usage of the bullpen early and often didn't yield about the best results possible. And in 2019 the team is shaping things up to have even more options to spread and cover more innings. And statistically that's the best thing they could possibly be attempting.

[homer]

 

In 2018 our bullpen was constantly overworked and we seemed to often be in situations where we only had 2 or 3 guys able to pitch on a certain days. We lost quite a few games because we had to leave certain guys in to eat innings.

 

This strategy has a better chance to work in a Tampa Bay situation, where they had Archer and Snell as established guys...and then used openers/multi-relievers in 3 spots. If you staggered 2 or 3 starters properly, you'd have a better chance to get effective innings with a couple piggyback rotation spots and not overstress the bullpen.

 

I don't know if I buy that the bullpen caused us to lose games more than normal use of a bullpen would have. You could counter that by saying had we left the starters in longer they would have gotten knocked around more often. I do agree that there will always be a place for guys that can throw 7+ innings. Problem is there aren't many of those guys that can be just as good in inning 7 as they are in inning 1.

[3and2Fastball]

I'm not privy to advanced metrics like spin rate & biometrics etc, but just from the eye test it looked like Jeffress was completely gassed at the end of the season & in the postseason, and Hader took a step backwards in September (though he rebounded in the playoffs). I think if the Brewers pull this off they are going to need more depth, and they'll need to rest their top relief aces more during the season

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I'm not privy to advanced metrics like spin rate & biometrics etc, but just from the eye test it looked like Jeffress was completely gassed at the end of the season & in the postseason, and Hader took a step backwards in September (though he rebounded in the playoffs). I think if the Brewers pull this off they are going to need more depth, and they'll need to rest their top relief aces more during the season

 

Agreed and from the looks of things they're working on that depth by eliminating the short stint, 1-2 batter guys from the staff. When you have a Woodruff, Burnes, or Peralta at your disposal to come into the game for the 7th and finish things off, then it allows more off days for the likes of Jeffress and Knebel.

[KeithStone53151]

In 2018 our bullpen was constantly overworked and we seemed to often be in situations where we only had 2 or 3 guys able to pitch on a certain days. We lost quite a few games because we had to leave certain guys in to eat innings.

 

Seemed?

 

The Brewers 96 regular season wins and NL pitching ranks "seem" to suggest the pitchers were used to just about absolute maximum effectiveness given the likes of the rotation arms they trotted out there.

 

I don't know how anyone could look at 2018 and think the usage of the bullpen early and often didn't yield about the best results possible. And in 2019 the team is shaping things up to have even more options to spread and cover more innings. And statistically that's the best thing they could possibly be attempting.

 

They had 96 wins using a traditional 5 SP and bullpen philosophy. We had quite a few multi-inning relievers, but this is nothing new. Many teams have a few guys that can and do pitch 2 innings at a time instead of 1. Don't try to using last season's success as support for your piggyback nonsense.

[KeithStone53151]

 

Right. You don't cap a guy at 4 innings if he's unhittable.

 

Get out of here! That seems crazy. No managers would ever pull a struggling starter early, or let him pitch further into a game if he's pitching well. That's just insane, no team would ever be that crazy...

[True Blue Brew Crew]

They had 96 wins using a traditional 5 SP and bullpen philosophy. We had quite a few multi-inning relievers, but this is nothing new. Many teams have a few guys that can and do pitch 2 innings at a time instead of 1. Don't try to using last season's success as support for your piggyback nonsense.

 

Says the guy who literally just said this...

 

"In 2018 our bullpen was constantly overworked and we seemed to often be in situations where we only had 2 or 3 guys able to pitch on a certain days. We lost quite a few games because we had to leave certain guys in to eat innings."

 

If limiting the length of our starters caused the problems you "seem" to think were there, how did this team win 96 games and compile those pitching ranks? In 2018 the Brewers were already actively utilizing short hooks even when "starters" were cruising. And I'll share a secret - it wasn't because Craig Counsell was going off hunches.

