What about this?

[yvesdereuter]

OK, the way specialization has affected pitching in MLB, it makes you wonder if something further could, should, or even will be done. Basically, as it has evolved, youve seen specialization at the end of the game in the form of a closer, a setup man, middle relief, etc. But what about having a designated starter similar to the way you have a designated closer? So basically, the way it would work is youd have 2 or 3 designated starters that would only pitch a couple of innings off the top.

And then after they pitch their one or two innings, then youd bring in you more conventional starters who you hope log more innings.

Thoughts?


I suppose too, you could have shifts where guys are pitching 3 innings at a time. But that wouldnt work if you want your best pitchers (ie the guys who would typically be your starters) to pitch the most innings.

[SPTO]

Re: What about this?

I've heard this theory bandied about from time to time and I don't really like it. It reminds me of teams that for one reason or another have to go Johnny Full Staff during a game. (meaning a long reliever starts and pitches a couple or so innings then the rest of the bullpen gets into the game) It just looks amateurish IMO.

Besides, the thinking within some quarters of MLB is moving away from that. Nolan Ryan wants the starters in Texas to go deeper into games and the Twins' plan this season is to up the innings for their starters as the year goes on.

In fact, Nolan Ryan is leading a small contingent of baseball savvy people that think the four man rotation could make a comeback. He believes that todays pitchers can handle the load. It's all in the conditioning. Young pitchers today are being ruined by pitch counts and being babied in the minor leagues. Are you seriously going to say that guys in Ryan's generation were better equipped to pitch 100+ pitches per outing then the kids today?

[yvesdereuter]

Re: What about this?

I've heard this theory bandied about from time to time and I don't really like it. It reminds me of teams that for one reason or another have to go Johnny Full Staff during a game. (meaning a long reliever starts and pitches a couple or so innings then the rest of the bullpen gets into the game) It just looks amateurish IMO.

Besides, the thinking within some quarters of MLB is moving away from that. Nolan Ryan wants the starters in Texas to go deeper into games and the Twins' plan this season is to up the innings for their starters as the year goes on.

In fact, Nolan Ryan is leading a small contingent of baseball savvy people that think the four man rotation could make a comeback. He believes that todays pitchers can handle the load. It's all in the conditioning. Young pitchers today are being ruined by pitch counts and being babied in the minor leagues. Are you seriously going to say that guys in Ryan's generation were better equipped to pitch 100+ pitches per outing then the kids today?

Basically, the way it would work as per what I mentioned is youd take a couple of relievers to start the game. And then youd insert the more conventional starter in the 2nd or 3rd. And basically, that would basically mean theyre going an inning or two later. What makes this more viable is the fact that you almost never have complete games anymore.

The 4 man rotation wouldnt preclude doing something like this. Its kind of a way to closer manage your pitching staff since you reduce the uncertainty that currently exists related to guessing when your starter will fatigue. Also, the way some pitchers are well suited to close and the way some starters typically struggle in the 1st inning (eg Tom Glavine), you might improve the constistency over the course of the game by lining guys up innings they are well suited to pitch. In other words, you might have some setup men or middle relievers who are better at pitching the first inning.

[RAZRr1275]

Re: What about this?

I don't like this at all. You'd be getting rid of set up men, closers, saves, and complete games all at the same time. If your real starter goes 6-7 innings the game is already over.

[yvesdereuter]

Re: What about this?

I don't like this at all. You'd be getting rid of set up men, closers, saves, and complete games all at the same time. If your real starter goes 6-7 innings the game is already over.

Exactly. It means your starters are pitching deeper into the game. And theres really no such thing as a complete game anyway. Its part of what I mentioned at the outset of this being an era of specialization. What you will get however, most likely, is more of your conventional starters (who are inserted in the 2nd) being involved in more decisions. But, no, you wouldnt be gidding rid of closers. Youd probably shift the middle relief or set up guys to the beginning of the game.

[rsox]

Re: What about this?

