Twins pitching piece to share

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

the point though, is the same.

TB had one starter throw 180 innings...Blake Snell, who won 21 games.

The 200 inning starter is on the endangered species list, and 180 inning starters bear watching for possible inclusion.

I'd say something about proposing government regulations to protect 200 inning starters

 

But in reality, perhaps we are missing why guys could go 200 innings. Is it because batters are becoming more selective (thank you Billy Beane)? or something else?

 

Legitimately curious. I'd think it's possible. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Ops, I quoted the wrong post so I deleted it. This is in response to Chiefs post which suggested this concept required two roster spots for producing the innings previously provided by one roster spot.

 

You are applying traditional and perhaps antiquated concepts. Why do we have to look at as two guys taking one roster spot. Why can't we look at as to stackers taking the place of to traditional RPs who now provide 120 innings instead of 60? The fact is that it's a little of both.

 

I’m trying to come up with a concise reply to this. Until then, what to you are the “cons” against this idea, or reasons it won’t work?

[diehardtwinsfan]

BTW... this is a pretty awesone thread... I'm loving reading through a lot of very intelligently articulated thoughts.

[Major League Ready]

 

I’m trying to come up with a concise reply to this. Until then, what to you are the “cons” against this idea, or reasons it won’t work?

 

The most obvious is that If you fill two rotation spots with 4 “Stackers”, you only have 6 traditional BP spots which leaves less room for specialists or multiple moves for match-ups.

 

This approach is most advantageous for SPs with stats that dip significantly the 3rd time through the order. That specific trait requires some ML experience to identify. Therefore, the model could hold back some pitchers from breaking through to be regular SPs. Put another way, it will require better management to facilitate both in game and from a player development perspective.

[Riverbrian]

 

I’m trying to come up with a concise reply to this. Until then, what to you are the “cons” against this idea, or reasons it won’t work?

 

In my opinion... Same as always... The Cons? Talent... you still need talent. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The most obvious is that If you fill two rotation spots with 4 “Stackers”, you only have 6 traditional BP spots which leaves less room for specialists or multiple moves for match-ups.

 

This approach is most advantageous for SPs with stats that dip significantly the 3rd time through the order. That specific trait requires some ML experience to identify. Therefore, the model could hold back some pitchers from breaking through to be regular SPs. Put another way, it will require better management to facilitate both in game and from a player development perspective.

Another thing I want to point out: The in-game managing situations is where the clean and theoretical will become problematic.

 

Sure sometimes stacking will work well, or at least not interfere, but not always, and mybe not even a majority of the time. Let’s say the first “stack” pitcher has made it through four shutout innings and no one can touch him. Do you leave him in for another inning? Or what if the second pitcher guy comes in and immediately shows he has nothing that day. Does Baldelli* still commit to the second guy for three innings? At that point it’s a matter of consulting with your coaches and going to the bullpen and just making pitching changes like any other manager has done for the last 30-40 years. So nothing unusual or surprising is really happening on the field, except that the front office has spent time, hours, and made personnel decisions introducing a new concept and expecting to change the game, except that the game didn’t change and a gut call still needs to be made. I just don’t see the advantage.

 

* Edit: that's assuming the manager still makes all the in game decisions. Maybe front offices are directing more of the in game substitutions nowadays, don't know

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

In my opinion... Same as always... The Cons? Talent... you still need talent. 

Here’s my response to that: scrap the stacker thing and go out and sign a good starter.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Ben, thanks for sharing your stacker theory. I think it has a lot of merit. Interesting discussion as well.

 

I have a bit different take on this. We know that a ton of failed starters have turned into excellent relievers. And we know that relievers generally pitch better (including faster) in shorter outings than they do in longer starter roles.

 

So my question is, why not scrap starters (and stackers) entirely? Could you manage a pitching staff with a completely bullpen approach? Maybe each pitcher gets once through the lineup. Then no batter gets to see a pitcher a second time. It would take some calibration to figure out how many pitchers you would use on a given day / how much rest they get. It seems like this would result in better overall pitching staff numbers.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Here’s my response to that: scrap the stacker thing and go out and sign a good starter.

3 good starters?

[Major League Ready]

 

Here’s my response to that: scrap the stacker thing and go out and sign a good starter.

 

Sconnie is right, we would need 3 to be even close to contention but let's start with one. Are you suggesting that this be done via free agency or a trade? I will ask the same question you asked. What are the cons of your strategy?

 

 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

Another thing I want to point out: The in-game managing situations is where the clean and theoretical will become problematic.

