Joe Ryan and the Piggybacks: Time to See What the Twins Have in the Stable

[Seth Stohs]

Image courtesy of © Isaiah J. Downing-Imagn Images

Talk to a baseball fan over the age of 60, and they’ll tell you about pitchers just don’t work as long. “Back in my days, they had four-man rotations, and the goal was to go nine innings every time you took the mound.” 

For most of the past 30 years, MLB teams have moved to five-man rotations, and reaching 200 innings has become a badge of honor. In fact, most front offices and pitching staff just consider it a badge. More important in today’s game is going all out and using your pitches whether you get through three innings or seven innings. 

The last couple of seasons, the Twins have been working on a new strategy for pitching development for some pitchers. We saw it in 2024 with Marco Raya. We’ve seen it this year with several pitchers including Raya and Connor Prielipp.

We’ve even seen it with a few pitchers who have been workhorses in the past. Twins rookie pitchers Travis Adams and Pierson Ohl worked through the minor leagues primarily as starting pitchers. In the progression, they each reached 127 innings in a season. The goal was always to add to that number, to go from 127 to 152 to 181. Honestly, at that point, the pitcher is averaging nearly six innings per start. From there, if you progress to 200 innings, great. There is nothing wrong with saving the bullpen arms when possible. 

The reality is that in today’s game (and likely has always been the case), that there are some starting pitchers who may not quite fit the mold of being able to go six to eight innings in starts very awesome. If they can, great. I mean, if Pablo Lopez and Joe Ryan are starting, you plan for them giving you six innings and have no problem with them going seven or eight frames. 

But for some pitchers, they might have some really, really good stuff, but they just can’t maintain that stuff through 100 pitches. They can dominate for about 50 to 75 pitches. Should that pitcher automatically be pushed to a one or two inning spot? You can’t help but wonder how many pitchers were like that over the years. They just couldn’t cut it as a “regular” starter. 

There are many “failed” starters who have become some of the best relievers and closers in baseball history. Consider John Smoltz. He was a Cy Young caliber starting pitcher, and when he would be the Braves’ closer, he was as good as anyone in the game. When he spent a season as a starter, he helped Atlanta for 200 to 250 innings. When he was a closer, he helped Atlanta for 45 to 80 innings per year. What if he could have worked four innings every fourth or fifth day instead of the bullpen, one-inning guy? Instead of helping Atlanta for 60 innings in a season, he could have given them 120-130 innings. 

It’s with that mindset that I’d love to see the Twins test-drive a new model down the stretch; not as a gimmick, but as an honest evaluation tool. We’ve got 50-ish games left, and plenty of intriguing arms in the system. So let’s see what a modified rotation might look like with Joe Ryan and the Piggybacks.

Here’s a few versions of how it might look:

OPTION 1 : TWO-MAN STARTS
Game 1: Joe Ryan (goes 5-8 innings) 
Game 2: Zebby Matthews (4-5 innings), Pierson Ohl (4-5 innings)
Game 3: Bailey Ober (4-5 innings), Taj Bradley (4-5 innings)
Game 4: Mick Abel (4-5 innings), Travis Adams (4-5 innings)
Game 5: Marco Raya (4-5 innings), Simeon Woods Richardson (4-5 innings) 
Remaining BP: Cole Sands, Justin Topa, Kody Funderburk (Anthony Misiewicz), Jose Urena. 

With this, the goal should be for the starting pitcher to hopefully get through five innings, but really to get through at least four. The goal for the "piggybacker" should be to complete the rest of the game, though based on game situations, the high-leverage arms could come into those late innings as well. 

It will be good to have a couple of those high-leverage bullpen guys to close out a game in the ninth. It will be equally important to have a long man or two available in the bullpen as well. There is enough depth in Triple-A and even Double-A to fill slots. 

