THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Would this really be a bad thing? Or just a thing?

It would be interesting.

I would like the All Star game to look more like a regular season game, with one starter going 5-6 innings and then the relievers coming in.  I realize why this is not likely to happen.

Instead, it might be easier to make the regular season games look more like the All Star game.

I don’t actually know why we can’t move that way in the AL already (in the NL, you have to keep pinch-hitting for these guys). It’s been proven that pitchers are worse each time through the line-up. I guess I don’t know for sure, but I would hypothesize that most (>50%) pitchers shouldn’t make it more than 2 times through the order. That is, the average reliever is more effective than the the average starter is his third time through the line-up. Maybe 4-man rotations and 9 relievers? Why not?

If you didn’t have to pitch 5 innings to get credited with a win as a starter, I think we’d be a lot closer to this already.

Well, since the pitcher’s batting-average-against gets larger each time through the order, it would presumably result in less offense. The question still remains though. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

You sometimes see this in games right now esp. in the second game of a double-header. A “spot starter” is taken out after 4 innings (~75 pitches) regardless of how he’s doing, then you get 3 or 4 relievers finishing it up. You also see it when someone is being stretched out for a starter role.
I generally find it kind of annoying and not particularly entertaining, but I guess it would be in line with the current trajectory of the game.

"many hundreds”? that seems like overstating it quite a bit. there aren’t that many guys who have mid-90s fastballs, even in relief. and there certainly aren’t that many who can actually locate. i’ll concede, of course, that there are quite a few pitchers who are being developed as starters in the hopes that they develop the ever-elusive third pitch who probably could come up right now and be adequate major league relievers. but chris sale is still exceptional - he’s a top fifteen draft pick, after all.

I vaguely remember reading, hearing or somewhere acquiring this piece of (possible) information:

Not too long ago, perhaps in the late 70s or early 80s (because I think I heard it at the time of the change), most teams carried only 23 players even though the rules allowed for 25.  Then someone started carrying 24 and then, quickly, everyone was at 25.  With the 23 man rosters was the normal breakdown (batters/pitchers) 13 and 10 or 14 and 9?

Is my memory playing tricks on me . . .or we have we already seen this on a smaller scale?

Starters pick up 1-2 mph on their fastball, or more, when converting to relief, so you really want to look at starters in the minors throwing 92-93.  I think Tango has overstated the number, but it’s also larger than it would seem.  Many young pitcher come to the big leagues sitting at 92 to 93 mph these days.

David: that’s a quote from Neyer.

Obviously, for most, yes, this is true. The next question is whether this is a desirable state of affairs. My gut feeling is no, and largely for non-sabermetric reasons, as are all such gut feelings. These spring to mind:

1) Games are already long enough as it is. With all the pitching changes and warmup times that this will add, you’re talking about a big upswing in game times.

2) While tradition is overplayed, you will have folks who will have issues with this, and some of those folks will be guys who would be pitching when this change would happen.

3) Fans like hitting, so long as runs aren’t cheap (and, to a lesser extent, so long as DHes aren’t scoring them). This will cut run scoring, even if you think there will be a DH or a pinch hitter each time through (which you should think). To make matters worse, this will greaten strikeouts, turning baseball into even more of a game of whiff-and-longball.

4) Beyond all this, you’ll have pitchers stop being stars as big as they are now. As good as Rivera is, he has never been as big as star as Clemens or Maddux or the Big Unit, and for good reason: he isn’t worth as much. And Rivera is about as good a reliever as there has ever been, so the shooting only goes lower. Even if you cut off a half run from a pitcher for becoming a reliever, he’ll throw likely about 30% fewer innings. It’s harder to make a star out of someone throwing 135 innings, especially since there will be more of these guys. It might make younger players not want to be pitchers. What real effect this will have, I have no idea; maybe the Pujolses and Hamiltons and Utleys will get bigger billing.

5) Related to this is that rosters below this level won’t get bigger, since those leagues can’t afford to do this. You can’t do this with a college roster; you can’t do this in independent leagues. You’re making two different kinds of baseball.

1) Games are already long enough as it is. With all the pitching changes and warmup times that this will add, you’re talking about a big upswing in game times.

I don’t like as reasons something that can be handled as a non-issue.  Most pitching changes would be between innings, and therefore have no game time impact.  You can also include penalties for making mid-inning pitching changes.  Given that you ALREADY made a between-inning pitching change, to then make a mid-inning pitching change is nothing short of insulting. 

Automatic one-ball to the batter for a mid-inning change, and two-ball for a second mid-inning change (during the game), and a three-ball count for any subsequent mid-inning change during the game.

***

2) While tradition is overplayed, you will have folks who will have issues with this…

Whatever, really, no?  You can say this about ANY rule change.