Your starter is not really pitching deeper into games when they are coming in later into games. It is still the same system just in reverse order.

[yvesdereuter]

Re: What about this?

Your starter is not really pitching deeper into games when they are coming in later into games. It is still the same system just in reverse order.

I realize that. But with the starter pitching later, he is going to be stronger later into the game. And for that reason, the late game maneuvering is more manageable.

[RAZRr1275]

Re: What about this?

Exactly. It means your starters are pitching deeper into the game. And theres really no such thing as a complete game anyway. Its part of what I mentioned at the outset of this being an era of specialization. What you will get however, most likely, is more of your conventional starters (who are inserted in the 2nd) being involved in more decisions. But, no, you wouldnt be gidding rid of closers. Youd probably shift the middle relief or set up guys to the beginning of the game.

You would be getting rid of closers. If you had your middle, long, and setup relievers pitching the beginnning of the game a 6-7 inning start will finish it up. There really would'nt be much of a point in carrying more than 3-4 relievers then.

[yvesdereuter]

Re: What about this?

You would be getting rid of closers. If you had your middle, long, and setup relievers pitching the beginnning of the game a 6-7 inning start will finish it up. There really would'nt be much of a point in carrying more than 3-4 relievers then.

No, you would not be getting rid of your closer. Starters usually pitch 6 or 7 innings. Besides, I dont see whats so bad about reducing the need to carry relievers. And actually, youd be putting them into the beginning of the game rather than the end of the game. So, ok, lets say your designated starter pitches 1 inning and your more conventional starter (who would come in in the 2nd) pitches 6 innings, which isnt atypical. That would mean youd still have 2 innings left for a set up guy or a closer. Or if the starter is still going strong he could pitch longer.

[dkgojackets]

Re: What about this?

You have a lot more flexibility with your bullpen when you have them all available for certain situations in the late innings.

[sabresfan]

Re: What about this?

No such thing as a complete game? Tell that to Roy Halladay, half of his starts are complete games and most others he gets to the eighth.

[pfunk880]

Re: What about this?

No such thing as a complete game? Tell that to Roy Halladay, half of his starts are complete games and most others he gets to the eighth.

Halladay is a dying breed... I wish there were more pitchers out there like him.

[yvesdereuter]

Re: What about this?

No such thing as a complete game? Tell that to Roy Halladay, half of his starts are complete games and most others he gets to the eighth.

Do you know what an outlier is?

[yvesdereuter]

Re: What about this?

You have a lot more flexibility with your bullpen when you have them all available for certain situations in the late innings.

Finally, a valid observation. Youre right. That might be the case but if the bullpen pitchers are better when pitching in the first, you might sacrifice flexibility for quality. I know it seems like Ive been an advocate of this but in reality if you look at my prior posts to this, Im more cleaning up inaccuracies. But I agree with you. Its a valid observation, that is one of the tradeoffs. This idea kind of hinges on the fact that a pitcher typically pitches 6 or 7 innings but they dont always. And when they dont make it 6 innings, you would have already used a bullpen option in the 1st. Thats no doubt a valid observation.

I still think its an idea worth entertaining though based on the fact that you might improve the quality of performence by having roles more defined.

[RAZRr1275]

Re: What about this?

No, you would not be getting rid of your closer. Starters usually pitch 6 or 7 innings. Besides, I dont see whats so bad about reducing the need to carry relievers. And actually, youd be putting them into the beginning of the game rather than the end of the game. So, ok, lets say your designated starter pitches 1 inning and your more conventional starter (who would come in in the 2nd) pitches 6 innings, which isnt atypical. That would mean youd still have 2 innings left for a set up guy or a closer. Or if the starter is still going strong he could pitch longer.

I see what you mean now. But what's the point in switching it up? Why not carry the same amount of relievers that you carry now? You don't need that many bench guys. Why have a guy start for only 1 inning? In my opinion it's pretty much wasted effort. How does this help you win games?