It'll Take a Brave Manager to Change Mindset on Starters

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'm as critical of Ozzie as anybody outside of probably fathom. And believe me, if we don't make the playoffs this year I want his ass gone. But I can't get on him for what's happened to the bullpen to this point. NOBODY could imagine Thornton would be this bad after being the best non-closer in baseball for the last three years. I figured Sale would experience some growing pains. But he's been worse than most expected. Besides that, I blame KW much more than I do Ozzie for the mess that is the bullpen. He was the one that traded for Pena, signed Crain/Ohman to multi-year deals and left the farm so barren that we had to take a flier on Phil Humber.

[Milkman delivers]

Basing that on.....what exactly?

 

Every year in the past ten years, minus 2005.

[Milkman delivers]

11 games. Obviously, enough sample size.

 

No matter what, it's always a gut reaction on this site, isn't it? The same problem could happen in every game and when someone points it out, others will say that it's being based on the most recent set of games.

[greg775]

The A's can't hit. Pen needed a confidence booster. Compound that with pitchers need to last a whole season. Why is this hard to understand?

 

Oh and I could look like Nolan Ryan IF I HAD NEFTALI FELIZ IN MY PEN.

 

I understand that completely. I just happened to think that on these two occasions these games were pretty important to set a tone.

I think Mark and Danks woulda breezed through the ninth.

I'm not saying to do it all the time. I just think early games are important. I could be mistaken.

 

Lillian I loved your theory. Somebody should do an article on that or ask Bill James his opinion.

Awesome stuff.

Can you send it to Bill James and ask what he thinks of it?

I like your theory.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I understand that completely. I just happened to think that on these two occasions these games were pretty important to set a tone.

I think Mark and Danks woulda breezed through the ninth.

I'm not saying to do it all the time. I just think early games are important. I could be mistaken.

 

Lillian I loved your theory. Somebody should do an article on that or ask Bill James his opinion.

Awesome stuff.

Can you send it to Bill James and ask what he thinks of it?

I like your theory.

 

lol. You're hilarious, greg.

[justBLAZE]

Isn't Bobby Cox available?

 

I see what you did here.

[Dick Allen]

I understand that completely. I just happened to think that on these two occasions these games were pretty important to set a tone.

I think Mark and Danks woulda breezed through the ninth.

I'm not saying to do it all the time. I just think early games are important. I could be mistaken.

 

Lillian I loved your theory. Somebody should do an article on that or ask Bill James his opinion.

Awesome stuff.

Can you send it to Bill James and ask what he thinks of it?

I like your theory.

Isn't Bill James a consultant for the Red Sox?

[Lillian]

Lillian I loved your theory. Somebody should do an article on that or ask Bill James his opinion.

Awesome stuff.

Can you send it to Bill James and ask what he thinks of it?

I like your theory.

 

I'm glad you like the idea. It seems pretty compelling to me. It's a lot easier to find and pay 6 really good pitchers, than it is 12.

As I stated, I wrote a paper on it which I still have a copy of somewhere. I gave it to Don Cooper at the end of the 2009 season.

I have no idea what he thought about it, or even if he really read it, although he promised to do so.

 

I'd be very interested to get the input from some of the astute observers on this board, if they would carefully consider the concept.

[southsider2k5]

Nolan Ryan couldn't be a GM here. If someone made a mistake he'd put them in a headlock and knock the snot out of them

 

Could you imagine him and Ozzie in meetings...

 

"Ozzie where did you get that black eye?"

[caulfield12]

I'm glad you like the idea. It seems pretty compelling to me. It's a lot easier to find and pay 6 really good pitchers, than it is 12.

As I stated, I wrote a paper on it which I still have a copy of somewhere. I gave it to Don Cooper at the end of the 2009 season.

I have no idea what he thought about it, or even if he really read it, although he promised to do so.

 

I'd be very interested to get the input from some of the astute observers on this board, if they would carefully consider the concept.

 

 

A lot of Little League coaches have developed and morphed the idea to have their two best starters go 3 innings back-to-back each game

 

I remember most leagues had a 10 IP limit per week, something like that.

 

It's kind of like battling the teachers' unions over tenure. As soon as a single pitcher went down with injury who was a part of your revolutionary system, it would be scrapped. Heck, the World Baseball Classic has been put in jeopardy (and certainly in terms of full participation by all the best American-born players) due to the extra wear and tear of adding 10-14 more days of pitching and injury risk into the season.

 

I think the only way it could be adopted would be if you could find a battery of surgeons like Jobe and Andrews who supported the idea that allocating pitches thrown in this manner would lead to fewer or the same amount of arm/shoulder/elbow/labrum injuries, not MORE.

