Twins pitching piece to share

[Mike Sixel]

There aren't 150, or even 100, or even 70 good* MLB starting pitchers on the planet at any one time.

 

Trying to follow a plan that is unlikely to succeed due to simple supply and demand pretty much dooms most teams to have really bad pitching. Not trying something like this is just bad strategy, imo.

 

*will give you 150 innings and even be a legit number 4, let alone 3. Note, James Shields was 70th in fWAR last year, among those that gave you 150 innings.......

[The Wise One]

Only a handful of relievers ever maintain a 60 plus IP, I do not think it is feasible to have 6 be able to do it.  Now if you want relievers to throw with less effort to increase innings you would expect a decrease in effectiveness. Maybe that is not a good idea

 

When it is pointed out that Odorizi, or any other pitcher had such a bad OPS 3 time through the order keep in mind that they are facing the heart of the order for the third time. These are the people with a higher OPS to begin with. While .790  may be high the average ops in the power section of a lineup  ought to be somewhere near that.  Small sample size comes into play, also. Only 20 some of Odorizzi's innings were against third time through the order.

 

Stacking means to me like a platoon. Neither pitcher is good enough so therefore you need a platoon. Two people for one position means you need to have better pitchers in the bullpen because your long guy is attached to another pitcher.

 

Opener is far different than stacked. If it prevents hitters who do better seeing a pitcher for the third time from being able to do so, great.  A starter facing 24 batters is better than one facing 18   

Numbers and innings. When you look through history you can see why stacking would not be a long term answer, nor would bullpening

[Tomj14]

 

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. 

I love the idea of using what you have to the best of their ability, what I don't like is changing the philosophy of an organization based on real and/or perceived inability to create major league pitchers.

I was all for stacking starters at the end of the year and suggested on here how I thought it should be done, but that was September when they had a bunch of pitches available and to wanted to see what they had with those pitchers.

Going into next year the only pitcher I would think of doing this with is Odorizzi because he had a such a tough time the 3rd time though, 

The hard part about pitching is the preparation for pitching. So lets say the are stacking Odorizzi with Gonzo. You tell Odorizzi he has the first 3 and Gonxo has 4 - 6. Odorizzi pitches a perfect 3 innings, well I think we all say he should probably keep going but Gonzo was prepared for the 4th know he has to wait, that is hard to do. Or Odorizzi gets rocked in the first and now they have to pitchers to finish the first, second and third, and Gonzo comes in the 4th and gets shelled, now you have blow up the pen. (same happens the normal way I get that)

[Mike Sixel]

 

Only a handful of relievers ever maintain a 60 plus IP, I do not think it is feasible to have 6 be able to do it.  Now if you want relievers to throw with less effort to increase innings you would expect a decrease in effectiveness. Maybe that is not a good idea

 

When it is pointed out that Odorizi, or any other pitcher had such a bad OPS 3 time through the order keep in mind that they are facing the heart of the order for the third time. These are the people with a higher OPS to begin with. While .790  may be high the average ops in the power section of a lineup  ought to be somewhere near that.  Small sample size comes into play, also. Only 20 some of Odorizzi's innings were against third time through the order.

 

Stacking means to me like a platoon. Neither pitcher is good enough so therefore you need a platoon. Two people for one position means you need to have better pitchers in the bullpen because your long guy is attached to another pitcher.

 

Opener is far different than stacked. If it prevents hitters who do better seeing a pitcher for the third time from being able to do so, great.  A starter facing 24 batters is better than one facing 18   

Numbers and innings. When you look through history you can see why stacking would not be a long term answer, nor would bullpening

 

RPs haven't been asked to maintain 60IP in a year either....because no one has really tried stacking. So, it's kind of hard to say it can't work....

 

As I pointed out, there aren't enough SPs on the planet. So, unless you are one of the rich teams, or get super lucky, you won't have more than 2-3 good SPs anyway. Why keep throwing out bad SPs? 

[blindeke]

Well sounds like it'll be fun to talk about next year.

[Riverbrian]

I love the idea of using what you have to the best of their ability, what I don't like is changing the philosophy of an organization based on real and/or perceived inability to create major league pitchers.

I was all for stacking starters at the end of the year and suggested on here how I thought it should be done, but that was September when they had a bunch of pitches available and to wanted to see what they had with those pitchers.

Going into next year the only pitcher I would think of doing this with is Odorizzi because he had a such a tough time the 3rd time though,

The hard part about pitching is the preparation for pitching. So lets say the are stacking Odorizzi with Gonzo. You tell Odorizzi he has the first 3 and Gonxo has 4 - 6. Odorizzi pitches a perfect 3 innings, well I think we all say he should probably keep going but Gonzo was prepared for the 4th know he has to wait, that is hard to do. Or Odorizzi gets rocked in the first and now they have to pitchers to finish the first, second and third, and Gonzo comes in the 4th and gets shelled, now you have blow up the pen. (same happens the normal way I get that)

This is well thought and you have pointed out significant potential issues.