Sure sometimes stacking will work well, or at least not interfere, but not always, and mybe not even a majority of the time. Let’s say the first “stack” pitcher has made it through four shutout innings and no one can touch him. Do you leave him in for another inning? Or what if the second pitcher guy comes in and immediately shows he has nothing that day. Does Baldelli* still commit to the second guy for three innings? At that point it’s a matter of consulting with your coaches and going to the bullpen and just making pitching changes like any other manager has done for the last 30-40 years. So nothing unusual or surprising is really happening on the field, except that the front office has spent time, hours, and made personnel decisions introducing a new concept and expecting to change the game, except that the game didn’t change and a gut call still needs to be made. I just don’t see the advantage.

* Edit: that's assuming the manager still makes all the in game decisions. Maybe front offices are directing more of the in game substitutions nowadays, don't know

 

The manager still has to make in-game decisions such as pulling a guy early or letting him throw another inning. 

 

In my mind... locking them into 3 innings from this guy... followed by 3 innings from this guy defeats the purpose of getting out of the traditional roles of 6 innings from the starter and 1 inning from the reliever.

 

It takes them from one locked in role to another locked in role. 

 

This is why Ash is going to be my manager. He understands that it's fluid and he will let the pitchers earn more innings by hanging zeroes and I know that Ash will send the pitchers who can't make it three innings, down to AAA and get somebody else when necessary. 

 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Sconnie is right, we would need 3 to be even close to contention but let's start with one. Are you suggesting that this be done via free agency or a trade? I will ask the same question you asked. What are the cons of your strategy?

The cons of my strategy? My strategy is to fill out a rotation the same way every other team does.

 

The biggest risk is in free agency, signing a guy to a big contract that he can't perform up to. The biggest "pro" of the stacking strategy is that these 4/5 types really are best suited to pitching three innings at a time, rather than straight starting or traditional short relief.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

3 good starters?

acquire at least one! A very good free agent or trade acquisition combined with Berrios and Gibson as the top 3, followed by Odorizzi, and then the other guys. That's not an unreasonable ask this year. (Although Odorizzi for $9 million might not be worth the price, since twice-through-the-order is as much as you get from him.)

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The manager still has to make in-game decisions such as pulling a guy early or letting him throw another inning. 

 

In my mind... locking them into 3 innings from this guy... followed by 3 innings from this guy defeats the purpose of getting out of the traditional roles of 6 innings from the starter and 1 inning from the reliever.

 

It takes them from one locked in role to another locked in role. 

 

This is why Ash is going to be my manager. He understands that it's fluid and he will let the pitchers earn more innings by hanging zeroes and I know that Ash will send the pitchers who can't make it three innings, down to AAA and get somebody else when necessary. 

At least we'll know who to blame when it all goes to the dogs

[Richie the Rally Goat]

acquire at least one! A very good free agent or trade acquisition combined with Berrios and Gibson as the top 3, followed by Odorizzi, and then the other guys. That's not an unreasonable ask this year. (Although Odorizzi for $9 million might not be worth the price, since twice-through-the-order is as much as you get from him.)

I’m tendering Odorizzi. He paired with Mejia is a great stacking duo.

 

It’s rare to see the 5th through 10th starters being 7-8 inning per start no matter how good the rotation. I like the idea.

 

That being said, the rotation need at least 1 upgrade, and I don’t see it feasible to stack 3 rotation spots, mostly due to inflexibility with the bullpen

[ashbury]

This is why Ash is going to be my manager. He understands that it's fluid and he will let the pitchers earn more innings by hanging zeroes and I know that Ash will send the pitchers who can't make it three innings, down to AAA and get somebody else when necessary. 

Ash not GM. Ash no send pitcher to AAA. Ash only manager, in game of life.

 

 

But all seriousness aside, Hosken raised an important point: we're mainly discussing Plan A. Whether it's an Opener, or stacked starters, we first want to see if the idea does any good at all, if things go according to plan. But the next step of the analysis is to see whether the idea gets in the way of switching immediately to Plan B. You'll still need a long man in the bullpen, when the guy you wanted to go 5+ innings has nothing. You'll still need a LOOGY. You'll still need a ROOGY. If you used your LOOGY as your Opener, are you stuck later on? If your long-man was redeployed as the first of two stacked starters, what do you do when the second guy comes out throwing lollipops?

 

Even Saint Justin of Verlander had a game in August this year where he didn't come out for the third inning. There always has to be a contingency plan for the game.