In doing this, it is absolutely crucial to set a tone with the team that this is about creating opportunities and giving more people a chance to work and get innings and try to make their case for a 2026 roster spot. The hitters need to know that this is about development and opportunity, but they are working under the same lens, trying to make an impression for 2026 and beyond. The goal is always to win as well and that will be the goal in every game. “We believe that each and every one of these pitchers has a big-league arm and a big-time, big-league future and that journey starts now.” 

I included Woods Richardson on here because I believe he will be back soon. We don’t know a whole lot about the timelines for Pablo Lopez or David Festa. Festa could fill one of those eight spots. Because of his veteran-ness, I would let Lopez determine if he wants to fill a spot in this type of plan, or if he would want to jump right back in that Joe Ryan (normal) role. He’s earned that opportunity. And so has Ober, of course, but this might really be good for him down the stretch. If Lopez comes back, the two ‘regular’ starters could be very similar. 

OPTION 2: TRADITIONAL HYBRIDS
Game 1: Joe Ryan
Game 2: Simeon Woods Richardson, Zebby Matthews 
Game 3: Taj Bradley, Mick Abel 
Game 4: Pablo Lopez
Game 5: Bailey Ober, Travis Adams
Remaining BP: Cole Sands, Justin Topa, Kody Funderburk, Jose Urena, Pierson Ohl. 

Or how about this?

OPTION 3: THREE-MAN TANDEMS
Game 1: Joe Ryan
Game 2, Simeon Woods Richardson, Pierson Ohl, Travis Adams (3 innings each)
Game 3: Pablo Lopez, Bailey Ober (4-5 innings each)
Game 4: Taj Bradley, Kendry Rojas, Mick Abel (3 innings each)
Game 5: Zebby Matthews, 
Remaining BP: Cole Sands, Justin Topa, Kody Funderburk 

There are other pitchers on the 40-man roster. Maybe a Kendry Rojas will be added to the roster and inserted into a few starts. The final bullpen spots can be updated every 10-12 days as needed based on usage. Honestly, it’s a lot of plug-and-play. It’s a lot of planning, and for that 50-game stretch, it may feel a little regimented.   

Why Do This Now?

Because it matters. Because fans want to see what’s next. Because the front office needs data. Because payroll flexibility means young, controllable players matter. And because, frankly, Twins fans need something to believe in again.

And these pitchers — Abel, Raya, Matthews, Bradley, SWR, Ohl, Rojas — they give us a reason to watch. They represent hope. They represent the next great Twins rotation. We already know Joe Ryan’s part of that. So is Ober. So is Pablo López. But who else?

Let’s find out.

Oh, and one more thing: giving these kids a shot might just help season ticket sales too. I’d bet the front office wouldn't mind giving their sales team something to get excited about this offseason.

Let’s see the arms. Let’s see the future. Let's ride with Joe Ryan and the Piggybacks.

View full article

[Doctor Wu]

Very interesting article, Seth. I think doing something like this is well worth thinking about ... and well worth trying. 

[strumdatjag]

Recently, the Twins pitching staff has had no starters and one or two relievers who throw from the left.  
if piggybacking is going to be more effective, wouldn’t it be better to have much more left-right balance.    This would upend the batting order plans by the opposing manager.   If this piggybacking became a norm in MLB,, i expect managers would find their benches consistently depleted to adjust to more matchups.   And these are not just right-left adjustments but also adjustments forplayers who are more and less successful against particular pitchers and types of pitchers.   Would MLB ultimately have expand rosters to 30 players or higher to allow for these adjustments?   Or is that just a slippery slope to seeing more at bats from the Mickey Gaspers and DeShawn Kierseys of baseball? 
Hmmmmm
 

[Bodie]

Interesting idea, but at the end of the day, will you have produced starting pitching, or simply "uncovered" your next long reliever?

[Tjwalsh65]

I think Oakland tried something like this many years ago. I do not think it lasted long.  Maybe a week.   The idea was everybody pitch 3 innings.