[KeithStone53151]

They had 96 wins using a traditional 5 SP and bullpen philosophy. We had quite a few multi-inning relievers, but this is nothing new. Many teams have a few guys that can and do pitch 2 innings at a time instead of 1. Don't try to using last season's success as support for your piggyback nonsense.

 

Says the guy who literally just said this...

 

"In 2018 our bullpen was constantly overworked and we seemed to often be in situations where we only had 2 or 3 guys able to pitch on a certain days. We lost quite a few games because we had to leave certain guys in to eat innings."

 

If limiting the length of our starters caused the problems you "seem" to think were there, how did this team win 96 games and compile those pitching ranks? In 2018 the Brewers were already actively utilizing short hooks even when "starters" were cruising. And I'll share a secret - it wasn't because Craig Counsell was going off hunches.

 

Chacin averaged 89 pitches/start April-August. Guerra averaged 87 pitches/start in that stretch. Kyle Hendricks averaged 92 pitches/start. German Marquez averaged 94 pitches/start. Ivan Nova averaged 93 pitches/start. Are you really going to argue that our starters were used that much differently than other teams?

[True Blue Brew Crew]

You just named 1 starter. This is the solution for teams when they don't have 5 guys to do the same. I don't know how many times people have to re-state that for you. It's a fun debate but there's no point belaboring things. We'll see come April.

[cesser000]

But people need to take a look at how many complete games Brewers pitchers have thrown under Counsell.

Brewer starters have thrown just TWO complete games under Counsell since he was named manager on May 4, 2015 - one by Taylor Jungmann on 7/11/15, and the other by Jimmy Nelson on 6/18/17

 

Complete games thrown by all MLB starters:

2015 - 104

2016 - 83

2017 - 59

2018 - 42

 

The number of complete games in all of MLB has been drastically declining as well during Counsell's tenure, but the Brewers have been WAY below average in that department

[True Blue Brew Crew]

But people need to take a look at how many complete games Brewers pitchers have thrown under Counsell.

Brewer starters have thrown just TWO complete games under Counsell since he was named manager on May 4, 2015 - one by Taylor Jungmann on 7/11/15, and the other by Jimmy Nelson on 6/18/17

 

Complete games thrown by all MLB starters:

2015 - 104

2016 - 83

2017 - 59

2018 - 42

 

The number of complete games in all of MLB has been drastically declining as well during Counsell's tenure, but the Brewers have been WAY below average in that department

 

Exactly. It's not that the Brewers haven't been capable of getting a complete game out of someone. It's that Counsell isn't going to let them happen by design. Not because he wouldn't love to have one. But because he's not going to take the risk required to make one possible. He knows how bad the numbers are the 3rd time through (2nd for some) for these guys so they don't get the chance.

[TJseven7]

I'm not privy to advanced metrics like spin rate & biometrics etc, but just from the eye test it looked like Jeffress was completely gassed at the end of the season & in the postseason, and Hader took a step backwards in September (though he rebounded in the playoffs). I think if the Brewers pull this off they are going to need more depth, and they'll need to rest their top relief aces more during the season

 

Right... more depth. But what consitutes as depth.

 

27 innings 3 games. You have arms that average 3 innings per stint you need 9 every 3 days. Counting no rest. Add knebel jeffress claudio. Theres 12.

 

But it needs more depth.

You mean like Guerra who has next to no role without short stints.

Suter who is a long man.

Woodruff who is mediocre if he can't pitch up his velocity at this point in his career.

Peralta and Hader who need another pitch to be a starter by definition.

 

You are using math to weave marginal talent and limted arsenals into elite results. It's said it needs more depth. It MAKES also-rans that depth. Low value pieces have real value. It won't stop anyone going good from going 4 ip either. But if you have 8-9 guys who can go a decent 3-4 ip and you let 1st time thru math take over we're starting to see what happens.

 

Long extra inning games always hurt teams. This doesn't remedy that nor add to it.