 

The bottom line for me is to be trying to ask the right question, which I think is this: how do you attack the other team's best batters, with the best arms, the most often that you can, the most strategically when the game is actually on the line, given that it's a long season and there are 162x9 innings to cover? People complain rightly that closers aren't used optimally; this discussion takes that to the next level. The matter of "best arms" is fluid, since these guys are not defined by the stats on their baseball cards - they aren't the same from game to game, and (as we see with the references to third-time-through-the-lineup) not even the same from inning to inning. It gets complicated in a hurry. But nobody, from Connie Mack on down, is smart enough to genuinely think through all the complicated details - so you come up with a plan of attack, and then cope.

 

No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy, as they say. But that doesn't mean that the army that has no plan is likely to win, nor the army that uses the same plan as in the last war. So I like this discussion of new plans.

[IndianaTwin]

I think the answer is "all of the above." 

 

A favorite folksinger quoted as Yogi as saying, "In theory, there's no difference between practice and theory. But in practice, there is." 

 

In other words, we can talk about theoreticals and whether stackers and openers fit, but it also comes down to who the players are. And as some have pointed out, the schedule can also make a difference. I also appreciated the wisdom of matching innings to individuals to maximize their usage. So for example, using the pitchers currently on the roster, here's how I would approach the season. 

 

Berrios and Gibson each made 32 starts and about 195 innings. Injuries could happen, or they could go a little longer in games. The season is 186 days long, so if they stayed on every 5 days, they actually would be able to start 37 games. That's not realistic, both because people don't do that and because the off days wouldn't allow them to start that many times. I would start with a goal of about 34 starts each, which means an average of every 5.5 days. I would work through the schedule with those two guys, finding the right mixture of four and five days off that space out their starts. I would also not pitch them on back-to-back days, since they are the two guys most likely to give a long start and rest the bullpen.

 

Odorizzi has consistently averaged about 165 innings the last five years. He's just sucked on the third time through the order. I would also try to get 34 starts from him, BUT always pull him after 18 batters. The exception for that is that if there are no runners on base, he gets to continue until he gives up a baserunner or finishes the inning. If he has a 1.20 WHIP, that means he's going to average 5 innings per game. More on that later. I would work through the schedule to find the right mixture of every fifth and every sixth day to get him his 34 starts. 

 

With 34 starts from each of those, that only leaves 60 starts. I think the next best starter is Pineda (actually, I think he could be better than Odorizzi, but I'm downgrading him for coming back from injury). He's been very durable when healthy, however. I look for 30 starts from him. As I work through the schedule around the first three, there will likely be good stretches of time when Pineda simply slots into a steady spot in the rotation. On several occasions in the midst of keeping the others on pace, there would an opportunity to skip him. Basically, he'd have about four skips, and perhaps one or two of these would line up nicely for a 10-day "tired arm" trip to the DL.

 

And then the plan is for Mejia to get as many of the remaining starts as possible. Like Pineda, this is probably a mixture of skipping him a couple times and mini-trips to the DL.

 

One important note on Pineda and Mejia. For the first 18 games of the season, they can get by on four starters. That essentially means that Mejia's 30 starts will cover over the final 144 games of the season, so he very likely would stay in rotation with the first three guys the whole year. Particularly with that caveat, it's likely possible to use Pineda's skips very strategically. During those skips, he could alternatively pitch a game or two from the bullpen.

 

Second important note on those. If Mejia outpitches Pineda in spring training, those guys flip spots.

 

Ah, but what about Romero. Well, I don't think you can slot him into the rotation at the beginning of the year and have any hope of him lasting the year on a full workload. So from the beginning of the year, I stack him after Odorizzi. In a perfectly ideal world, Odorizzi pitches 34 games x 5 innings and Romero pitches 34 x 4 innings, which gets him to 136 innings. In reality, he can pitch more innings than that. In reality, somebody from among those five starters will also get hurt. When that happens, Romero slides into that guy's slot and could get up into the 160-170 range if effective.

 

Meanwhile, a Gonsalves, Stewart, Thorpe etc., dominate in Rochester, ready to slide in at a moment's notice to one of the spots. If there are times when the commitment to starts from the first three don't line up to have Mejia and Pineda get all of the remaining 60 starts, there might be occasion to bring up one of these guys for a spot start. 

 

So that would give us Gibson (195), Berrios (195), Odo (170), Mejia (150), Pineda (155 based on past durability), and Romero (use the 136, since if he gets more it would likely be at the expense of one of the first five. That gives you 991 innings from six roster spots, leaving us with 460 innings to get to the magic 1450. 

