Maybe The Sox Don't Need Another Starter and Reliever

[witesoxfan]

I read that back when it first came out and you're right there are many things it addresses on both sides of the issue. I do have some positives and negatives in relation to it.

 

negatives

 

1. Nolan Ryan. You really can't go by much of his training/pitching philosophies. This is like Micheal Jordan telling a 5'5" guy to dunk by just jumping because that's what I did. He is a gentic beast who did thing no one else could. His pitching came with Tom house and subsequently Larry Rothschild (homewood-flossmoor guys). This is the classic "towel drill" and throwing the football guys for pitching. Studies have shown how terrible these mechanics are for the shoulder and to a lesser extent the elbow. Just because aguy could throw 95 in his 40's doesn't mean everyone can.

 

On the positive side his ideas of how to train the lower legs and trunk as opposed to the arm are excellent and I really push for pitchers.

 

2. Vazquez uses his theories of training revolving around pushing the lactate level as justification. We know through research that lactate levels have nothing to do with strength/power/soreness/recovery or anything related to muscle function. Muscle fatigue mostly comes from a combination of a disruption of the calcium channels to activate the muscle and a reflex action from the interneurons in the spinal cord which connect to the individual motor units in a given muscle.

 

Again some of the power activities from the lower extremity are valid though.

 

Positives.

 

The key aspect to the whole article revolves around Glenn Fleisig's comments. He is one of the primary researchers in pitching today. He stated that pitchers should be pushed to the point of fatigue in training and pitching but not beyond it. Mechanics will breakdown and microtears will begin in the static support structures if this happens

 

This is the key concept about your idea. I agree tht pitchers should throw more. However, it should not be when they are fatigued. If they throw in a game a day or even two after a previous outing, they will accumulate the fatigue and the wear and tear will be too much and everything will breakdown.

 

I push for more throwing between starts but not at game intensity and definitely not with the large number of breaking pitches at that intensity that would be required to get MLB hitters out without proper rest

 

I just want to re-iterate how awesome you are.

[ptatc]

I just want to re-iterate how awesome you are.

Its more a factor of being old and being in the field forever but i appreciate the comment.

[iamshack]

I will say this...it's not like the current practices are keeping guys healthy either.

[ptatc]

I will say this...it's not like the current practices are keeping guys healthy either.

nope. this is why it's a huge field of research and why different people are still coming up with new models of mechanics. we are keeping them healthier as a whole.

 

I still thin Lillian idea of throwing more will be the one that wins out and we'll see it slowly increase over the next decade.

[dmbjeff]

I have always wondered why they don't flip flop the order in which pitchers pitch. RP type guys starting a game and going a few innings and letting the SP type guys finish out ball games. It does seem like the bullpen's of today really get rocked at the time when they have the most pressure and most on the line in terms of having a shot to finish out and win a game. I suppose you can argue that a RP just isn't as good typically as a starter, but often times, I think the pressure is their largest detriment to them being successful. Perhaps SP would be able to handle the pressure better at the end of the game than most RP's.

[black jack]

A few years ago, I wrote a paper, in which I advocated a different use of Professional baseball, pitching staffs. This year’s final game of the World Series reminded me of the hypothesis, which

I put forth then. The Giants used their Ace starter, Madison Bumgarner, in long relief, on his normal bullpen, side session day. We all know the results, and they were quite impressive.

 

The impetus for my hypothesis is that today’s starting pitchers are used so little, and yet make so much, that there should be a better way to utilize them. When a pitcher is only asked to pitch in one out

of every 5 games, and then only expected to go 6 innings, or around 110 pitches, which ever comes first, it should be obvious that teams are not getting much for their money.

 

This present day modus operendi requires 5 very expense starters, which is problematic, in itself.

However, when you then consider all of the vitally important relievers, which are required to provide effective late inning pitching, the whole system is just about as cost inefficient as one

could possibly imagine. Explaining that to an analyst, not steeped in baseball, would surely elicit a response of “head scratching” incredulity. It all begs the question; isn’t there a better way?

 

Well, that takes us back to the 7TH game of this year’s World Series. The Giants had a plan to use Bumgarner, in relief to close out the final game. They executed that plan to perfection.

He threw 68 pitches just two days after throwing 117, pitches in his previous start. This is precisely the way I assert that teams should manage their pitching staffs.

 

Pitchers routinely throw around 45 or 50 pitches, during their side session day, which comes a couple of days after their regular starts. My contention is that instead of throwing those pitches

in the bullpen, let them throw them in the game.

 

Now, I know that someone is going to object on the basis that those pitches, thrown in a game situation, might put to much stress on the pitcher’s arm. To that, I can only reply, “oh poor pitcher”.

Tell that to the old timer hurlers, who routinely threw close to double the amount of pitches, thrown by today's pitchers, every start, and did it every 3 days.