 

The goal is to win 3 of 5 games and achieve a certain era as cheaply as possible. Its great when you have a small lead and can put in a wipe out arm. That's not required for every win. However, when you can build an entire staff for the cost of 1 kershaw... then use that collection of stuff to limit 2nd looks and elimitate 3rd looks you get results.

 

Team missed the WS because jeffress was gassed and the bats went cold for a few games.

 

They'll continue to blur the line between starter and reliever. We already did that a great deal. More is coming. Having woodruff burnes peralta nelson? Suter? Davies? More than last year... with our next up Brown closing in makes that even easier. You should be expecting more 4ip "starts." More 3 ip relief appearences. Even less short stints. Claudio is not coming here to loogey. He's coming here to throw mutiple innings at a time because 1 results, 2 another odd look to the collection.

 

No big investment... few huge talents needed... lots of good... and some of that good is very overlooked due a league full of teams with different expectations of their arms.

 

Teams starting Guerra Suter Woodruff would be laughed at. Us rolling them out there for 2-3 ip works.

 

This teams looking for a way to collect MORE starters on the roster at 1 time... and use them even shorter stints than last year.

[Humans Need Water]

I'm not privy to advanced metrics like spin rate & biometrics etc, but just from the eye test it looked like Jeffress was completely gassed at the end of the season & in the postseason, and Hader took a step backwards in September (though he rebounded in the playoffs). I think if the Brewers pull this off they are going to need more depth, and they'll need to rest their top relief aces more during the season

 

Right... more depth. But what consitutes as depth.

 

27 innings 3 games. You have arms that average 3 innings per stint you need 9 every 3 days. Counting no rest. Add knebel jeffress claudio. Theres 12.

 

But it needs more depth.

You mean like Guerra who has next to no role without short stints.

Suter who is a long man.

Woodruff who is mediocre if he can't pitch up his velocity at this point in his career.

Peralta and Hader who need another pitch to be a starter by definition.

 

You are using math to weave marginal talent and limted arsenals into elite results. It's said it needs more depth. It MAKES also-rans that depth. Low value pieces have real value. It won't stop anyone going good from going 4 ip either. But if you have 8-9 guys who can go a decent 3-4 ip and you let 1st time thru math take over we're starting to see what happens.

 

Long extra inning games always hurt teams. This doesn't remedy that nor add to it.

 

The goal is to win 3 of 5 games and achieve a certain era as cheaply as possible. Its great when you have a small lead and can put in a wipe out arm. That's not required for every win. However, when you can build an entire staff for the cost of 1 kershaw... then use that collection of stuff to limit 2nd looks and elimitate 3rd looks you get results.

 

Team missed the WS because jeffress was gassed and the bats went cold for a few games.

 

They'll continue to blur the line between starter and reliever. We already did that a great deal. More is coming. Having woodruff burnes peralta nelson? Suter? Davies? More than last year... with our next up Brown closing in makes that even easier. You should be expecting more 4ip "starts." More 3 ip relief appearences. Even less short stints. Claudio is not coming here to loogey. He's coming here to throw mutiple innings at a time because 1 results, 2 another odd look to the collection.

 

No big investment... few huge talents needed... lots of good... and some of that good is very overlooked due a league full of teams with different expectations of their arms.

 

Teams starting Guerra Suter Woodruff would be laughed at. Us rolling them out there for 2-3 ip works.

 

This teams looking for a way to collect MORE starters on the roster at 1 time... and use them even shorter stints than last year.

Guerra/Suter/Woodruff as 3 of our 5 rotation arms is never going to happen to begin with. Additionally, Suter has proven he's a solid backend MLB rotation arm that gives us a chance to win almost every time he takes the mound and he's even better in a pen role - his numbers this year ballooned as he pitched a bit while injured. Woodruff, before he lost his prospect status, was hovering around a Top 50 and it's already been proven he's had success when in a consistent starting role (hint: he wasn't in that role in 2018). Evidence within the correct context trumps opinion. Peralta doesn't need another pitch to be successful and called a "starter" he needs better control/consistency to reach his potential as a starter.