 

For those 460 innings, assume that the goal is to use and rest Rogers appropriately to get about 70. Similarly, target getting May around 70. If not abused, target Reed for 70. 

 

That leaves 250 innings and you've used nine spots with guys who can be effective. I'm not sure i want to trust Busenitz, Hildy, and the rest with that remaining 250, which is why I go after three relievers who can pitch 70 innings each. My first choice is David Robertson, though there are several other good ones. Then, Busenitz, Hildy, etc., are put in the position of covering for injuries, rather than being counted on for high-leverage stuff. 

 

That gives a 12-man staff that pitches 1410 of the 1450 innings. The other 40 come from 1) time during September when rosters are expanded; 2) the few times during the year when the staff has been stretched and they have to use the Rochester shuttle for a few games; and 3) a spot start or two from the minor league callups as described . But for the most part, the staff gets through the 25-man roster portion of the season with just 12 guys, leaving Rocco with a four-man bench at all times.

 

Guys are going to get hurt, sure. But the point of my approach is to construct a pitching staff where there are 12 quality guys who COULD cover the 1450 innings. Then, the rookie starters and unproven relievers have demonstrated which of them are actually ready, rather than being counted on from the beginning. 

 

And that doesn't count the Justin Verlander-type midseason pickup, since this foolproof plan is guaranteed to have us contenders. When JVesqe comes on board, everybody slides down a notch. Same thing with the mid-season bullpen pickup if needed. 

 

Now, about the offense...

[Riverbrian]

 

Ash not GM. Ash no send pitcher to AAA. Ash only manager, in game of life.

 

 

But all seriousness aside, Hosken raised an important point: we're mainly discussing Plan A. Whether it's an Opener, or stacked starters, we first want to see if the idea does any good at all, if things go according to plan. But the next step of the analysis is to see whether the idea gets in the way of switching immediately to Plan B. You'll still need a long man in the bullpen, when the guy you wanted to go 5+ innings has nothing. You'll still need a LOOGY. You'll still need a ROOGY. If you used your LOOGY as your Opener, are you stuck later on? If your long-man was redeployed as the first of two stacked starters, what do you do when the second guy comes out throwing lollipops?

 

Even Saint Justin of Verlander had a game in August this year where he didn't come out for the third inning. There always has to be a contingency plan for the game.

 

The bottom line for me is to be trying to ask the right question, which I think is this: how do you attack the other team's best batters, with the best arms, the most often that you can, the most strategically when the game is actually on the line, given that it's a long season and there are 162x9 innings to cover? People complain rightly that closers aren't used optimally; this discussion takes that to the next level. The matter of "best arms" is fluid, since these guys are not defined by the stats on their baseball cards - they aren't the same from game to game, and (as we see with the references to third-time-through-the-lineup) not even the same from inning to inning. It gets complicated in a hurry. But nobody, from Connie Mack on down, is smart enough to genuinely think through all the complicated details - so you come up with a plan of attack, and then cope.

 

No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy, as they say. But that doesn't mean that the army that has no plan is likely to win, nor the army that uses the same plan as in the last war. So I like this discussion of new plans.

 

And this is why 2nd Interviews are important. 

 

We have your phone number on file and we will be in touch. 

 

You don't need a designated long man. You will have long men coming out of your ears. 

 

Last year Matt MaGill was ripped out of regular bullpen usage just to cool his heels as the "needed" designated long man after Phil Hughes was traded.

 

During that time as the "designated" long man... not only did he not pitch much anymore but the longest he went was 3.1 innings. 

 

It wasn't because he was getting knocked out off the mound either. His first three appearances as the "designated long man" were 3.1, 3.0, 3.0 and he gave up one hit total over those 9.1 innings that stretched from May 29 to June 16. 

 

With this proposal... Matt MaGill will be asked to go 3.0 innings more frequently. He won't have to wait 18 days for something to go horribly wrong to get the ball. 

 

LOOGY? If you used your LOOGY two days in a row... Are you stuck on the third day? Did we have a LOOGY last year? Was it Zach Duke because he was left-handed? 

 

We just need guys who can get people out. If you have a guy who is tough on left-handers... select him over the other options when you need to face Bryce Harper. Even with these new considerations... we still would want talented bullpen guys left-handed and right-handed. 

 

Mainly though... you got this... you answer all your questions in your (what I call) "the paragraph that concerns me". (The paragraph where you express the need for a long man and LOOGY).

 

You answer all the questions with the final two paragraphs. 