 

[Doctor Gast]

I've been an advocate for something like this for a long time, to no avail. Seems like every year, the BP burns out which strains the rotation & burns them out with injuries & poor innings in the 2nd half. '19 we had a great rotation. They piggybacked Perez & Pineda; the rotation was red-hot during that time. They discontinued that, plus the BP burned out. The pitching limped across the finish line in the postseason. '22 to economize, they got Bundy & late Archer, with Levine announcing Twins goal of piggybacking. Bundy & Archer were piggyback candidates. Shortly after that, it was announced that the SPs had to go at least 5, preferably 7. Bundy & Archer started out well but did not fare well under the changed philosophy.

From the beginning of the season, I wanted long relief. With the gutted BP & fragile rotation now, this piggyback option could be our only hope for a respectable season. Now it needs to be determined who'll be the opener & who'll be the long RP. I'm not necessarily in favor of making this into the typical Falvey's showcase fiasco.

 

[Fire Dan Gladden]

The first one through the wall always gets bloody. How was Tampa received when they rolled out the one-inning starter.

A main problem I see here is how to price these players? How does a 4 inning "starter" improve salary through arbitration when the entirety of arbitration is based on comparison and history? When they approach FA, how will they be received by the market? Anything that potentially impacts their salary in a negative way will not go over well. The same argument goes for incoming FA SP.

How much complaining was there here when the Twins had Sonny Gray and didn't want him to go through the order 3 times because the statistics showed his ineffectiveness 3rd time through?

I am not saying this is a bad approach. With the focus on max speed, spin, and effort, it seems like a logical step. However, the secondary consequences need to be thought about as well.

[tony&rodney]

Pitchers are variable in how they react/recover from pitching, whether it is 20 or 60 or 120 pitches. Some arms recover quickly and these guys can throw 2 out of three days for an inning or two because they recover pretty quickly. Most arms require 3 or more days off when they throw more than 60 pitches. Thus the strategy of using pitchers relies to some extent on whether the pitching staff can physically meet the demands being asked of them. 

We have seen pretty much every strategy possible used in the last half century,  due to a host of factors ranging from a lack of talent to monetary restrictions to experimentation and more. MLB has also changed the rules on several occasions which affects the makeup of the roster. A 25 person roster that also includes strict rules on shuttles between the minors and majors and does not account for position players pitching would affect how a manager uses their pitching staff. 

I expect we will see a few teams develop pitchers who develop the stamina to throw up to 120 pitches in a game. The general strategy doesn't really change much as teams attempt to use their best collection of pitchers to get through each game and the season. A real problem with targeted strategies that limit pitchers to a specific number of batters is that become more throwers than pitchers. This isn't just velocity but paying attention to the game as it it unfolds. A simple example was how Pierson Ohl reverted to throwing as opposed to pitching. It was very clear that the batter were sitting on the change and yet he still went to it again and again. When a batter is hitting your change off of their back foot they are totally susceptible to a mediocre fastball. So pitching is still about experience and stamina. I suspect that running will return as a means of increasing stamina.

So, it's complicated but we will continue to see teams use various ways to use pitching. I'm in favor of pitchers pitching as opposed to just emptying their bullets throwing.

[gman]

Do you have pitchers get to the majors sooner with 2 good pitches or have them stay in the minors until they get a third pitch down?

Do you tell the pitchers to throw as hard as possible or conserve energy to go hard in the their last inning?

What is the realistic pitch limit you are working on? 60? 80?

How do you grade pitchers in the draft? Look for control and command of 2 to 3 pitches, then bring them up?

It would make a big difference if pitchers suffered fewer injuries and could pitch a whole season in this system.

[Major League Ready]

15 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

The first one through the wall always gets bloody. How was Tampa received when they rolled out the one-inning starter.

A main problem I see here is how to price these players? How does a 4 inning "starter" improve salary through arbitration when the entirety of arbitration is based on comparison and history? When they approach FA, how will they be received by the market? Anything that potentially impacts their salary in a negative way will not go over well. The same argument goes for incoming FA SP.

How much complaining was there here when the Twins had Sonny Gray and didn't want him to go through the order 3 times because the statistics showed his ineffectiveness 3rd time through?