 

My approach... I wouldn’t handcuff My stacking because of the issues you list. You don’t have to pair them up. Just keep a handful on staff and utilize them based on need and timing. That way if Odorizzi is cruising you can let him keep cruising.

 

In my opinion... the thing that makes the idea worth exploring is the flexibility it provides. By saying you get 3 and you get 3 no matter what happens you have taken the best thing about it away. 

 

That would be like going from one locked in system to another locked in system.

 

Think free form and think about the allocation of innings across the board. The trend is heading this way... this is just running ahead to where it’s heading.

[The Wise One]

 

RPs haven't been asked to maintain 60IP in a year either....because no one has really tried stacking. So, it's kind of hard to say it can't work....

 

As I pointed out, there aren't enough SPs on the planet. So, unless you are one of the rich teams, or get super lucky, you won't have more than 2-3 good SPs anyway. Why keep throwing out bad SPs? 

In regards to reliever IP, I am happy someone thinks that Molitor didn't overuse Hildenberger and Taylor

 

So if they are not good enough to be a SP how on earth are they good enough to be stacked, which is essentially being a starter. Expecting a pitcher to go twice through the order  is not relieving. It would be the skill set of a starter,

[Tomj14]

 

This is well thought and you have pointed out significant potential issues.

My approach... I wouldn’t handcuff My stacking because of the issues you list. You don’t have to pair them up. Just keep a handful on staff and utilize them based on need and timing. That way if Odorizzi is cruising you can let him keep cruising.

In my opinion... the think that makes the idea worth exploring is the flexibility it provides. By saying you get 3 and you get 3 no matter what happens you have taken the best thing about it.

That would be like going from one locked in system to another locked in system.

Think free form and think about the allocation of innings across the board. The trend is heading this way... this is just running ahead to where it’s heading.

So kind of like the 70's and 80's, when the Quiz, Goose, Suter, etc.. had the ability to 3 innings?

I think in a perfect world everybody does what you are saying, the problem with that is we have humans in the non-perfect world, and they are all sort of emotional. (Fans, players and Coaches)

Baseball got away from what you are talking about because, pitchers "do better" in well defined roles?

Oh well, good talk, have a great night!

[USAFChief]

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

Yeah, except that going back to 4 will increase the number of innings required of each starter, due to starting 20 percent more games, and we're right back to the problem of innings pitched.

[South Dakota Tom]

   This is a fascinating discussion.    Whether it be openers or stacks or traditional starters and relievers, the job of the front office and the manager is to take the talent available and maximize their productivity and influence on the outcome.    All the points - traditional closers, openers, overworking a guy - reflects the problems with a baseball model that has existed for a long time.    This butts up against the sure and certain knowledge, in a majority of the cases, that a third time through the order produces reduced results, and usually by a wide margin (not just Odorrizi, though I don't have the overall stats in front of me, it is statistically league-wide and long-tenured).

     Were I coaching a basketball team, I cannot fathom, in this age, trying to force my team of six-foot-three players to become positions 1-5, and defining their roles and space on the floor.    Perhaps the most salient point of Gentle Ben's analysis is that this team, right now, has the personnel to utilize this kind of strategy to maximize their strengths.    We have a lot of guys who can be floated between AAA and MLB because of remaining options.    We have a lot of guys who are, for lack of a better term, marginal starters.    We have a lot of guys who, through injury, inexperience, or statistical analysis, should not be placed in a position to go through a lineup three times.    The answer, then, is not in defining a "system" for the utilization of all pitchers, but putting every player in a position to achieve maximum results.    With the existing lineup, we have a bunch of guys who would work as stackers pretty effectively - Gonsalves, Romero, Odorrizi, Pineda, McGill, Mejia, Stewart, Slegers, Littell.    The management problem is projecting these guys into roles of 4-5 innings each, twice through the order, coupling them with Berrios and Gibson, and figuring out how to cover the remaining innings with 4 or 5 traditional relievers (assuming we use six guys for three stacked starts).   

     Call them what you want, but really, aren't you just saying you want four long relievers behind your traditional two starters and three "stacked starters?"    Using that philosophy, you start Berrios, Gibson, then some rotation of the above names (only six of them) who start game 3 and pitch until they shouldn't any longer, and then #4-8 comes in sequence over the next three games, knowing that (until and unless you put together a half-dozen lights-out short starts in a row as one of the stack) that you are going to pitch 3-4 innings, and maybe you train and get adjusted to doing that when your number is called, rather than it being a strict every-fifth-day.  You still have one long-reliever (in case starters 1 or 2 has a short stint) and 3 or 4 traditional short-burst relievers, but the rest are on a 4-5 inning "one after the other" rotation that maximizes rest and gives them a defined role and schedule, though completely different than the traditional model.

