Bold Move

[Brock Beauchamp]

So is Brian Dozier an inferior baseball player because he failed as a SS and thrived after a move to 2B? 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.

Actually, yes, because SS is a tougher position. If Dozier was putting up those numbers with good defense at short, he'd be a top ten position player in baseball. There are two qualifying SS in baseball with a higher OPS than Dozier. There are four second baseman... And honestly, I was surprised that there were two SS in front of him.

 

There's a reason why almost every quality pitching prospect sticks at starter as long as possible; it's a more valuable position and quality starters are harder to find.

 

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.

The problem with your argument is if that was true, those pitchers would already be starting MLB games. You're asking a reliever to do a starter's job after a good portion of them already failed in that role.

 

In 2014, 13 pitchers had a fastball velocity of >96mph. Ten of them were relievers. What happens when you take that away from those ten guys and drop most of them to 93-94?

[cmoss84]

I wanted to resurrect this thread because of an interesting conversation I heard on MLB Now this morning. They talked about:

A-Miller coming in in the 7th against us recently, picking up the biggest outs of the game...getting away from the "my closer only pitches the 9th inn" idea. Nice work Francona.

 

B-How often a starting pitcher struggles, yet a manager tries to get them to go 5 innings to give them a chance to earn a win.

 

C-Doing away with the win stat all together.

 

I don't think the 3-3inn pitchers per game will happen any time soon, but I do see the game changing and evolving in the next year or two. Hopefully more managers start doing what Francona did more often, including whoever ours is.

[jimmer]

 

 

I wanted to resurrect this thread because of an interesting conversation I heard on MLB Now this morning. They talked about:
A-Miller coming in in the 7th against us recently, picking up the biggest outs of the game...getting away from the "my closer only pitches the 9th inn" idea. Nice work Francona.

B-How often a starting pitcher struggles, yet a manager tries to get them to go 5 innings to give them a chance to earn a win.

C-Doing away with the win stat all together.

I don't think the 3-3inn pitchers per game will happen any time soon, but I do see the game changing and evolving in the next year or two. Hopefully more managers start doing what Francona did more often, including whoever ours is.

 

 I don't think Miller is the closer there, I think it's Allen.  I agree the win/loss stat should go away and I do like when managers go out of the box with their thinking.  

[Willihammer]

Not trying to hijack your idea but I threw out a similar idea about a year ago: pitchers as a lineup. "Bat" your best pitchers first, second, etc. If a guy is rolling let him go 6+ IP (or until the game ends), but remove SP and RP titles and don't play matchups (but you might write out your lineup L-R-L-R)

I see two main benefits:

 

1. by the same logic that says "the best relievers are failed starters," then the best starters should be, in general, even better relievers.

2. spreadout workload and rest to carry fewer pitchers. A team could easily carry 11, maybe 10 pitchers this way.

[ashbury]

Not trying to hijack your idea but I threw out a similar idea about a year ago: pitchers as a lineup. "Bat" your best pitchers first, second, etc. If a guy is rolling let him go 6+ IP (or until the game ends), but remove SP and RP titles and don't play matchups (but you might write out your lineup L-R-L-R)

I see two main benefits:

 

1. by the same logic that says "the best relievers are failed starters," then the best starters should be, in general, even better relievers.

2. spreadout workload and rest to carry fewer pitchers. A team could easily carry 11, maybe 10 pitchers this way.

The math says you plan to get more innings out of your (current) bullpen pitchers by having the starters go even fewer innings than now. I suspect guys like Pressly and Tonkin currently are not capable of many more innings than they already cover, unless they go less than all-out and suffer a downturn in performance.

[Willihammer]

The math says you plan to get more innings out of your (current) bullpen pitchers by having the starters go even fewer innings than now. I suspect guys like Pressly and Tonkin currently are not capable of many more innings than they already cover, unless they go less than all-out and suffer a downturn in performance.

Could be. On the other hand guys wouldn't throw back to back to back days like they do now, so maybe they could go full blast, longer, knowing they should have at least a day, and possibly three to recover.

 

Another possibility is that you liquidate the one inning/setup/closer types for fledgling borderline 5th starters, who are typically dirt cheap. The Swarzaks, Alfredo Simon, Tommy Milones of the game, and round out the 6-11 spots that way.

[nicksaviking]

If a team ever does this, they'll never get a decent free agent starter.

 

Come to New York Mr. Kershaw, but we're only going to offer you $80M because you'll only be pitching about 100 innings. Oh and you never get to pitch past the third.

[old nurse]

Finding 9 pitchers to pitch 3 innings each would be harder to find than what is currently done. 3 pitchers pitching every third day would mean you are trying to find 9 pitchers to pitch 150 or so innings. Only 70-100 pitchers every year pitch that much.

[cmoss84]

If a team ever does this, they'll never get a decent free agent starter.

Come to New York Mr. Kershaw, but we're only going to offer you $80M because you'll only be pitching about 100 innings. Oh and you never get to pitch past the third.

With this strategy, you wouldn't pay big money for top of the line starters. Your heavy pitching investments would be top end relievers and starters who would be more effective throwing harder for 3 inn vs mediocre 6 inn. An added on bonus is if anyone is a bust or gets hurt long term, it would be much easier to cut your losses and move onto the next arm.

[cmoss84]

Finding 9 pitchers to pitch 3 innings each would be harder to find than what is currently done. 3 pitchers pitching every third day would mean you are trying to find 9 pitchers to pitch 150 or so innings. Only 70-100 pitchers every year pitch that much.

You wouldn't have to find 9 3inn guys necessarily. Could be 6 or 7 guys who can go 2-4 inn every 3-4 days. The remaining 4 or 5 guys could be your 1-2 inn guys every other day. You'd have to be creative, but I think it would work.

[TNTwinsFan]

Wouldn't the rule of thumb be for a pitcher to never face a batter more than once per game? That gets hairy if that team's offense gets off to a fast start and starts tattooing our pitcher...might have to use up more than just the three pitchers...I guess with a 12 man staff that might work out ok. I also think the rules for a pitcher earning a Win should accomodate...but I don't know what that should look like.

[TNTwinsFan]

Also, you could rotate the three designated pitchers on their assigned day....every third day they actually "start" the game...interesting to think about.