I am not saying this is a bad approach. With the focus on max speed, spin, and effort, it seems like a logical step. However, the secondary consequences need to be thought about as well.

As presented here their best pitchers are being used traditionally.   The 3-4 inning guys are pitcher who don't cut it as a traditional SP or is an average #5.  They would be used piggyback or when the starter goes 5 or even 6 innings.  If they can deliver more innings pitched as effectively or more effectively than the average RP, they have more value.  They may even grow into a traditional SP role.  I guess the question would be do they have more value than a #5 starter.   If this type of role produces 80-90 IPs and a player is good in this role, I would tend to increase their odds of having a major league career at worst and could maximize their earnings.    

[DJL44]

I am not fond of this plan, mainly because it's more than twice as hard to find 9 multiple-inning pitchers than it is to find 5. I would still make the top pitcher the starter and the lesser pitcher the reliever. My top 4 of the young guys are Woods-Richardson, Matthews, Bradley and Abel. That would make Festa, Adams, Ohl and Ober the 3-inning pitchers. I'm pretty sure Ober and Festa would be mad about that. Ohl is probably a 2-inning pitcher at this time, not 3.

I also have a suspicion that the Twins plan is trade Joe Ryan at peak value this off season and for Pablo  Lopez to stay and mentor the young guys. I expect them to trade Ober at next season's trade deadline if he's having an improved season.

[Nshore]

I like the 3 inning max outing scenario as a permanent approach.  There won't be as many multi-millionaire stud starters, but the player appeal I think will be in protecting arms and keeping players in the game of baseball longer.  With the stuff they're expected to throw now, most starting pitchers can barely make it through 4 innings anyway.  There might have to be a ML roster rule adjustment to accommodate it. 

Plus Rocco will love it because he likes going out there and changing pitchers.

[chpettit19]

I'm confused by a lot of the responses here. Isn't Seth just suggesting this for the rest of the season? That's very different than implementing this as your go forward plan for a pitching staff in 2026 and beyond. Isn't Seth just trying to get exposure for the young arms at the major league level so the Twins can get them experience and gain information on them while giving them all as many innings as possible but also giving Ryan (and possibly Lopez and Ober) their normal starts?

[Otwins]

Excellent concept. I would add Prielipp to the formula.

 

[ToddlerHarmon]

23 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm confused by a lot of the responses here. Isn't Seth just suggesting this for the rest of the season? That's very different than implementing this as your go forward plan for a pitching staff in 2026 and beyond. Isn't Seth just trying to get exposure for the young arms at the major league level so the Twins can get them experience and gain information on them while giving them all as many innings as possible but also giving Ryan (and possibly Lopez and Ober) their normal starts?

I think you are correct about what is being suggested. But my opinion (and maybe other posters' hope) is that it should only be done if you have an option to actually adopt it. Otherwise, you make it too hard to adapt pitchers that turn out to be excellent into the traditional starter role. Kind of a practice-like-the-real-thing philosophy.

I see the most promising possibility for long-term adoption being creating a permanent third category between starter and reliever: a piggybacker who does multi-inning stints at (mostly) regular intervals. That could be valuable for development, for surviving a staff with few 6-inning-capable starters, and for adapting to the inevitable but unpredictable situations of an overworked pen. I could go along with that experiment.

[AceWrigley]

38 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm confused by a lot of the responses here. Isn't Seth just suggesting this for the rest of the season? That's very different than implementing this as your go forward plan for a pitching staff in 2026 and beyond. Isn't Seth just trying to get exposure for the young arms at the major league level so the Twins can get them experience and gain information on them while giving them all as many innings as possible but also giving Ryan (and possibly Lopez and Ober) their normal starts?