     I don't worry about players buying in - if it works, and proves effective, there will be plenty of candidates.    If my boss said "you come in for four hours, work like a madman, and you are done for the day" I think I'd take kindly to that offer.

[Mike Sixel]

 

In regards to reliever IP, I am happy someone thinks that Molitor didn't overuse Hildenberger and Taylor

 

So if they are not good enough to be a SP how on earth are they good enough to be stacked, which is essentially being a starter. Expecting a pitcher to go twice through the order  is not relieving. It would be the skill set of a starter,

 

As if I said anything of the sort about those two, who were not used in this manner, nor prepared to do so. No idea how you got there at all, frankly.

 

I'd rather see if 2 times through the order, and throwing less innings so maybe they throw harder (and different pitch mix) works, than throw them out and hope for 6 innings.......because that literally does not work....as we can see in the SP numbers on Fangraphs and just by watching the Twins. There are not enough SPs on the planet to fill all the teams......so why try to use people that way?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

In regards to reliever IP, I am happy someone thinks that Molitor didn't overuse Hildenberger and Taylor

 

So if they are not good enough to be a SP how on earth are they good enough to be stacked, which is essentially being a starter. Expecting a pitcher to go twice through the order is not relieving. It would be the skill set of a starter,

Hildenberger wasn’t prepared/conditioned to throw 100 innings.

 

How many Quad-A type starters have rolled through the Twins rotation over the last decade that might have been perfectly serviceable or maybe even good stackers? 4-5 per season at least, that we’ve all gone “Geez why do they keep trotting Littell (or insert other name here) out there?”

 

Those guys are starting 20 or more per season no matter what. Most every team uses 10+ starters per season. Maximize what you can get from your depth.

[Kelly Vance]

 

It looked broke to me.

How does anything ever improve without experimentation and those brave enough to try new things?

 Baseball has been around since the 1880s or something. If this was a real idea, it woulda been a change in the game by 1900. I say its a dumb gimmick

[70charger]

I agree! Dead ball era 4eva!

[Mr. Brooks]

Baseball has been around since the 1880s or something. If this was a real idea, it woulda been a change in the game by 1900. I say its a dumb gimmick

The over the fence home run says hello.

[Riverbrian]

 

 Baseball has been around since the 1880s or something. If this was a real idea, it woulda been a change in the game by 1900. I say its a dumb gimmick

 

Back in the 2000's, Analytics started to become prominent in the game of baseball and has grown to the point where every single team has a department solely devoted to analysis. 

 

While the use of analytics was in it's infancy there were people saying "baseball has been around since the 1880's" and it is comments like these that delay the arrival of almost every new thing in life because it take real courage to implement something new in the face of these type of comments from people with power and people without power a like.  

 

Baseball didn't snap it's fingers and change into full saber metric mode overnight. There was a guy who was working on it in the 50's and didn't real understand the implications. Bill James started publishing in the 70's and was mostly ignored by baseball until a team has success with it. Then once you see a team have success with it... it kind of trickles across the landscape for years (even decades) followed by a flood and then a trickle of the last remaining stragglers. The Twins were in the last remaining straggler group BTW. 

 

The opener idea was just introduced... there will be a trickle and until then... those trying to implement are going to have to endure the "Baseball has been around since the 1880's" comments just like... always. 

[Number3]

I have always thought that the job of Starting Pitcher in the major leagues has become the most over paid fluff jobs in all of pro sports. Maybe not for the relative few greats, but for the many whose job it is to simply give the team innings. Even if they only last 2 or 3 innings they get the next 4 days off and go into their crazy routines. Its crazy to have 5 players on the roster who are only available every 5 games each. Anything to change that would be good but it still depends on execution, not some system. The teams with the best talent will still have the best staffs and managers will be hard pressed to not over use their best pitchers regardless of what name they give their "system" stacking, fracking or quacking.

[Kelly Vance]

 

Back in the 2000's, Analytics started to become prominent in the game of baseball and has grown to the point where every single team has a department solely devoted to analysis. 

 

While the use of analytics was in it's infancy there were people saying "baseball has been around since the 1880's" and it is comments like these that delay the arrival of almost every new thing in life because it take real courage to implement something new in the face of these type of comments from people with power and people without power a like.  

 

Baseball didn't snap it's fingers and change into full saber metric mode overnight. There was a guy who was working on it in the 50's and didn't real understand the implications. Bill James started publishing in the 70's and was mostly ignored by baseball until a team has success with it. Then once you see a team have success with it... it kind of trickles across the landscape for years (even decades) followed by a flood and then a trickle of the last remaining stragglers. The Twins were in the last remaining straggler group BTW. 

