Bullpenning

[Mike Sixel]

 

I would further expect, if this became the norm, that Baseball would counter with a rule change.  Every non-injury change of pitcher before the 6th inning costs you a baserunner.

 

And not just any baserunner, in my version.  Every team gets a "Designated Runner" on their bench, a player that can be used multiple times per game, solely for the purpose of being put on first every time there is a pitching change.  (This idea clearly needs to spend a bit more time in workshop.  Have at it.)

 

Edit:  Anything that would make sitting through yet another pitching change more entertaining for the fans would work.  So maybe even your designated runner is dressed up like the team mascot or something.

 

Why do this? Why not allow bullpenning?

[Han Joelo]

 

Why do this? Why not allow bullpenning?

Great question!  Duly noted, and written on the workshop whiteboard.

 

In all seriousness, though, I guess I am conflating my dislike of overused bullpens with the designated opener or whatever they call it.  In truth, I don't really have a problem with that strategy.  I do think it would be interesting to see a manager try and counter it in some way, as I mentioned in an above post.

 

As far as true bull penning games, the Twins have come out on top a couple of times recently when opposing managers used a bunch of pitchers, so I guess I shouldn't complain.

[USAFChief]

 

Great question!  Duly noted, and written on the workshop whiteboard.

 

In all seriousness, though, I guess I am conflating my dislike of overused bullpens with the designated opener or whatever they call it.  In truth, I don't really have a problem with that strategy.  I do think it would be interesting to see a manager try and counter it in some way, as I mentioned in an above post.

 

As far as true bull penning games, the Twins have come out on top a couple of times recently when opposing managers used a bunch of pitchers, so I guess I shouldn't complain.

In theory, there would be no add'l bullpen changes, or add'l relievers used. They would just be deployed in a nontraditional order.

 

You'd just change the order from starter-pen-pen-pen to pen-starter-pen-pen.

[Han Joelo]

 

In theory, there would be no add'l bullpen changes, or add'l relievers used. They would just be deployed in a nontraditional order.

 

You'd just change the order from starter-pen-pen-pen to pen-starter-pen-pen.

Totally get it, and I actually appreciate the strategery behind it.  It's proactive, and fully conforms to the rules of baseball as they have pretty much always been written.  In fact, I can't believe it is a "new" idea!

 

However, my admiration of the strategy comes to an end if opposing managers don't try and figure out a way to counteract it.

 

I would guess that analytics would conclusively show it is a high-yield strategy.  Less easy to quantify, however, is what it might do to further diminish the psyche's of starting pitchers.  Expect less out of your starters; get less.

 

 I guess on the bright side--it might help to lend some clarity to the oft-debated definition of what a True Ace Pitcher is:  Criteria XVII, subclause 52c:  A true ace shall be defined as a pitcher that has never (in the last 286.1 innings) "started" a game at any point after the first inning, except as defined in the Randy Johnson Sub-Criteria for playoff appearances, or in games with playoff implications that occur within 20 games directly preceding the end of the regular season.

[Han Joelo]

Overthinking about this some more--maybe this strategy isn't as proactive as I assumed.  Maybe this is simply a reaction to teams finally figuring out that the old school classic lineup (speedster-bunter-hitter-slugger-slugger) wasn't optimal anymore--more and most teams have stacked the top of their lineups with their absolute best hitters, in the attempt to squeak out a few more season total AB's on the margins.

 

Maybe this type of move counteracts that, and forces managers to be more nimble.

 

Which gets me thinking about other things--maybe the future of the game goes in a direction where players become more and more versatile, and changes don't happen glacially (kind of like the rest of the world.)  Versatile could mean hitting/bunting opposite field to beat a shift, or it could mean two-way players, or use your imagination.    Imagine a speedy starting pitcher who flip-flops with a beefy right fielder who closes on the mound.  Maximizing roster versatility--endless permutations to get the statistically best matchups.

 

Even just watching how the Twins harass pitchers from third base could be a strategy, not just a happenstance.  I mean, if you hit a homerun, do you have to go all the way?  Could you stop at third just so you could help harass the pitcher/make the opposing manager think twice about shifting?  (I'm just throwing ideas out here, people.  This is a brainstorming workshop.)

 

 

[Steve Lein]

I actually kinda like this concept. Whether it works in execution is still up for debate I think.