 

You are right... It's fluid and if you recognize that it's fluid, you can go with the flow. 

 

You can't plan for what comes next just like you can't plan for what has happened for the past 30 years. 

 

But when you remove the shackles of a reliever only goes one inning and a starter must go 6. Now you have two inning, three inning, and four inning options that were not part of the equation before and this flexibility will allow you to give the ball to the guys who will hang the most zeroes more often.

 

As soon as you start planning rotations and strict roles, you kill yourself by etching your options in stone by unnecessarily creating your own limitations.

 

Mike Tyson said... "Everybody has a plan until you get punched in the mouth".

 

Decide what to do next by increasing your options. 

 

Under the old model... Taylor Rogers could only throw one inning... if he can now throw one or two (or three?) innings... you have increased your options with Taylor Rogers alone and the doors open up wider for when you get punched in the mouth. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MN_ExPat]

 

I've been trying to figure out how to say this. Basically, I think if all of those alternative pitching models had been the norm in baseball for a hundred years, some clever team by now would have decided it was better to have a small number of really good pitchers who can pitching 6 to 9 innings every time, and then have a few extra guys to come in to finish the game if the first guy had to come out. In other words, starters and relievers. Other teams would have followed suit, and that's where we would be today, with starters and relievers, a rotation and a bullpen.

Good point.   A big thing that hampers that though... two of the most dreaded words in modern day pitching, Pitch Counts.   Staffs throughout baseball (minors and majors) have set a (somewhat) arbitrary line at 100.   Thus, unless said pitcher is cruising along with low pitch innings, many are lucky to make it through the fifth inning these days.  

 

If all the MLB organizations weren't as concerned with the pitch count, then that would probably be more likely the case today that we would see more starters going deeper into games (6-9 innings).   So with starters being kept on shorter leashes, it has necessitated changing how they are managed and used.

 

Note, I'm not saying that I agree with the magical 100 pitch count threshold (I do for younger/youth and high school players whose arms aren't fully developed - I.E. my son who is a freshman pitcher on his high school team), but that is the nature of the game today.

[biggentleben]

I've really enjoyed the discussion on this. It's a big reason why I felt I had to write it up. I went to talk with a Marlins guy about their system, and we spent nearly three hours breaking down the merits of this system in the Twins minors due to the lack of pitchers out of options, depth of #4 type starters, etc.

 

One thing is certain - there will be no certainty in how the team is deployed, which is a very fun thing for Twins fans as they truly could miss something by stepping out of the room for another beer rather than missing just another lefty brought in to face a lefty move.

[gil4]

 

The problem with this is, some clever team already decided that 5 starters, instead of 4, works better...and everyone followed suit.

It might be time to ask if we can go back to 4, now that we are looking for fewer innings from the starters.

[Tomj14]

 

You don't need to get 160 innings out of all the starters. It does not make sense to apply old metrics to a new approach and you would not need 8 of them. You need to cover roughly 1500 innings. If you only need 3 regular SPs we should be able to come up with 3 that average 180+. Let's say you get 186 and 2/3 that's 560 innings. If 4 "stacked" SPs give you another 500, you need 440 innings out of 6 RPs or 73 and 1/3 per RP.  

 

I think this concept has merit. We know that most SPs do considerably worse the 3rd time through the order. It sure makes sense to take an approach that mitigates this problem. 

How many major league relief pitchers pitched 73 1/3 innings this year, let alone 6 on one team?

[Tomj14]

 

I’m trying to come up with a concise reply to this. Until then, what to you are the “cons” against this idea, or reasons it won’t work?

I think there are lots of Cons.

One is you need to change the whole system to prep for this, meaning you could have a hard time signing international players that want to be "Starters", you could get agents telling their high school and college kids you don't want to get stuck in Minnesota's system. Signing/Trading/extending starters could be harder. (signing mediocre starters or relief pitchers might be easier?)

[Major League Ready]

 

How many major league relief pitchers pitched 73 1/3 innings this year, let alone 6 on one team?

 

1) I used 1500 when 1450 is closer to reality or roughly 66 IP per reliever. I don't care how many pitched 66 innings. I care about if it's feasible and if there would be an expected drop in performance and/or injury. Hader pitched 81 innings and there were 89 over 60 IP. Are you really trying to tell me 66 IP is too much.

 

2) Some of you keep insisting we measure a new practice with old metrics. Perhaps the old system under utilized RPs or at a minimum mitigated the number of innings you could get out of them. Who says they have to pitch one inning.