 

If a starter is throwing 4ip, 1h, 0er, 1bb, 4k over 50 pitches they're not being removed from the game because every additional out they consume is one less out the pen has to get.

 

Jeffress was gassed in the playoffs? Look at the game log and days off/number of pitches. He also threw 10.2ip, 3h, 0er in September in 10 appearances throwing 14 or fewer pitches 7x. Then he had that neck injury or whatever it was before the playoffs, wasn't available to pitch at the end of the regular season then never looked comfortable in Oct as a result of that.

[Humans Need Water]

I beg to differ - the Brewers absolutely haven't been capable of throwing a CG the past 3yrs (other than Nelson in 2017 and he almost threw 3 of them). Even when Chase killed it in 2017 it took him 100+ pitches just to get through 7 innings. The MLB CG number has dropped by 50% since Stearns became GM - it's a league wide cultural shift to limit the number of pitches thrown, which in turn limits innings.

 

I read the "blurred lines" reference to Burnes/Woodruff/Peralta as pertaining to their flexibility and what it does for the team. If Chacin, Davies, Chase are set in the rotation (because they're productive still) and we acquire a Bauer type (hypothetical) or even resign Miley then have Nelson look good in spring since he's a full-go we only have 2 options: trade some of those dudes to create spots for the big 3 young guys *or* keep them in the pen because it makes the *team* better. And I've also said if Nelson needs to start in the pen to get going then that's great too with a young dude (Burnes) replacing him in the rotation. And because they're all legitimate rotation arms they offer the flexibility of covering 2-4 innings in case someone gives up 4 runs early or if we need a spot start or (depending on the schedule/days off) they roll with a bullpen game like they did last year or someone like Peralta could fill in as a starter in certain environments (ie CO) where someone might have a history of struggling there, etc etc. So these guys can be used as both starters and pen arms moving around as needed hence blurring the lines - they won't have a traditional rotation or pen role as they'll do both. I don't think this applies to the entire team though. It'll be sweet when we can add Brown at some point this year too.

 

Having an entire pen of multi-inning arms serves as a great benefit for many reasons. If a starter is getting rocked early. If a starter is walking/giving up hits but not giving up runs and Counsell wants to pull them after 4 innings before they actually do start giving up runs. If we're getting blown out or blowing someone out it saves other pen arms when 1 dude can mop up 3 innings since the game is essentially already over, etc etc.

 

The biggest issue I see with True Blue's piggyback/tandem/set schedule of 8 rotation arms every 4 days is that there are going to be games where guys get lit up so the 3 pitchers covering 9 innings isn't going to work. Then it throws off the schedule the following couple days. And a pen of Hader, Knebel, Jeffress, Claudio + 1 good vet arm if added (or Albers still) isn't going to allow for a constant revolving door, especially if we only have 4 bench players, because they're not going down unless they're like Knebel last year where he needed tweaking/mental break as he was struggling for a while. Also, if we acquire a Bauer type there's no way he's only throwing 3-4 innings.

 

Most importantly I think, how many moves does Counsell make in the final 3 innings of a game based on matchups/analytics given we're in the NL and it's pinch hitters/double switches galore? A LOT, especially when Hader isn't in. Going with the 8 rotation arms every 4 days scheme means all of that is thrown out of the window because one of those starters would be, in theory, pitching the final 3+ innings every game (ie you mentioned Burnes 3-4, Claudio 1-2, Woodruff 3-4 in that order then they mix and match who starts the next time). There's just so many moving parts and variables in play on a nightly basis that if this theory, which has been discussed on this site for at least 3yrs, held water some MLB team would have implemented it already.

 

I can absolutely see Counsell pulling starters in the 4th/5th inning if they're not *very* effective with one of these dudes taking over and throwing 2-3 innings shortening the game but that's not the piggybacking/tandem approach. It's allowing your starter to go as far as you deem them no longer effective then pulling them before risking something bad from happening putting us in a hole.