 

The opener idea was just introduced... there will be a trickle and until then... those trying to implement are going to have to endure the "Baseball has been around since the 1880's" comments just like... always. 

Not to be condescending or anything.... analytics have not improved the game one bit. It has given baseball nerds stuff to argue about, mainly. And just because something is a new fad, doesn't mean it is a good idea. Think bell bottom jeans. 

 

You still have to field a team of guys who can throw, hit and field. And analysis means nothing in that blink of an eye when you have to hit a 97 mph four seamer. 

 

Analysis tells you that the shift is employed a lot. But an intelligent analysis will also tell you that you can beat the shift every time by hitting it the other way, dropping a bunt etc. But if you do stats against a stubborn cuss that won't adapt (Think Ted Williams... but he was a special case) the success of the shift gets exaggerated. Against a bunch of guys who know how to handle a bat, the shift should fail more than it succeeds. So analytics that tell you to employ the shift should change back once guys consistently try to beat it. 

 

I have used the opener idea. I think I won two championship games (middle school) doing it. But it was a playoff game and there is no tomorrow.  Fresh arms can go 3 innings easy. I see it wearing down over a long season.  

 

I also think it slaps your starters in the face and will end the incentive contract. Openers will never get a win. Bummer man. The guy who comes in after the first three innings can get the win, even if the opener did as much to earn the win.

 

Being old school don't make you wrong. 

[IndianaTwin]

 

...When it is pointed out that Odorizi, or any other pitcher had such a bad OPS 3 time through the order keep in mind that they are facing the heart of the order for the third time. These are the people with a higher OPS to begin with. While .790  may be high the average ops in the power section of a lineup  ought to be somewhere near that.  Small sample size comes into play, also. Only 20 some of Odorizzi's innings were against third time through the order....

 

Excellent point. He faced 143 batters as the third time through the order. It would be interesting to see the same 143 batters in their first at bats and their second at bats. 

 

That 143 plate appearances is about 20 percent of his batters, however, so it's not exactly a SSS.

[Riverbrian]

 

Not to be condescending or anything.... analytics have not improved the game one bit. It has given baseball nerds stuff to argue about, mainly. And just because something is a new fad, doesn't mean it is a good idea. Think bell bottom jeans. 

 

You still have to field a team of guys who can throw, hit and field. And analysis means nothing in that blink of an eye when you have to hit a 97 mph four seamer. 

 

Analysis tells you that the shift is employed a lot. But an intelligent analysis will also tell you that you can beat the shift every time by hitting it the other way, dropping a bunt etc. But if you do stats against a stubborn cuss that won't adapt (Think Ted Williams... but he was a special case) the success of the shift gets exaggerated. Against a bunch of guys who know how to handle a bat, the shift should fail more than it succeeds. So analytics that tell you to employ the shift should change back once guys consistently try to beat it. 

 

I have used the opener idea. I think I won two championship games (middle school) doing it. But it was a playoff game and there is no tomorrow.  Fresh arms can go 3 innings easy. I see it wearing down over a long season.  

 

I also think it slaps your starters in the face and will end the incentive contract. Openers will never get a win. Bummer man. The guy who comes in after the first three innings can get the win, even if the opener did as much to earn the win.

 

Being old school don't make you wrong. 

 

And not all fads are fads. 

 

LOL... But I loved the Bell Bottom Reference. Got me thinking about a Eric Clapton song that I'd hadn't thought about in years. And it was always one of my favorite songs ever. 

 

I thank you for that. 

 

 

 

[biggentleben]

 

Only a handful of relievers ever maintain a 60 plus IP, I do not think it is feasible to have 6 be able to do it.  Now if you want relievers to throw with less effort to increase innings you would expect a decrease in effectiveness. Maybe that is not a good idea

 

When it is pointed out that Odorizi, or any other pitcher had such a bad OPS 3 time through the order keep in mind that they are facing the heart of the order for the third time. These are the people with a higher OPS to begin with. While .790  may be high the average ops in the power section of a lineup  ought to be somewhere near that.  Small sample size comes into play, also. Only 20 some of Odorizzi's innings were against third time through the order.

 

Stacking means to me like a platoon. Neither pitcher is good enough so therefore you need a platoon. Two people for one position means you need to have better pitchers in the bullpen because your long guy is attached to another pitcher.

 

Opener is far different than stacked. If it prevents hitters who do better seeing a pitcher for the third time from being able to do so, great.  A starter facing 24 batters is better than one facing 18   

Numbers and innings. When you look through history you can see why stacking would not be a long term answer, nor would bullpening

 

Odorizzi's OPS allowed 3rd time through is something like 1.150, and that's for every player facing them the third time, not just the "heart of the order". It's not the third inning...it's the third time facing each batter in the lineup.