Odorizzi - 75 pitches and done.

[jorgenswest]

I'm thinking it's typical for a #3/#4 starter, though, which is what he is.

Typical for a starter (particularly for the back end) is more struggle in the first inning when they face the top of the line up. That isn’t Odorizzi’s struggle.

[jorgenswest]

Exploring typical a little further and using last 5 years data so that the data has stabilized. Odorizzi’s numbers in 2018 were consistent with his career.

 

First inning ERA: Odorizzi ranks 5th of 77 behind Scherzer and Arrieta and ahead of Kluber and Sale

 

Inning 2: 39th

 

Inning 3: 26th

 

Inning 4: 71st

 

Innings 1-3: 18th (3.25)

 

Innings 4-6: 66th (4.72)

 

I don’t think that is typical of a 3-4 starter. Those are clear number 1s in the first group.

[howieramone2]

Last I heard, starting pitchers average 5 and 2/3 innings per start.Odorizzi is reasonably close to that. Odorizzi can get thru the lineup twice, which is much better than most 4's and 5's IMHO.

[Dantes929]

 

Talent still wins out. If the #5 starter isn't MLB caliber, and most have not over the last decade of Twins baseball, they're still going to deliver bad results. With the opener or stacker approach, they'll just provide 80 innings of 6 ERA ball instead of 160 innings of 6 ERA ball.

Thats a good thing right?  If we have a reliever that can throw the other 80 innings at 4.5 ERA we have just reduced the total runs scored against.     I mentioned this in a different post but the Twins have assets that are perfect for this kind of thing.   Mejia, Romero and May along with Stewart and Gonsalves should all be able to go more than 25 pitches and more than 1 or two innings.    Fewer pitching changes will let pitcherts throw the same innings or more innings but  over fewer appearances and I think this is a good thing.   Pair up Odorizzi, Pineda and one other with May, Mejia and Romero and you will still have at least 4 other pitchers and maybe 5 to support Gibson and Berrios.    Who knows the best approach but I like the idea of blowing up prior conceptions including pitch and inning limits.   Very little science supports either.

[Riverbrian]

 

I get what you are saying here and elsewhere , Brian. I could even construct models that perfectly fit together 2 inning pitchers, 3 inning pitchers, 5 inninng pitchers, 1 inning pitchers and the increasingly rare 7 inning pitchers. It would look wonderful on a chart, and would get everyone their proper rest and you could fit around scheduled days off and everything. But baseball doesn't really work like that. There are rainouts and rain delays. One inning pitchers don't always complete 1 inning. Your workhorse starter sometimes doesn't get through 1 inning, which would mess up my model for at least a week.

The reason baseball has used a 5 man rotation since the 70's is that largely, it works. It has some built flexibility, you can skip a starter after a rainouts or not. You can usually compensate for 1 poor start with a long men, etc. Now, right now it seems to be increasingly hard to find enough durable, effective starters to fill out a traditional 5 man rotation model.

There are at least two ways to fix this problem. Work harder at making starters last longer and be more effective, or throw away the old model and try to create something new and theoretically more effective, as you suggest. I personally am leaning to the first solution for a lot of reasons.

First, with a 25 man roster most of these new solutions are pretty hard to implement. You really can't contract the position player bench anymore than it is and shuttling pitchers has certain limitations that can inhibit its effectiveness. That tends to mean that at certain times during the season you will find yourself using the 14th and 15th best pitchers on your 40 man roster or dropping players off your 40 man roster and adding new ones merely to keep from overusing players.

Another issue with these ideas is that relief pitchers are getting overused in any number of ways. Too many times pitchers are asked to warmup multiple times befor getting in games. Max delivery relievers asked to pitch multiple innings too often. Short relievers pitching too many games in a row. I am having a hard time seeing how new use models will help that, and it likely it could make this kind of abuse even worse.

Finally, even if you change roster rules to make these ideas easier to implement, you are still using more pitchers. Since part of the real problem here is that there are not enough good pitchers, using more pitchers is a counter intuitive solution to the problem. Again, I would like to see baseball working harder to get more innings out of your pretty good starters rather than using more less good pitchers.

 

This is a great post and I won't argue with any of the great points you are making other than saying. 

 

Change is always hard (most people complain if you move the flyswatter from its normal location) but change is also necessary. You have hit the nail on the head, There are many opposing forces blocking the path to what I'm talking about. Road Blocks and Speed Bumps from tradition to compensation stand in the way. If it doesn't work... people will be lined up around the block just to say I told you so and jobs will be lost. The safe move is just to do what everybody has done for decades and carry on with a faulty system. It takes real courage and fortitude to break through the wall. 

 

I can also construct a model like you suggest and know that real life will change it in an instant. Mike Tyson once said "everybody has a plan until you get punched in the mouth". However... the same goes for a 5 man rotation and when you say that it works... it really doesn't because there isn't enough starting pitching to go around. 

 

The Harvard guys in the front offices have been looking at the same data for years now. They see reports that pitchers who throw complete games are much more likely to have a stint on the D.L. Pitchers are routinely hitting upper 90's and it isn't just the bullpen guys anymore.. The medical guys probably know that the human body has limits and those limits are manifesting with Tommy John's and other issues. 

