Storyline: There’s been a worldwide system in the MLB when dealing with pitching. However, is there a better way of doing things? A way that could save money and arms is explained in this article. Written by Ted Mitchell, St. Augustine, Florida.
For over a century, MLB teams have used the same, lack-luster methods to win games. They have resisted innovation and attempts to change the way the game is played. In recent years, some teams have tried to develop new strategies using statistical analysis as their backbone. No one has come up with a perfect system-yet. This article will discuss how changing traditional pitching strategies can lead to a complete shift in how the game works, and how teams can be beaten.
Courtesy: kansascity.com
The most recent innovators are the Tampa Bay Rays and Kansas City Royals. They have changed the way their starting pitchers face lineups by limiting the amount of times their starters see the opposing lineup to twice during a game and pulling the starter in favor of better match-ups coming out of the bullpen. The reasoning behind it is that hitters’ OPS and HR/9 innings rises per at-bat versus the same starting pitcher, as shown by the chart below.
The starting pitcher ERAs for Tampa Bay and Kansas City are noteworthy, as the Royals’ has risen from 3.60 last season to 4.26 through 98 games played this season, and the Rays’ has remained fairly similar, going from 3.48 last season to 3.43 through 101 games played. Their bullpen ERAs have gone in opposite directions with the Royals’ dropping from 3.30 to 2.13, and the Rays’ rising from 3.71 to 3.76.
Therefore, for the Royals, handing the ball over to their bullpen early on has resulted in fewer runs late in games and, consequentially, more wins. On the other hand, for the Rays, their bullpen hasn’t been good enough to hold opposing teams at bay in the last few innings.
Onto the offensive side of things. Tampa Bay is ranked 28th in total runs scored and 27th in team batting average. With these stats, their offense is to blame for their inability to dominate the AL East. Kansas City, on the other hand, is ranked 7th and 2nd overall in total runs scored and team batting average, respectively. The Royals’ potent offense combined with their new pitching system has resulted in total domination of the American League.
Courtesy: taurassports.com
The Rays haven’t had the offense to back them up, but their pitching has kept them in the hunt. Both teams’ new strategies and recent success has forced me to ask, “How can teams learn from what they are doing, and how can their strategy be improved to fit all small to mid-level market teams and, at the same time, turn them into long-term contenders?”
My strategy combines the Rays’ and Royals’ philosophies along with others while also improving the health and longevity of major league arms. This might sound complicated at first, but I will break the whole process down. Essentially, pitchers would have a set pitch count between 46-60, ideally staying near the middle of that range with an absolute cap at 60. According to PitchSmart, this is the recommended range for a 17-18 year old pitcher to stay within in order to be ready to pitch again after only two days rest.
This pitch count would, in theory, get the starter through roughly three innings, since the average pitch count per inning is about 15. Ideally, he would only see the opposing lineup once, but might see the top of the lineup twice if there are a couple of hits. Once three innings is up, or 60 pitches is hit, the starter’s night is done. The process is then repeated for the middle reliever, who should be able to take the team through the sixth inning. The last three innings then becomes discretionary; if your team is up by several runs, or down by several, repeat the process again to get through nine, using three pitchers total in the game.
Strategies can change depending on the score. If the game is close, a pitcher can be brought in to handle each inning such as a set up or closer. Another option is that a pitcher can be used for two of the innings, then bring in the closer. This process can be repeated on a day-to-day basis, with the closer being any interchangeable group of pitchers.
Most rosters consist of twelve pitchers; so in general, a rotation could be constructed with nine pitchers with three pitching per game for three days in a row. This gives the pitchers the recommended two days off, and also allows for three extra pitchers to fill the void in case pitch counts are hit early, or if a pitcher needs to be taken out early, or to close out a game.
This may sound like a lot of arms being used per game, and that by July, all pitchers will be suffering from arm injuries. But, this will actually prevent arm issues, as pitch counts will be much less than what pitchers have become accustomed to, and there will be more days off with the ability to shuffle rosters. For example, after every four rotations, three minor leaguers can be swapped for three fatigued pitchers. Thus, giving them an extra day off, and letting some minor leaguers show there stuff at the big league level.
Are these just arbitrary numbers that won’t be effective? With statistics supporting the facts that hitters’ OPS and HR/9 innings decrease as he sees a pitcher less times during a game, and the sharp difference between bullpen and starter ERAs, this system will work over the course of a season, and be almost unstoppable during the postseason. Imagine three to four relievers with fast, hard breaking stuff pitching to a team during the cold month of October.
The goal of the entire organization would be focused around winning, rather than individual accomplishments. There would be no more complete game shutouts or innings pitched leaders, no saves leaders or strikeout leaders, and maybe no Cy Young Award Winners. These thoughts may haunt the traditionalists, but isn’t the goal of baseball to win championships instead of attaining individual accomplishments?
The minor league system would stay pretty much the same. The ability to trade young starting pitchers to teams who still use the traditional system would be intact. This has big implications too, as starters who convert to relievers generally perform much better as relievers, such as Tim Lincecum, Andrew Miller, Neftali Feliz, Dennis Eckersley, etc.
Imagine the different combinations of pitchers that could be used during a game. A soft-throwing, crafty left-hander could start the game, then, a hard-throwing right-hander could follow. To finish, another lefty could be brought in. There are countless possibilities with a bullpen full of different style pitchers. Closers, and relievers in general, are more successful than starters because it
Courtesy: blogs.denversports.com
is a change for the hitter. It’s a different motion, a different speed, different timing, different sets of pitches, etc.
This would also have huge salary implications for teams, which helps out the small and mid-market level teams with budget constraints. Rather than overpaying for starters, who easily rake in $10 to $20 million per year, teams could focus on getting solid pitchers who would be paid at the reliever rate to do the same job.
Pitchers like Pat Neshek ($5.5 m/yr), Boone Logan ($5.5 m/yr), Jordan Walden ($2.675 m/yr), Vance Worley ($2.45 m/yr), Trevor Rosenthal ($535K/yr), Dellin Betances ($507K/yr), are a fraction of the what elite starters are worth but give you just the same production. This means more money can be spent on offense, which in turn means more runs and more wins.
It’s time for teams to stop living in the past and adopt a new method to become a contender. A high powered offense accompanied with this pitching system adds up to long term sustainability and a culture of winning that can result in more division takeovers immediately.
