Bold Move

[cmoss84]

We are playing good baseball right now...hopefully we can remain in playoff contention until the very end. But if we fall out before that, I would love to trade any combination of Hughes/Santana/Nolasco/Pelfrey and be the first team next year to go with 3 - 3 inning pitchers per game. It's bound to happen eventually-let's start the transition party! Any takers?

 

Anybody else a fan of this strategy or is everyone going to stay stubborn with the traditional "starter goes 6 or 7 then use 2 bullpen guys to close it out?"

[jokin]

What makes you think the absolute least innovative team in baseball would be the first to go this radical?

[DaveW]

No

[Craig Arko]

Oh, I thought you were going to propose Bert Blyleven as Bernie Sanders' running mate.

[brvama]

Three innings per would cause Blyleven to have an on-air meltdown.

[Hrbowski]

 

Oh, I thought you were going to propose Bert Blyleven as Bernie Sanders' running mate.

If Sanders chose Bert as his running mate my opinion of him might go up.

[spinowner]

I've had this thought too, and obviously I'm not the first. With a 12-man staff using 4 pitchers per game each pitcher would have one game on and two games off. This equates to 54 appearances per year, which is very common for a reliever. It seems there are always a lot of relievers with ERA's in the 2's, and if you had enough of those types on your staff it would seem very do-able to have a team ERA under 3, even in the AL. It would have to be a very unselfish group of players because the first pitcher of the game would never get a W. 

[ashbury]

Used that way, those ERAs would be in the 4's, for those same pitchers, for various reasons.

[Blake]

 

Three innings per would cause Blyleven to have an on-air meltdown.

Okay, now the idea has merit.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

We are playing good baseball right now...hopefully we can remain in playoff contention until the very end. But if we fall out before that, I would love to trade any combination of Hughes/Santana/Nolasco/Pelfrey and be the first team next year to go with 3 - 3 inning pitchers per game. It's bound to happen eventually-let's start the transition party! Any takers?

 

Anybody else a fan of this strategy or is everyone going to stay stubborn with the traditional "starter goes 6 or 7 then use 2 bullpen guys to close it out?"

 

Actually, LaRussa tried this, back in the day. 

 

 

* too busy right now to look up who/what/when/where/why

[twinsnorth49]

Just as long as they're each not expected to get their pitch count up to 100.......

[nicksaviking]

The Twins don't have 12 pitchers I want to see pitch three innings at a time. They have like three.

[DaveW]

The Twins don't have 12 pitchers I want to see pitch three innings at a time. They have like three.

ding ding ding!

[formerly33]

I personally think that every player on the team should have a shot a being the MVP - or at least CY - at the beginning of the season. Putting somebody in starting position while knowing that they'd only be pulled after 3 would basically take that hope away from them. And, on top of that, pulling somebody who was going strong because his pitch count was at - uh, 40? could result in longer, slower games. Though, of course they could make the decision to pull the pitchers in between innings instead of waiting until everything fell apart in the middle of the 4th - which would start happening if stamina was no longer an issue of importance. But what about when the bullpen falls apart? That's two hours of disaster instead of just one.

 

I'm afraid I'd be having a meltdown with Bert. I think I'd almost prefer to see the catcher playing the shift - even though the batter would strike out and then saunter down to his base. So yeah, you can classify me as one of those stubborn people who like to stick by tradition.

[spinowner]

 

The Twins don't have 12 pitchers I want to see pitch three innings at a time.

Nor does any other team, because pitching staffs have never been assembled and managed that way. It goes back to the same thing that was discussed recently in another thread about how bullpens are managed. Different pitchers thrive in different roles. The idea here would be to assemble a staff of good middle relievers plus two or three good closers and see what happens. When I think about it, it would be a lot like managing a pitching staff in the ASG.

[Platoon]

I personally think that every player on the team should have a shot a being the MVP - or at least CY - at the beginning of the season. Putting somebody in starting position while knowing that they'd only be pulled after 3 would basically take that hope away from them. And, on top of that, pulling somebody who was going strong because his pitch count was at - uh, 40? could result in longer, slower games. Though, of course they could make the decision to pull the pitchers in between innings instead of waiting until everything fell apart in the middle of the 4th - which would start happening if stamina was no longer an issue of importance. But what about when the bullpen falls apart? That's two hours of disaster instead of just one.

 

I'm afraid I'd be having a meltdown with Bert. I think I'd almost prefer to see the catcher playing the shift - even though the batter would strike out and then saunter down to his base. So yeah, you can classify me as one of those stubborn people who like to stick by tradition.

first off the catcher has to be in the box for a legal pitch........... Second and most important, the umpires would be very unhappy!

