This is a crazy idea that no major league team will adopt in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, I think it's a good idea. The reason it won't be adopted is because it's unconventional, not because it wouldn't work. Start here:
1. Teams want to get as many innings as possible out of their best pitchers.
2. Teams today get fewer innings out of their best pitchers than at any other time in the history of baseball.
3. Statistics show that pitchers are less effective each successive time they face a batter in the same game.
To clarify that third point, there is a "times-through-the-order" penalty that affects pitchers, independent of pitch counts and tired arms. When a pitcher faces the same batter a second time, he's less effective than he was the first time. If he pitches to that same batter a third time, he'll be less effective yet.
I was recently re-reading Bill James' New Historical Abstract. In his entry on Don Sutton, James suggested that teams could get more out of their top pitchers by using a three-man rotation with very strict pitch counts. As I read James' suggestion, I considered the three points above, and I think his idea has merit.
In 2015, Clayton Kershaw led MLB in innings pitched, 232 2/3. That's the fewest innings ever by a league leader, other than strike seasons. The average of the top 10 in IP was 223.8. That's also the lowest for a non-strike season. The numbers get lower almost every season. In five-year blocks:
A generation ago, teams would get about 37 more innings per year out of their best pitchers. In the '70s, teams routinely got over 300 innings from their top pitchers. How can modern teams optimize their usage of pitching talent?
I think Bill James' idea holds promise: a three-man rotation. James himself revisited the idea last year, but my take is slightly different. I would suggest that a team's optimal pitcher usage might look like this:
1. Three-man rotation
The team's best pitcher would start once every three days, rather than once every five. However, he would be pulled from a game if any of the following apply:
1. He has gone through the order twice
2a. He has thrown 80 pitches, and
2b. Isn't in the middle of an at-bat
3. He's getting hit
That's not a workload that is going to kill anybody, but it might actually boost the total number of innings pitched. A pitcher who stays healthy might start 54 games. If he averages four innings per start, that's 216 innings, a touch less than what a top starter does today. But if he averages five innings per start, that's 270 IP, which is more than we've seen since the '90s. I think the best pitchers, the Kershaws and Max Scherzers and David Prices, would pretty regularly top 240. Starters average roughly 16 pitches per inning (the best a little less), so if the pitcher is having a good day, the pitch count shouldn't be an issue.
This might even keep pitchers healthier. Last year, Kershaw threw at least 100 pitches 23 times. Pulling starters out of the game earlier might dramatically reduce stress on their arms. In fact, pitcher health was James' primary reasoning in suggesting the three-man rotation.
2. Long relief
If the starting rotation shrinks from five to three, what happens to your fourth and fifth starters? They become long relievers, going once through the order in each game pitched. They might throw 2-3 innings every other day, about 200 innings per season. Their workload hasn't changed much, but they'll be more effective now, because they're only going through the order once and they're not saving their arms for the late innings.
3. Set up pitchers and closers
If the starter goes 5-6 innings, and the long reliever lasts 2-3 innings, you can bring in your best reliever to close out the ninth. If the starter and long reliever get chased after four innings and two, respectively, you turn to your bullpen for the final three innings. Your remaining relievers get used the way they always have.
Why This Works
1. Starters are more efficient because they never go a third time through the order.
2. The top three starters may pitch more innings.
3. The top three starters may suffer fewer injuries.
4. The fourth and fifth starters pitch more effectively as long relievers.
Even if the number of innings pitched by the top three starters on the staff failed to increase, teams would still improve, because those starters are pitching the right innings. No one's going through the order three times, which improves efficiency. This method also increases the number of innings pitched by relievers, and relievers are more effective than starters. Average relievers have the same ERA as good starters. Can your fifth starter become an average reliever? Drop half a run off his ERA.
An even more extreme model might dispense with a starting rotation altogether, with all pitching appearances lasting three innings or less. It's not practical right now, but it would probably work under the right conditions. I hate pitching changes, especially mid-inning pitching changes. I went to a game last year in which the Red Sox used nine pitchers, and it was infuriating. But I think this method of pitcher use would be a winning strategy.
Both of these models would destroy some traditional pitching statistics. The pitcher win would go nuts. Starters would get more no-decisions, but if Clayton Kershaw starts 54 games, he could win 25. Maybe even 30. Complete games would go extinct and, perhaps most sadly, shutouts, no-hitters, and perfect games would disappear. What fan hasn't sat through the early innings of a game, mentally keeping track of whether those accomplishments are still on the table? Then again, combined shutouts, no-hitters and perfect games are still a lot of fun. And if your only goal is to win games, getting more innings out of your best pitchers, and getting the right innings out of your pitchers, is worth the cost.
Leave a Comment