 

They see data that says that pitchers are less effective the 2nd and 3rd time through an order and they are looking at combined ERA's over 5.00 in the 4th and 5th spots in the rotation.

 

Strasburg has been shut down in a pennant chase to manage his workload, pitch counts are being posted on the television screen so we can play along at home. 

 

What do we have to counter all of this? We'd like 5 guys to throw the bulk of the innings, stay healthy and get everybody out and we are willing to throw James Shields for 200 innings to force it. 

 

I agree that we have to work with pitchers to help them last longer, I have no idea but I assume that this is already something they are doing and have been doing for awhile because they've been locked into the 5 starter business model for decades. What do we get from the attempts to get pitchers to last longer?   Pitch counts and increased bullpen usage. Even World Series champions (The Royals) on the strength of a killer bullpen. 

 

I don't know the answer... but I believe it starts with throwing out the old and trying something new. That could begin by stretching out the relievers, more long relievers if you will . But again... I don't know the answer and I admit that. The Rays changed it all last year and we just hired from the Rays organization so I'm hoping that it gets interesting. It's not the opener concept... the Rays reallocated the usage and won a lot of games without traditional starting pitching. 

 

Anyways... Great post and I appreciate the honest discussion. 

[Doomtints]

 

Typical for a starter (particularly for the back end) is more struggle in the first inning when they face the top of the line up. That isn’t Odorizzi’s struggle.

 

This is true for the NL, not the AL.

[jorgenswest]

This is true for the NL, not the AL.

It would be more convincing if there were any data to support this claim particularly when the work has been done to post the AL only data related to inning earlier in the conversation. It was clearly true for the AL last year as posted by ERA earlier.

 

There were more runs scored in the first inning in the AL last year than any other inning with about 200 runs scored in the first than the second or third innings.

 

The difference is significant and not surprising since opposing pitchers are guaranteed to face the best hitters.

[Jim Hahn]

This thread has been a very interesting and civil discussion. I thank all of you who participated in it. I nothing have more to add to it, except a likely off topic observation.

 

Baseball, not just major league baseball, but all levels of baseball, has not done a very good job of protecting pitchers arms. This has been true for years, but it is especially true today, even with modern medicine and greater understanding of various stresses placed on arms. Weight training and other trainings have increased velocity and spin, but they have also increased stress on the arm. Too many promising and a great many successful pitchers get washed out of baseball far too early.

 

I really don't have a lot of ideas about how to improve this aspect of baseball, and I realize many major league organizations are working on this, at least to a degree. I just want to point out that as teams go about changing how pitchers go about pitching, protecting pitchers arms needs to be a part of this. I am somewhat concerned that these new pitching models could, however inadvertently, actually cause more arm injuries.

[Doomtints]

 

It would be more convincing if there were any data to support this claim

 

I posted the data to support this recently in another thread.

[jorgenswest]

I posted the data to support this recently in another thread.

How does it contradict the AL results from last year or the data that shows that Odorizzi’s 5 year numbers in the first inning are comparable to ace pitchers but his results in innings 4 to 6 are near the bottom of the group?

 

Tell me where to look. I like this kind of work. I am happy to be contradicted.

[Dantes929]

 

This thread has been a very interesting and civil discussion. I thank all of you who participated in it. I nothing have more to add to it, except a likely off topic observation.

Baseball, not just major league baseball, but all levels of baseball, has not done a very good job of protecting pitchers arms. This has been true for years, but it is especially true today, even with modern medicine and greater understanding of various stresses placed on arms. Weight training and other trainings have increased velocity and spin, but they have also increased stress on the arm. Too many promising and a great many successful pitchers get washed out of baseball far too early.

I really don't have a lot of ideas about how to improve this aspect of baseball, and I realize many major league organizations are working on this, at least to a degree. I just want to point out that as teams go about changing how pitchers go about pitching, protecting pitchers arms needs to be a part of this. I am somewhat concerned that these new pitching models could, however inadvertently, actually cause more arm injuries.

They have not done a good job but they have tried really really hard.     Pitch and innings limits reflect the clubs bending over backwards trying to protect arms but with little science to back it up.   I might be off my rocker here but bear with me.   I am in my mid 50's and when I golf, if I sit down for a while or if I am following a slow group and I don't stretch, my swing and muscles rebel.   Wasn't like that in my 20's but maybe it was to a certain extent.     On tv I would constantly see Gibson stretching and moving doing exercises but most of the time when they show the pitchers they are just sitting there.   Some wear a jacket with the idea that it keeps the muscles warm which may help.  However, I would think doing what Gibson does would be worth more than the innings or pitch counts in keeping an arm healthy and working smoothly.    The wear a jacket and rest between innings practice might seem like a logical thing much like the innings and pitch counts but I wonder how much science backs it up.

[USAFChief]

I posted the data to support this recently in another thread.

Link?

[DrNeau]

Need to sign some bullpen arms ASAP.