 

3) If you have 6 instead of 8, is it not obvious they would average more innings.

[Major League Ready]

 

I think there are lots of Cons.

One is you need to change the whole system to prep for this, meaning you could have a hard time signing international players that want to be "Starters", you could get agents telling their high school and college kids you don't want to get stuck in Minnesota's system. Signing/Trading/extending starters could be harder. (signing mediocre starters or relief pitchers might be easier?)

 

OR ... it could been seen as a better opportunity. If you don't make it as a starter you have a chance to be a Stacker instead of being limited to a RP role if you don't make it as a traditional starter straight out of the minors.

 

Also, we are not eliminating the use of traditional SPs. Any premier prospect is not worried about this system limiting them and as I said above it's an additional opportunity if viewed from an unbiased perspective.

 

We have also seen some guys who were able to ratchet up the velocity in relief roles. Is it possible some guys could maintain higher velocity in a stacker role?

[Loosey]

I'm not sure I am on board with stacking, I think it could work short-term but I think it could mess up the pitching staff over the course of a season.  I will need to think about this idea more.

 

I AM on board with the opener though.  It just makes sense.  And all of the purists who dislike it need to think of it as just doing the game backwards.  Obviously, if you have a few really good starters you use them in the traditional way but for younger guys or back-end rotation guys it can work.

[Tomj14]

 

OR ... it could been seen as a better opportunity. If you don't make it as a starter you have a chance to be a Stacker instead of being limited to a RP role if you don't make it as a traditional starter straight out of the minors.

 

Also, we are not eliminating the use of traditional SPs. Any premier prospect is not worried about this system limiting them and as I said above it's an additional opportunity if viewed from an unbiased perspective.

 

We have also seen some guys who were able to ratchet up the velocity in relief roles. Is it possible some guys could maintain higher velocity in a stacker role?

on your first point, I said it may be easier to sign relief/stacker guys.

If you decide as a organization to go this route, wouldn't it make sense to get your best pitchers ready for this right away than piss away time trying to make them a starter and having it fail? (now in reality it could get young guys up much quicker,  what good is it having Graterol wasting time in the minors when they are only requiring him to pitch one to three innings?)

And on your final point, failed starters are what make up most relief pitchers and yes most of them see velocity go up, so that isn't unique to this.

But I will say this if my son was one of the top high school pitching prospects in the country and a team that was doing this came and talked to us, I would tell them I prefer for him to be drafted by another team.

 

[Riverbrian]

 

I think there are lots of Cons.

One is you need to change the whole system to prep for this, meaning you could have a hard time signing international players that want to be "Starters", you could get agents telling their high school and college kids you don't want to get stuck in Minnesota's system. Signing/Trading/extending starters could be harder. (signing mediocre starters or relief pitchers might be easier?)

 

Agreed but if it's successful... the paradigm will shift accordingly and make the issue only temporary. 

[Tomj14]

 

Agreed but if it's successful... the paradigm will shift accordingly and make the issue only temporary. 

I don't think all of baseball would adopt this, because there would be teams that see a market opportunity for starters.

Also if you are the Twins FO, just think how much quicker you could get Thorpe, Graterol,Enlow and others up to the majors if you don't have to worry about them facing guys more than once or twice?

[Riverbrian]

 

I don't think all of baseball would adopt this, because there would be teams that see a market opportunity for starters.

Also if you are the Twins FO, just think how much quicker you could get Thorpe, Graterol,Enlow and others up to the majors if you don't have to worry about them facing guys more than once or twice?

 

I don't think all of baseball would adopt this either but if successful... it will be adopted because maybe 90% of the 30 MLB teams are not able to roster 5 quality starters and the numbers of innings the starters are throwing are in a free fall.  

 

The bottom line is that nothing is ever black and white... or at least it shouldn't be black and white... this is a suggestion that can mitigate that difficulty and keep a team competitive when the 5 man rotation is too hard to accomplish. If you manage to roster a solid 5 man rotation... the need for this would go away or diminish and you can operate as normal. It does not disqualify you from signing Yu Darvish as a traditional starter... it just helps you when you can't. 

 

As for Graterol and the development time... Yeah... They could get up here quicker as a 3 inning option and the beautiful thing is... they can continue to be stretched out by gradually increasing the innings they throw per appearance as they improve. Once you remove the shackles of a starter has to go 5 or 6 innings and relievers only throw 1 inning. The doors to this type of development open wide. 

 

Another thing to consider this. With this type of flexibility... you can naturally manage each prospect's innings count without having to shut them down for August or September.