Well, yeah, but why let facts get in the way of our rants, musings and generally rumbling on about . . . stuff. 🙂

[Squirrel]

33 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm confused by a lot of the responses here. Isn't Seth just suggesting this for the rest of the season? That's very different than implementing this as your go forward plan for a pitching staff in 2026 and beyond. Isn't Seth just trying to get exposure for the young arms at the major league level so the Twins can get them experience and gain information on them while giving them all as many innings as possible but also giving Ryan (and possibly Lopez and Ober) their normal starts?

Yeah, I don’t think people read this too closely. But then again, I don’t think Seth stated it explicitly enough, either. He said:

‘In doing this, it is absolutely crucial to set a tone with the team that this is about creating opportunities and giving more people a chance to work and get innings and try to make their case for a 2026 roster spot. The hitters need to know that this is about development and opportunity, but they are working under the same lens, trying to make an impression for 2026 and beyond. The goal is always to win as well and that will be the goal in every game. “We believe that each and every one of these pitchers has a big-league arm and a big-time, big-league future and that journey starts now.”’

If he had said ‘In doing this for the remainder of this season…’ it would have been clearer.

In my opinion, in a lost season like this, yes, absolutely, see what you have to help with the planning for next season, but giving pitchers like Ryan his regular workload. We hear on these boards too often ‘so and so wasn’t given a chance’ so give them a chance. Through the rest of this season. 

[Squirrel]

10 minutes ago, ToddlerHarmon said:

I think you are correct about what is being suggested. But my opinion (and maybe other posters' hope) is that it should only be done if you have an option to actually adopt it. Otherwise, you make it too hard to adapt pitchers that turn out to be excellent into the traditional starter role. Kind of a practice-like-the-real-thing philosophy.

I see the most promising possibility for long-term adoption being creating a permanent third category between starter and reliever: a piggybacker who does multi-inning stints at (mostly) regular intervals. That could be valuable for development, for surviving a staff with few 6-inning-capable starters, and for adapting to the inevitable but unpredictable situations of an overworked pen. I could go along with that experiment.

Some of the younger pitchers are already being pushed and stretched and nearing their season limits, as Seth pointed out. I don’t think giving these young pitchers 3 or 4 innings here and there for the remainder of the season hampers their development as starters. It will show these pitchers what to expect in terms of ML level so they themselves can prepare better for the next year.

[4twinsJA]

I doubt Ohl and Adams are worried they are going to miss out on millions when they get to arbitration or FA. Like to idea of couple BP pitchers pitching every 4 days, 40 games a year, 2-3 IP a game 80-120 IP a year. How many innings does a normal BP pitcher get a year= 60-70?

[chpettit19]

14 minutes ago, ToddlerHarmon said:

I think you are correct about what is being suggested. But my opinion (and maybe other posters' hope) is that it should only be done if you have an option to actually adopt it. Otherwise, you make it too hard to adapt pitchers that turn out to be excellent into the traditional starter role. Kind of a practice-like-the-real-thing philosophy.

I see the most promising possibility for long-term adoption being creating a permanent third category between starter and reliever: a piggybacker who does multi-inning stints at (mostly) regular intervals. That could be valuable for development, for surviving a staff with few 6-inning-capable starters, and for adapting to the inevitable but unpredictable situations of an overworked pen. I could go along with that experiment.

Why would implementing this for the last 2 months of the season make it difficult to adapt pitchers to "the traditional starter role?" If you go with that first option and have 8 guys getting 4 or 5 innings an appearance for the rest of the season, that is 8 guys getting essentially the modern-day starter role. 

The 3 inning one would be further off the mark but giving all these guys 4 or 5 innings and appearance for the last 2 months wouldn't have a significant impact on their ability to be a starter next year at all. I mean, it wouldn't have any impact at all in terms of being a starter verse a reliever. None. You're talking about taking 5 to 10 innings off their season total. The first option Seth presents wouldn't have any impact whatsoever on their ability to be a starter next year. I don't understand the "you make it too hard to adapt pitchers that turn out to be excellent into the traditional starter role" argument at all.

Many teams have debuted starter prospects as 1 inning relievers and transitioned them instantly back to starters the next year.