 

While I agree with the fact that any team picking their 6 best pitchers out of 12, from a statistical probability theory, has some credence...it also falls to pieces when you consider all those starts where the pitcher gets knocked out in under 3 innings pitched. If one of the two guys simply didn't have it, you can't radically recalibrate their pitches thrown allotment without seriously having to rearrange the entire "rotation" from week to week.

 

Then you run the risk of a pitcher coming out of the top 6 or entering the top 6 having an injury because he hasn't fully adjusted. It's hard to imagine your #7 guy getting the kind of work he'd require (it would be all mop-up/blow out) on the major league roster. He'd probably have to be waiting in AAA getting a regular and consistent workload of pitches so he would be ready to jump into the "rotation."

 

So then you'd have agents for pitchers 7-9 on the roster feeling their clients were getting buried in AAA because their workloads were less (not being able to accrue service time and get to arb/FA) or not having the ability to showcase their talents, like in the 50's and 60's when players like Roberto Clemente were "hidden" in the minor league systems of loaded major league teams (in that case, the Brooklyn Dodgers).

Edited April 14, 2011 by caulfield12

[greg775]

I think you two had nice long posts and you provide an intelligent discussion rather than the simple short, mean, Ozzie sucks posts and MT sucks posts in the game threads.

[Lillian]

One of the other points that I made in the paper I wrote on this subject was that 5 days in between pitching appearances is probably not the optimum time to achieve the best performance.

I made that assertion based upon the limited understanding that I have about sports medicine and human physiology.

 

It doesn't take the body that long to recover from strenuous physical activity. Intense weight training is probably about as demanding as any physical activity there is. A weight lifter, or body builder will routinely take 2 days rest in between training any given body part. Squats and other leg exercises are probably the most grueling exercises one can do. Even those exercises can best be performed, with the least amount of soreness, if done every 3rd or 4th day.

 

Pitching 45 to 90 pitches should not be near enough to cause injury, and therefore an athlete should be able to repeat that effort after a couple of days of rest. It is widely recognized that the more frequently the body is asked to perform a task, the better condition in which it will become. Of course, there is a point at which the body is taxed too frequently, and can't sufficiently recover, but 2 or 3 days should be enough rest. In fact, pitchers do throw a side session in between starts. The more frequent performance of a given physical activity, short of over taxing or injuring the body, should result in a better conditioned athlete, and improve the skill performed. How sharp would a basketball player's shooting skills be, if he played once every 5 days?

 

We all know how much more pitchers used to throw in years past. Many of us have long been critical of this notion that a well conditioned athlete can't safely throw more than 100 pitches any more frequently than once every 5 days. If you never allow the body to become conditioned to anything more, it won't be. However, that is not to say that the body can't be conditioned to do more.

[caulfield12]

One of the other points that I made in the paper I wrote on this subject was that 5 days in between pitching appearances is probably not the optimum time to achieve the best performance.

I made that assertion based upon the limited understanding that I have about sports medicine and human physiology.

 

It doesn't take the body that long to recover from strenuous physical activity. Intense weight training is probably about as demanding as any physical activity there is. A weight lifter, or body builder will routinely take 2 days rest in between training any given body part. Squats and other leg exercises are probably the most grueling exercises one can do. Even those exercises can best be performed, with the least amount of soreness, if done every 3rd or 4th day.

 

Pitching 45 to 90 pitches should not be near enough to cause injury, and therefore an athlete should be able to repeat that effort after a couple of days of rest. It is widely recognized that the more frequently the body is asked to perform a task, the better condition in which it will become. Of course, there is a point at which the body is taxed too frequently, and can't sufficiently recover, but 2 or 3 days should be enough rest. In fact, pitchers do throw a side session in between starts. The more frequent performance of a given physical activity, short of over taxing or injuring the body, should result in a better conditioned athlete, and improve the skill performed. How sharp would a basketball player's shooting skills be, if he played once every 5 days?

 

We all know how much more pitchers used to throw in years past. Many of us have long been critical of this notion that a well conditioned athlete can't safely throw more than 100 pitches any more frequently than once every 5 days. If you never allow the body to become conditioned to anything more, it won't be. However, that is not to say that the body can't be conditioned to do more.

 

 

It seems that baseball coaches have not figured out yet that pitching is first and foremost a mechanical skill activity rather than a strength activity. This idea, this misunderstanding has held back and probably ruined more pitchers than any single thing.

 

Dick Mills

 

 

[JohnCangelosi]

A lot of Little League coaches have developed and morphed the idea to have their two best starters go 3 innings back-to-back each game

 

I remember most leagues had a 10 IP limit per week, something like that.

 

It's kind of like battling the teachers' unions over tenure. As soon as a single pitcher went down with injury who was a part of your revolutionary system, it would be scrapped. Heck, the World Baseball Classic has been put in jeopardy (and certainly in terms of full participation by all the best American-born players) due to the extra wear and tear of adding 10-14 more days of pitching and injury risk into the season.