***

To make matters worse, this will greaten strikeouts, turning baseball into even more of a game of whiff-and-longball.
...
It might make younger players not want to be pitchers.

Very reasonable points.

***

You can’t do this with a college roster; you can’t do this in independent leagues.

Who cares?  Those leagues have one-starter per week.  And if all those leagues went to 7 innings, I wouldn’t care either.

While it would certainly be correct for teams/managers to do that, I don’t think we would see it as much as Neyer suggests.  It is still old school that you leave in your starter if he is pitching well. There is no way that we would see mediocre starters being lifted after 2 times through the order, even if a team had 16 or 17 pitchers on the roster.  Managers do not understand that most relievers are better than mediocre starters who have thrown 80 pitches but are facing the lineup for the third time, but are throwing a good game (say, 0-3 runs allowed).

How many times have I railed against managers for leaving in starters (especially in the NL, where they let them bat in close games and in high leverage situations) the 3rd or 4th time through the order, because they are pitching “well?” You think this mindset is going to change just because a team has 1 or 2 more relievers to work with?  No chance. Not for a while at least.

Would we see starters with shorter outings?  Sure we would, on the average. But would we see on a regular basis starters going 2-4 innings on a routine basis, just so a team can get some relievers in the game?  No chance.  None whatsoever.  At least not for many years…

It is still old school that you leave in your starter if he is pitching well.

Actually, the old school is to leave your starter if he is pitching well AND take him out if he is not.  It was very very very common practice for starters to throw fewer than 70 pitches AND more than 130 pitches.

The average over the last 60 years has always been 100 pitches per start, weirdly enough.  The major change is that the spread in pitches per start has gotten very narrow over the years.

Right now, pitchers are going to pitch at least 80 pitches unless they are pitching very poorly.  And they come out before 120 pitches, even if they are pitching very well.

With 16-17 pitchers on the roster, I think all that would change.  I think you might have one or two pitchers per team that might still look like today (maybe 80-90 pitches per start), and then the rest will drop substantially from there.

Starters pick up 1-2 mph on their fastball, or more, when converting to relief

All the studies that I’m aware of have found the difference to be <1 mph.

For example:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2010/04/whose_stuff_pla.php

Hey, on that note, look at what the Royals are doing:

http://bit.ly/bljIz8

My understanding was that there’s an unspoken gentleman’s agreement among managers that prevents them from throwing bullpen games when it’s not necessary.

TT: Uh, ever watched an independent league game, or followed an independent minor league? They have short seasons, sure, but not one starter a week. To put this in perspective, the top starter (or starters; they had two guys with 33 starts) on the 2009 Twins started 1.27 games per week of the season. The cross-town Saints’ leader (19) started 1.21 games per week of the season. The University of Minnesota leaders (three guys at 15) do reflect this, sort of, at 1.04. The schedule is weird for them early on, and I assume for other college teams; in the first 22 days, they played only 11 games, but then played 41 games in the next 64 days before some time off for another tournament, thus finishing off the year for 9 games in 15 days. The middle section, using a 4-man rotation (!), gives us 1.14 starts a week.

But why is this really important? College and independent leagues—and more and more the former—serve as development for the majors. Young pitchers won’t go to college anymore, where they have had higher returns, since they’ll need to be primed to throw only three innings at a time, something that’s hard to do on a college roster (looks like 22 men).

The end results of that? I don’t know, but I don’t see any reason to change things at this time.

Isn’t the real solution here to go to a sort of hockey-style (or NFL-style, if you prefer) active roster for each game? 

Right now, a team has up to 40 players on its “Major League” roster and 25 players on its “Active” roster.  Moving a player on the 40-man roster onto or off of the 25-man roster is a complicated process, loaded with rules about options, disabled lists, etc.  Why not eliminate all of that?  Just let a team declare a 25-man roster for each game, the way an NHL team declares a 20-man active roster for each hockey game. 

Before each game, the MLB team will announce their scratches--undoubtedly including the other starting pitchers in the rotation, maybe one or two bullpen pitchers who are too tired to go, and anybody with a minor injury but not on the DL.  A team would probably select about 8 pitchers and 17 non-pitchers for each game, opening up more possibilities for offensive or defensive substitutions late in the game (I personally think this would be great; others may disagree, since it’s a matter of taste).

If a player on the 40-man roster is not on the 25-man game roster on a particular day, he might play a minor-league game or he might sit the game out in the dugout or the press box.  Teams would probably keep rosters of 30 or 31 with the big league club, and assign the other 9 or 10 to the minors.

If you wanted to make it more interesting, you could set the “game roster” size as low as 20 or even 18, possibly with some leeway for extra innings and injuries.