[Mike Sixel]

I suggested this the last several years. Use your 2-3 good starters as starters, have bullpen arms that only want 3 innings for the other 2-3 games. Rotate guys between AAA and the majors to keep them fresh. This actually should work out well, as pitchers can throw harder in shorter stints. It also allows them to get away with fewer pitches, so you should have more good guys to choos from.

 

But no chance this team does that. None. The time to do that was the last few years, when they were running out AWFUL pitchers routinely to start.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Good luck finding 12 quality pitchers who can get nine batters out every third day. Most teams struggle to find five quality pitchers who can get ~15 outs every fifth day.

 

Never mind how illogical it is to pitch Clayton Kershaw the same number of innings per season that you pitch the 12th man in your bullpen.

[spinowner]

 

Good luck finding 12 quality pitchers who can get nine batters out every third day. Most teams struggle to find five quality pitchers who can get ~15 outs every fifth day.

Never mind how illogical it is to pitch Clayton Kershaw the same number of innings per season that you pitch the 12th man in your bullpen.

If I had Clayton Kershaw he'd start every fifth game. But if my starters are the likes of Andrew Albers, PJ Walters and such I'd think differently. Good middle relievers are easier to find than good starters, and are paid less to boot. Even so, it would probably require several years of drafts, trades and free agent signings in order to assemble a staff of pitchers that could make this work.

[Curt]

When asked why he kept a four man rotation when the rest of baseball had switched to five, Earl Weaver responded, "It's easier to find four reliable pitchers than five."

Twleve? Oh my. I'm with Earl.

[nicksaviking]

 

Nor does any other team, because pitching staffs have never been assembled and managed that way. It goes back to the same thing that was discussed recently in another thread about how bullpens are managed. Different pitchers thrive in different roles. The idea here would be to assemble a staff of good middle relievers plus two or three good closers and see what happens. When I think about it, it would be a lot like managing a pitching staff in the ASG.

 

The All-Star game sees Felix Hernandez turn to Chris Sale to David Price.  I'm guessing the AL team might show a different line score than if it was Kyle Gibson into Brian Duensing into Blain Boyer, or even Kyle Gibson into Trevor May into Tyler Duffy, if you're suggesting to just go with starters.

 

If I had Clayton Kershaw he'd start every fifth game. But if my starters are the likes of Andrew Albers, PJ Walters and such I'd think differently. Good middle relievers are easier to find than good starters, and are paid less to boot. Even so, it would probably require several years of drafts, trades and free agent signings in order to assemble a staff of pitchers that could make this work.

 

The Twins starters aren't Albers and Walters anymore.  I'm critical of them, but I wouldn't even make that comparason. 

 

Besides, even if the Twins don't have Kershaw, you're talking about potentially taking 50 innings each away from Hughes, Gibson and May and giving them to inferior pitchers.  That's a lot of innings.

[cmoss84]

Thanks for your opinions. Good stuff. I just want clarify-I don't think this will happen for awhile (maybe in 5-10 years), nor do I think the Twins will be the first to try I out. But I wish we would go to it sooner rather than later. Regarding a couple of your comments...I suppose one of the benefits of doing this would be (arguably) to take away the risk of so many Tommy John/season-ending surgeries that we've been seeing the last couple of years. A team could invest 30-35 million in the entire staff and continue to rotate arms and stock the farm system. I would rather spend my money doing this and stacking my offense as opposed to spending 30 million on an ace, even if it is Kershaw. Don't get me wrong, I loved watching Santana pitch for us. But the risk factor is just too great when signing these 27 or 28 year old aces to 6 year, $200 million contracts (or for the Twins case a little cheaper). Build the staff with power arms and maybe 1 or 2 "long" guys that can go 4 or 5 innings. Also, I know our pitching has been bad the last 5-10 years, and some of you are still a little down on our pitching to say the least. A lot of you are going to be surprised how good our pitching is the next 2-3 years with the arms we have in the farm (not even counting our rotation right now). Just my opinion, but we would have (along with signing a couple FAs) enough arms to do this.

[spinowner]

 

 

Besides, even if the Twins don't have Kershaw, you're talking about potentially taking 50 innings each away from Hughes, Gibson and May and giving them to inferior pitchers.  That's a lot of innings.

 

 

Your point is well taken but it misses the central idea, which is to have 12 pitchers that are all strong middle relievers and closers. Hughes, Gibson and May would not be on the staff. Every year there are dozens of relievers in the majors with ERA's under 3.00 but only a handful of starters. These are NOT inferior pitchers. If you have pitchers who can perform consistently 2 or 3 innings at a time every third game it would make for a strong staff, at least in theory.

[USAFChief]

 

Your point is well taken but it misses the central idea, which is to have 12 pitchers that are all strong middle relievers and closers. Hughes, Gibson and May would not be on the staff. Every year there are dozens of relievers in the majors with ERA's under 3.00 but only a handful of starters. These are NOT inferior pitchers. If you have pitchers who can perform consistently 2 or 3 innings at a time every third game it would make for a strong staff, at least in theory.