 

As far as that concept goes, I imagine the theory is when starting a game you are facing the other team's best hitters. Any time you fall behind your odds to win decrease. So this puts potentially a big shut down bullpen arm in to get you through that first wave of hitters. Also can help you stay away from keeping a "starting" pitcher in too long, or having to worry as much about them throwing 100+ pitches if they're rolling.

 

[Steve Lein]

 

That's the interesting part of this to me.  To me, that would seem to push the toughest outs for a starter deeper into the game.  That 3rd time through the order is where starters really start getting hurt.  My personal taste would be to have that happen as early in the game as possible so that I'd be able to comeback if needed.  Pushing that point an inning or two deeper into the game would be counter intuitive in my mind.

 

 

To me, this is the part that this helps. First pitcher gets through the toughest outs the first time. Then, hopefully, you're starter may not even have to be used for that "3rd time through the order".

 

Say your bullpen starter goes 2 innings, faces 7 or 8 batters. Your starter then gets through the seventh with a 1.00 WHIP for the game (probably optimistic). That's five innings from your "starter" where he faced 20 hitters. He's just starting to face the lineup the third time at that point, and it's at the bottom of it, not the top/middle.

[Steve Lein]

 

Right, that was the point I was trying to make.  That third time now occurs in the 7th rather than the 5th.  Assuming my starter gets that far in either scenario, I'd rather that occur in the 5th where I have more margin for error and more time to come back should my squad be behind.  That is the reason that I'd like to see how that plays out over a larger sample though.  How much impact does that really have either way?

 

If you're really worried about that, at that point I'd expect it'd be your setup guys/closer coming in the game...

[jkcarew]

The thought that this wouldn't increase the number of pitcher used in games...on average...is hopeful theory, IMO.  Basically you're into your 2nd pitcher before you've let the circumstances of the game play out.  There are still many games during the course of the year where a bullpen sees very little work...or only low leverage guys need to be used.  Meanwhile, to think managers won't still want the protection on the back-side in case of especially tight games or x-inning games...again, pretty hopeful.  In practice, you're likely....over the long term...to use more pitchers in this model.

 

All of the above might not have any material impact on pace of typical/average game.  But, where this matters is in how rosters will be managed.  If effective (or frequently used) it's pretty likely that this would accelerate the trend for more pitchers on the active rosters...and could very well spur the movement (already requested by the player's union) for rosters to be increased to 26.  That would be very, very, bad unintended outcome, IMO.

[gman]

I keep wondering when teams will go back to a 4 day rotation with 2 guys scheduled to pitch 3-4 innings each day. In theory pitchers would rarely face a lineup 3 times through. They would throw 75 pitches or so each and rarely use their 3 or 4th best pitch. Most pitchers get hurt when they try to implement that extra pitch on the third time through the lineup or trying to pace themselves by "taking something off their best pitch". 

 

Another factor would be pitching development. Guys are contantly held up in the minors to develop that third pitch. Just develop your best weapons and move on.

 

 Obviously there would still be days when pitcher # 1 or #2 blows up, but that will happen no matter what system you use. You could still have 4-5 bullpen guys to get you through the rest of the game.

 

Your best pitcher could "start" 40 times a year this way even if he doesn't pitch as long on any particuler day. Your second pitcher could stand to chalk up a lot of wins this way.

[ffwfed31]

Even if it works, are the few runs saved worth listening to Breamer complain about it day in and day out.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I would be more interested in this if your starting RP went 2 innings and not 1.

[jorgenswest]

I would be more interested in this if your starting RP went 2 innings and not 1.

I agree. There must be some pitchers that can be really effective for 2-3 innings and that role no longer exists in baseball.

[Doomtints]

This might be squarely in the "overthinking it" category. Doing this likely would not affect the outcome of the game that much. 

 

This would allow the "starter" to get more wins on the stat sheet because he would no longer have to go 5 innings for a win. No other impact is quantifiable. 

 

If you have a pitcher who can't make it through the fifth, this would move that so he can't make it through the sixth. Only in a no-hit game would this all align with the top of the order, and we're assuming starting pitchers "run out of gas" only against the top of the lineup. If you walk the pitcher and the catcher before the #1 guy comes up, what's gained?

[Vanimal46]

Even if it works, are the few runs saved worth listening to Breamer complain about it day in and day out.

Bullpenning may cause Bert to say **** it, I'm done with baseball.

 

On second thought....

 

Can we implement bullpenning tomorrow?

[ahart10]

I’m all for bullpenning or some type of hybrid. Maybe it will help the Twins utilize all those relievers they drafted hoping to turn into starters.