[Oxy]

There's just so many moving parts and variables in play on a nightly basis that if this theory, which has been discussed on this site for at least 3yrs, held water some MLB team would have implemented it already.

 

Part of making it work will be flexibility. Having a lot of arms and a lot of guys with options is necessary for it to work, and most teams don't have that, but it looks like the Brewers will in 2019.

 

I don't think there is going to be a set pattern. At least I hope not. I still think that game situations and who is rested will still play the largest part in pitching changes. I'd hope that there are times when the Brewers are up by 5 and the IOG is looking great and humming along, and they just let him keep humming until he gives up a run/gets in serious trouble rather than taking him out in the 4th or 5th inning just because that is what the "plan" was if it was a close game or if he didnt look great.

 

What worries me is that no matter how successful their innovations are most of the time, there will be a week at some point where we lose 2 or 3 games in row because of an odd rotation strategy. If we keep it up after a random blip like that will be the true test of how committed we are to the strategy--particularly if that bad stretch happens in April.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

 

Part of making it work will be flexibility. Having a lot of arms and a lot of guys with options is necessary for it to work, and most teams don't have that, but it looks like the Brewers will in 2019.

 

I don't think there is going to be a set pattern. At least I hope not.

 

This is why I don't think they go with any set piggybacks. That is - I don't think there will be a set IOG who is always matched with the same long man. Getting away from a set 5-man is one of the advantages so why counter with anything rigid. Woodruff could be the IOG one day and then 2-3 days later he could follow a lefty. Not only are you limiting trips through the order by one pitcher, you're also allowing yourself to dictate matchups.

[wntrtxn21]

Most relievers are gassed at 70 innings. Many, many RPs have regressed greatly a year or two after throwing a high number of innings. It could destroy many RP's arms to throw 120+ innings. Plus, if the team has rainouts, the pen will be gassed early in the week. Teams would have to have 3-4 guys who have options left and 3 minor lg. guys who could be ready in order to accomplish your scenairo.

[wntrtxn21]

The lefty (Claudio) CANNOT go multiple innings based on his inability to get RH hitters out. Righties hit over .300 against him and he allows far too many hits even to lefties. If a team has multiple righties coming up Claudio is the last guy CC wants in there.

[TJseven7]

Well we don't use our Loogey as a Loogey.... part of what destroyed Logan. We used a Loogey a couple times down the stretch but otherwise treated him like any other RP.

 

So yeah he's going 2 IP. Hope they think a shift can help limit hits or sliders can help him vs RHB.

 

As for RLP get gassed after 70 IP. Yup. That's why we have so many guys who came up as starters.

As for guerra woodruff suter wouldn't be our 3-4-5... you are right because woodruff would still be in the minors developing. Suter and Guerra would be long men at best on teams looking to contend. They'd be nearly useless to MKE right now...unless they pitched short stints. That strategy changes that and that's my point.

[adambr2]

I think the main things that destroyed Boone Logan were walking a batter an inning and a hilariously bad 1.354 OPS by lefties against him, a lot more so than the way he was used.

 

Obviously you can't shield lefties from righties entirely but the effort was there initially to have him be your guy against lefty batters. He was just really bad at it.

[Humans Need Water]

 

Part of making it work will be flexibility. Having a lot of arms and a lot of guys with options is necessary for it to work, and most teams don't have that, but it looks like the Brewers will in 2019.

 

I don't think there is going to be a set pattern. At least I hope not.

 

This is why I don't think they go with any set piggybacks. That is - I don't think there will be a set IOG who is always matched with the same long man. Getting away from a set 5-man is one of the advantages so why counter with anything rigid. Woodruff could be the IOG one day and then 2-3 days later he could follow a lefty. Not only are you limiting trips through the order by one pitcher, you're also allowing yourself to dictate matchups.