[EGFTShaw]

First, applaud the outside the batter's box thinking.
Second, I didn't get from the article this was a long-term plan, just the rest of this season to see what we have in these players in real MLB world scenarios.

So, I like it. 

The more experience these young players get, the better chance of succeeding long term.

I am assuming Pablo comes back.  I think it could be Option 2 to let Ober get his feet under himself again and then maybe Option 3 to verify this year that Ober has reset himself.

👍👍

[Nshore]

11 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Yeah, I don’t think people read this too closely. But then again, I don’t think Seth stated it explicitly enough, either. He said:

‘In doing this, it is absolutely crucial to set a tone with the team that this is about creating opportunities and giving more people a chance to work and get innings and try to make their case for a 2026 roster spot. The hitters need to know that this is about development and opportunity, but they are working under the same lens, trying to make an impression for 2026 and beyond. The goal is always to win as well and that will be the goal in every game. “We believe that each and every one of these pitchers has a big-league arm and a big-time, big-league future and that journey starts now.”’

If he had said ‘In doing this for the remainder of this season…’ it would have been clearer.

In my opinion, in a lost season like this, yes, absolutely, see what you have to help with the planning for next season, but giving pitchers like Ryan his regular workload. We hear on these boards too often ‘so and so wasn’t given a chance’ so give them a chance. Through the rest of this season. 

The author made a pitching proposal for the rest of the season, and my opinion is it would be good as a permanent approach.  Really not that incomprehensible.

[chaderic20]

I've advocated for similar approaches in the past. View the entire pitching staff more fluidly, instead of starters who go 5+ (ideally) and then a parade of relievers who go an inning each. As seen by the multiple options in the article and other comments, there are various ways of doing this, but in general, group your pitchers into sets of two or three primary pitchers with a handful of spot relievers. Mix and match various characteristics of the pitchers: righty/lefty, high/low arm slot, high velo / wicked movement, etc. You can do 4 pairs of 2 piggy-backing primary pitchers plus 5 more traditional relievers who come in for specific spots. Or 3 sets of 3 piggy-backing pitchers plus 4 spot relievers, etc.

This lets pitchers go max effort as long as they can, focusing on just their best 2 or 3 pitches. Mess with the opposing manager's bench/platoon options. Mess with batters' timing. Don't let batters see a pitcher more than twice (a lot of times only once) per game so they can't get a read on pitches for later at bats.

As has been said, there will be pushback from players at first, but I think they could be won over as they see the benefits. It will require a different mindset when valuing pitchers in arbitration and free agent negotiations, but over time that will also adjust to fit the new normal.

[LA Vikes Fan]

I like this idea. A lot. I like it because it increases the opportunities for the Twins to get the two things they need the most  - information and development.

I think we need to take these last 50 or so games and see how guys look going into next season> That's primary; wining and losing is secondary. This approach gives us a chance to see if Abel, Bradley, Adams, Ohl, and maybe Rojas and Raya, can cut it on the MLB level.  And there's no prohibition against the first guy going more than 4 innings; if he's pitching well he can go 5 or 6 innings and the second guy goes 3 or 4. It also may just change the order of pitchers. The first goy goes 5.1 or 5.2, the short man/closer finishes that inning, then the "second starter" finishes the game. This would require some flexible thinking by management and the players but I think you can get guys to buy in if the concept is explained. 

[Squirrel]

10 minutes ago, Nshore said:

The author made a pitching proposal for the rest of the season, and my opinion is it would be good as a permanent approach.  Really not that incomprehensible.

It seems to be for some. And that’s the post I responded to. I agree it’s not incomprehensible. But for some, who don’t read thoroughly, that one sentence makes it clearer.

[chpettit19]

I like this general idea for this year. I'd like to get some of the young guys experience this year depending on their specific situations. It sounds like they have some specific work they want to do with Bradley on his splitter. That's probably best done in AAA. If they don't have specific work like that with Abel, I'd get him up after another start or 2 and start getting him more MLB experience. Raya I could go either way on. 