None of them are throwing 3 inning stints regularly.  Few, if any would have sub-3 ERAs if they did.  If they could, they'd be starters.

 

You're asking a team to find 12 pitchers that can regularly throw multiple innings without getting lit up, when teams have trouble finding 5 of them.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Every year there are dozens of relievers in the majors with ERA's under 3.00 but only a handful of starters. These are NOT inferior pitchers.

Actually, they are inferior pitchers. The bullpens of MLB are littered with failed starters. The rotations of MLB are not littered with failed relievers. When you come in to get three outs, you're pitching a very different game than you are if you have to go through an entire lineup multiple times.

 

Here are a few things relievers can do on a nightly basis that starters cannot:

- Throw fastballs nearly as often as you want

- Eliminate your weakest two pitches

- Reach back and throw it as hard as you can every time

- Never worry about altering your approach or batters adjusting as hitters get an up-close look at your stuff

 

Change that role from three outs to nine and all of those benefits diminish or go away entirely. Since their resurgence in 2000, the Twins have a pretty rich history of successful closers. Guardado, Hawkins, Nathan, and Perkins. Guess how many of them were failed starters? The answer is easy: all of them.

[cmoss84]

Brock B-valid points. But I'm thinking you could have pitchers that throw 50-60 pitches with 2 days off in between that throw 93 mph+ and have 2 other plus pitches. You could still stash a 2 pitch closer or two so you can mix and match for certain situations also.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Brock B-valid points. But I'm thinking you could have pitchers that throw 50-60 pitches with 2 days off in between that throw 93 mph+ and have 2 other plus pitches. You could still stash a 2 pitch closer or two so you can mix and match for certain situations also.

If the guy has to throw 50-60 pitches every third day, he's not throwing as hard as he can. Guys can barely average throwing 20 pitches every second to third day and still throw as hard as they can (relievers usually top out around 70 appearances of one inning or less per season, most relievers sit in the 55-65 appearance range).

 

And relievers very rarely have three plus pitches. If they do, we usually refer to them as "starters". The best reliever in history had, for all intents and purposes, one pitch. One pitch.

 

And then you get the issue of repeating through lineups and not relying on your fastball as often as you would in a single inning. Relievers are successful because they get in and out of the game before hitters adjust to them. It's deception through change. By the time hitters get a good look, a new guy with a different look is in the game. If a pitcher gives up three hits over nine batters and walks another guy, that means he's facing close to half the lineup a second time just to get through three innings of work.

[cmoss84]

My point is, you don't think we could find 9 guys who could pitch every 3-4 days that throw 93+ with 3 pitches (I'm not saying this would be their max velocity-I'm saying this is how they could be used) and throw 50-60 pitches per appearance? This would also allow 2 true closers at the back end and one long guy.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

My point is, you don't think we could find 9 guys who could pitch every 3-4 days that throw 93+ with 3 pitches (I'm not saying this would be their max velocity-I'm saying this is how they could be used) and throw 50-60 pitches per appearance? 

Nope. Guys who can throw 93 with three decent pitches are usually starters. You're asking that a team find nine starters, which is virtually impossible.

[spinowner]

 

Actually, they are inferior pitchers. The bullpens of MLB are littered with failed starters. The rotations of MLB are not littered with failed relievers. When you come in to get three outs, you're pitching a very different game than you are if you have to go through an entire lineup multiple times.

 

Here are a few things relievers can do on a nightly basis that starters cannot:

- Throw fastballs nearly as often as you want

- Eliminate your weakest two pitches

- Reach back and throw it as hard as you can every time

- Never worry about altering your approach or batters adjusting as hitters get an up-close look at your stuff

 

Change that role from three outs to nine and all of those benefits diminish or go away entirely. Since their resurgence in 2000, the Twins have a pretty rich history of successful closers. Guardado, Hawkins, Nathan, and Perkins. Guess how many of them were failed starters? The answer is easy: all of them.

So is Brian Dozier an inferior baseball player because he failed as a SS and thrived after a move to 2B? No. The argument can be made that the reason the above pitchers failed as starters is because they were being played out of position and needed time to adapt to a new role.

And as far as the benefits of pitching three outs going away with nine, I agree that's valid for many pitchers but not all. Mariano Rivera only really had one pitch but he still had a lot of 2-inning appearances because his pitch was so devastating. Obviously, very few relievers are like that, but there are a lot who have 2 very good pitches and should be able to get through 9-12 batters on a frequent basis.

I'm not advocating that all teams should scrap the time-honored starter/reliever model that's been employed since forever. It would just be interesting to see what would happen with the right mix of pitchers.