So what happens when Woodruff throws 75+ pitches to get through those first 3 innings on a random Monday start? He's definitely not going back out there 2 days later (Wed) and I highly doubt he's going back out there 3 days later either unless it's for 1 inning in a high leverage situation but that's not what you're talking about when using him. You're talking about 8 rotation arms that are going 3-4 innings at a pop within a 4 day span - mixing and matching piggybacks - with the other 5 pen arms working in. Except you're not even factoring in the number of pitches thrown (one of those pesky variables we keep harping on) - you're only discussing innings. Your theory literally only works if every rotation arm throws their 3 innings in less than 40 pitches or 4 innings in less than 60 pitches with there being somewhat of a set schedule where some flexibility exists but it's essentially set because guy's will need recovery time. Having guys mix and match, changing up who's piggybacking with whom only works if you run it like a 13 man pen except with 8 dudes who can throw 3-4 innings and you literally approach the season 1 inning at a time...you can't negate the fact guys need recovery time so they can't throw 3 innings on Mon then get back out there on Wed. Hader doesn't even do that and he came up as a starter.

 

Also, Woodruff and Chacin are literally the only pitchers on the current roster that have done this. Chase, Davies, Nelson haven't even been in a pen role ever - Guerra has the final month of the past 2yrs but that was a straight pen role. Chacin did it for a handful of games in 2016 and he did it with 5 days rest while throwing 52-62 pitches spanning 4 innings each during those outings and 3 of the 5 outings he was entering the game between the start of the 2nd and 5th inning because the starter got shelled. So basically it's similar to when Guerra went 3 innings, 4ER vs Nats down the stretch with Woodruff entering going 4 innings of shut down ball (58 pitches) then Cedeno/Knebel went 1 inning each. Woodruff didn't pitch again for 7 days. Look at him in the playoffs - a lot of days off between starts and pen appearances for recovery (outside of game 7 because everyone is available then).

 

The above is exactly what I and others have mentioned on here for what makes the most sense. The back half of the Top 10 Innings Pitched Leaders in 2018 averaged either 6 innings per start or just shy of 6.1. MLB managers overall aren't letting their pitchers go deep because of pitch counts, matchups, etc with analytics playing a big role. So this is how I said I interpreted "blurring the lines". We have rotation arms with the goal of going 5 innings (anything beyond that is a bonus because each additional out is one less the pen needs to get) giving up, ideally, 2 or fewer runs. Then we have 8 pen arms with the ability to go multiple innings eat up the rest of it. As of now our starters are most likely Chacin, Chase, Davies. It's not common for them to throw less than 5 innings. Chacin 5 of 32 games and 4 of 35 past 2yrs. Davies 3 of 28, 3 of 33 and wasn't good this year but was also pitching injured a decent amount. Chase 7 of 30, 3 of 25 and 9 of 30 this year (4 over final 8 starts). Nelson 6 of 32 and 2 of 29. They're clearly working on adding a rotation arm to lead this group and if that happens that person will have a very low number of starts under 5 innings. This aligns with this thought process - they're shooting for 5 innings (minimum) out of their rotation arms but if someone is humming along they keep going or if someone gets in trouble in the 3rd or 4th they'll be pulled because this pen allows for that to happen early to prevent a potential disaster thus keeping us in the game. Even if someone has a couple bad starts they can skip a start and use a Woodruff/Burnes/Peralta type to spot start. If the schedule aligns they can do a bullpen game like last year or also start Claudio vs Carpenter then bring someone in. None of that is traditional but it's nowhere near piggybacking.

 

With the exception of Hader, the rest of the pen guys have the *ability* to go multiple but 90+% of the time they aren't actually going multiple. They're going 1 or 1+. Also, regarding having players with options being critical for this theory's success I just wanted to mention that dudes like Derby (and I like him) aren't going to be better than the Woodruff, Burnes, Peralta, Barnes, Williams, Albers of the world so why would we *consistently* swap out very productive arms for that of the Derby's of the world? We're always going to use the final pen spot to rotate guys in and out and that absolutely makes sense for a lot of reasons but that's also not what you're alluding to when you say it requires lots of players with options to work.