As for the big picture, moving forward, using this kind of idea in 2026 and beyond, I think it's far more complicated than some people think it is. I do wish they'd be more successful in using some guys for more than 1 inning but managing a bullpen with "long relief" gets far more complicated as those guys are unavailable and then when they have a blowup game and don't cover their allotted innings things get really ugly. The more spots you have reserved for guys who throw 3+ innings, the more guys you have to have who can do it. And those guys are harder to develop and have sitting and waiting in AAA to be switched in and out. It's not as easy as it sounds to have a guy who can come in a pitch 3 or 4 shutdown innings in a close game every 4 days.

[karcherd]

I appreciate the outside of the box thinking this article proposes, I suppose it is a good idea if only for this season.  I am not sure they would stop there once they start.  They are already doing this in the minors, I think more than we realize.  Looking at the box scores daily, most pitchers are going 3 to 5 innings and throwing 60 to 70 pitches.  Is it becoming a self fulfilling prophecy that they can't become starter because they are not being developed as starters.

This concept may work in the minors where development is the priority.  But what do you do when Judge comes up in the 7th with the bases loaded and up by 2 runs, are you going to leave your second piggyback pitcher in who has only thrown an inning plus or go to a high leverage reliever.  My point is that in the final three innings it will be tough not to go more matchup based rather than leaving basically your 4th or 5th starter out there.

The other point is casual fans don't necessarily like seeing 3 to 5 pitchers in a game, it slows the game down, they don't know the back end of the roster players and it is not always enjoyable experience for them.  I realize this is a baseball issue and not just the Twins.  But I don't believe in just developing throwers and I do hope it swings back to where pitchers are actually being developed to pitch.

[The Great Hambino]

The rest of this year is about evaluation of the young pitchers.  If nothing else, piggybacking gives you more appearances to use for evaluation.  They have an entire offseason to get stretched out to a traditional starting role if they are identified as a 2026 rotation piece - or maybe to focus on refining their two best pitches and ratcheting up the velocity if they get identified as a better fit as a core bullpen piece. 

[Parfigliano]

50 minutes ago, chaderic20 said:

I've advocated for similar approaches in the past. View the entire pitching staff more fluidly, instead of starters who go 5+ (ideally) and then a parade of relievers who go an inning each. As seen by the multiple options in the article and other comments, there are various ways of doing this, but in general, group your pitchers into sets of two or three primary pitchers with a handful of spot relievers. Mix and match various characteristics of the pitchers: righty/lefty, high/low arm slot, high velo / wicked movement, etc. You can do 4 pairs of 2 piggy-backing primary pitchers plus 5 more traditional relievers who come in for specific spots. Or 3 sets of 3 piggy-backing pitchers plus 4 spot relievers, etc.

This lets pitchers go max effort as long as they can, focusing on just their best 2 or 3 pitches. Mess with the opposing manager's bench/platoon options. Mess with batters' timing. Don't let batters see a pitcher more than twice (a lot of times only once) per game so they can't get a read on pitches for later at bats.

As has been said, there will be pushback from players at first, but I think they could be won over as they see the benefits. It will require a different mindset when valuing pitchers in arbitration and free agent negotiations, but over time that will also adjust to fit the new normal.

By all means the rest of this this crap year should be all about player auditions.  Let's see what you got against MLB bats.

If this is the FO strategy for future years the players will not see the benefits.  The young starting pitchers not getting a chance to see the hitters a 3rd time will see their $35-50 mil/yr future contract go bye-bye.  Ditto their paid on commission agents.  They will also see TC as a place not to get drafted or sign.

[rv78]

If you piggyback them, aren't you really just seeing if they will make an effective long reliever? An accurate test or evaluation of a player to be a starter is to treat them like a starter. If Rocco is going to pull them before the 3rd time thru the order then you really aren't learning if they can be successful at it since they aren't given the chance. Piggys belong in a pig pen. Horses belong in a stable. Make them horses not pigs.