 

I think the only way it could be adopted would be if you could find a battery of surgeons like Jobe and Andrews who supported the idea that allocating pitches thrown in this manner would lead to fewer or the same amount of arm/shoulder/elbow/labrum injuries, not MORE.

 

While I agree with the fact that any team picking their 6 best pitchers out of 12, from a statistical probability theory, has some credence...it also falls to pieces when you consider all those starts where the pitcher gets knocked out in under 3 innings pitched. If one of the two guys simply didn't have it, you can't radically recalibrate their pitches thrown allotment without seriously having to rearrange the entire "rotation" from week to week.

 

Then you run the risk of a pitcher coming out of the top 6 or entering the top 6 having an injury because he hasn't fully adjusted. It's hard to imagine your #7 guy getting the kind of work he'd require (it would be all mop-up/blow out) on the major league roster. He'd probably have to be waiting in AAA getting a regular and consistent workload of pitches so he would be ready to jump into the "rotation."

 

So then you'd have agents for pitchers 7-9 on the roster feeling their clients were getting buried in AAA because their workloads were less (not being able to accrue service time and get to arb/FA) or not having the ability to showcase their talents, like in the 50's and 60's when players like Roberto Clemente were "hidden" in the minor league systems of loaded major league teams (in that case, the Brooklyn Dodgers).

 

If you remember the beginning of the 1990 season, there was a shortened spring training due to an owners lockout if I recall correctly and it forced us to pitch guys for like 3 innings max to start the year....and we got off to a great start and pretty much carried it through the entire year. Too bad there wasn't a wild card that year as we had a special team in 1990.

 

[Lillian]

A lot of Little League coaches have developed and morphed the idea to have their two best starters go 3 innings back-to-back each game

 

I remember most leagues had a 10 IP limit per week, something like that.

 

It's kind of like battling the teachers' unions over tenure. As soon as a single pitcher went down with injury who was a part of your revolutionary system, it would be scrapped. Heck, the World Baseball Classic has been put in jeopardy (and certainly in terms of full participation by all the best American-born players) due to the extra wear and tear of adding 10-14 more days of pitching and injury risk into the season.

 

I think the only way it could be adopted would be if you could find a battery of surgeons like Jobe and Andrews who supported the idea that allocating pitches thrown in this manner would lead to fewer or the same amount of arm/shoulder/elbow/labrum injuries, not MORE.

 

While I agree with the fact that any team picking their 6 best pitchers out of 12, from a statistical probability theory, has some credence...it also falls to pieces when you consider all those starts where the pitcher gets knocked out in under 3 innings pitched. If one of the two guys simply didn't have it, you can't radically recalibrate their pitches thrown allotment without seriously having to rearrange the entire "rotation" from week to week.

 

Then you run the risk of a pitcher coming out of the top 6 or entering the top 6 having an injury because he hasn't fully adjusted. It's hard to imagine your #7 guy getting the kind of work he'd require (it would be all mop-up/blow out) on the major league roster. He'd probably have to be waiting in AAA getting a regular and consistent workload of pitches so he would be ready to jump into the "rotation."

 

So then you'd have agents for pitchers 7-9 on the roster feeling their clients were getting buried in AAA because their workloads were less (not being able to accrue service time and get to arb/FA) or not having the ability to showcase their talents, like in the 50's and 60's when players like Roberto Clemente were "hidden" in the minor league systems of loaded major league teams (in that case, the Brooklyn Dodgers).

 

You raise interesting points. I don't really see that much of a problem regarding the seventh guy, as I think the staff could retain a bullpen with a few arms.

However, this system certainly wouldn't require 11 or 12 pitchers.

Concerning the issue of a bad start by one of your 6 starters: You would have the option of removing him earlier, if you had a capable starter ready to throw 45 pitches. Then you could turn the game over to your bullpen. Isn't that better than having to make a guy have to try to get in at least enough innings to save the bullpen, or turn the game over to your "long man", who is likely not all that great. In this system, you could pull your starter early enough that you might avoid a blowout. Moreover, that gives your bullpen some of that need work, about which you are understandably concerned.

 

Do you really think that an injury is any more likely because of this system? The whole idea is based upon the assumption that this would not pose any additional injury risk, so that is a critical point which would have to be carefully examined, as you suggested.

 

Regarding the feelings of agents: Would you really care if they or their clients felt slighted? I'd rather see a more cost effective system, which would afford the team more payroll flexibility.

You could pay your 6 starters more, if you didn't have to tie up money in an expensive bullpen. Moreover, you would be getting a better return on the investment if your starters could perform a couple of times a week.

 

At any rate, your thoughful comments are well taken and appreciated

[103 mph screwball]

Well, the current bullpen slump has me frustrated to the point of looking for creative solutions. How about a six man rotation and letting the pitchers go 120+ pitches and complete more games. Not sure on the math, but wouldn't that result in similar IP per season?