 

Over protecting a pitcher’s arm, can be just as detrimental as over taxing it. There is a point where too little work results in insufficient conditioning. It’s the very reason that a reliever, has to

work up to being able to start. He must develop the stamina, necessary to enable him to throw the additional pitches required. If a starter were only asked to throw 50 pitches in a game, that

would probably be about all you could extract from him, without risking injury. This principle is best expressed by the strength and fitness creed; “Use it, or lose it”.

 

So, how would this system of employing the current bullpen, “side session” pitches in game situations work? Teams would use two pitchers per game. That day’s “starter” would be expected to throw

around his usual 100 - 110 pitches. He would exit the game, and another pitcher would take his place, and throw what would be the equivilent of a “side session” 45, or 50 pitches. The following day,

you would repeat the same process, with two more starters.

 

At that point, you would have used all 4 of the starters, required for this system, and you may or may not have needed to use any bullpen pitchers. The third game begins to utilize the pen.

They would divide the workload, and pitch the entire game.

 

The 4TH game, returns to the first two pitchers, who shared the first game’s work load, only this time the roles are reversed. Pitcher A, who threw 100 pitches the first game will now be

asked to “relieve” pitcher B, who will start this game, and be expected to throw 100 pitches. Pitcher B is able to throw 100 pitches, as his previous appearance was the equivilant of a “side session,”

of merely 45 pitches. The 5Th game repeats the same system, this time with pitchers C and D, who worked in tandem, in game 2. They would reverse their respective roles, just as pitchers A and B did.

 

This system enables a team to use 4 starters, instead of 5, and requires fewer relievers. Moreover, the relievers do not have to be of the same quality, as they are not asked to pitch in virtually every

close game, unlike today’s method of depending upon the bullpen to pitch the final 3 innings. Therefore, they would not be key to every game’s outcome. How many great starts from Sale and Quintana,

did the Sox waste, because the bullpen couldn't preserve the lead?

 

The amount of money that could be saved by this method of managing a pitching staff, is tremendous, and could afford teams the payroll flexibility to upgrade other roster spots. Applying this principle to

the current situation, the front office could forget about looking for another starter, and more bullpen help. They could then use the money to acquire another outfielder, and be ready

to compete in 2015. Although, ideally the Sox would have 4 top starters, and it appears that they only have 3, at best. A staff of Sale, Quintana, Rodon and one solid RH starter, might work.

 

Of course, agents and the Players Union might object and attempt to thwart any such revolutionary idea, which might threaten the existing system, but that does not diminish the validity of the idea.

What do you gentlemen think of the concept and its feasibility?

 

 

 

 

WITCH!

BURN HIM!

[ptatc]

I have always wondered why they don't flip flop the order in which pitchers pitch. RP type guys starting a game and going a few innings and letting the SP type guys finish out ball games. It does seem like the bullpen's of today really get rocked at the time when they have the most pressure and most on the line in terms of having a shot to finish out and win a game. I suppose you can argue that a RP just isn't as good typically as a starter, but often times, I think the pressure is their largest detriment to them being successful. Perhaps SP would be able to handle the pressure better at the end of the game than most RP's.

This is one I've never heard before. My first thoughts are that unless you have a pre-determined number if innings/pitches for the reliever, you essentially have the same scenario as Lillian stated that you always have a group of pitchers together on a given day. Unless you have the "reliever" pitch every third day and the "starter" go every 5.

It's interesting, this way you have the "better" pitcher at the end of the game unless he fatigues. I guess that's the question, how long does the reliever go to ensure the starter is there at the end of the game?

 

It's one to cogitate upon.

[ptatc]

WITCH!

BURN HIM!

Actually it's the opposite. While I don't like the idea of throwing the side sessions in games on a regular basis. I think his idea of throwing more(but with lesser intensity) would benefit pitchers.

[SCCWS]

I have always wondered why they don't flip flop the order in which pitchers pitch. RP type guys starting a game and going a few innings and letting the SP type guys finish out ball games. It does seem like the bullpen's of today really get rocked at the time when they have the most pressure and most on the line in terms of having a shot to finish out and win a game. I suppose you can argue that a RP just isn't as good typically as a starter, but often times, I think the pressure is their largest detriment to them being successful. Perhaps SP would be able to handle the pressure better at the end of the game than most RP's.

 

 

Your idea seems pretty simple I think. You pitch your 7th inning guy in the first, your 8th in the 2nd and your starter 3-8 and bring in the closer for the 9th. Now what happens when the starter struggles in the 7th?? Now you are stuck bringing in the "other relief pitchers" trying to get to the closer. So then you pitch the other guys in the first and 2nd and hold 7th and 8th guys just in case the starter stumbles??

 

Bottom line it seems less effective than what they do today.

[dmbjeff]

I would pitch my traditional closer in the 1st inning against the best hitters, 1-4. Then your usual 7th inning guy in the 2nd or 3rd and then 8th inning in the 3rd or 4th to again face the 1-4 guys, etc and then bring in the traditional starter around the 4th or 5th and have them close it out. Now if you are down big early, maybe you don't bring in the good starter later and just give him the day off and go with a usual long reliever guy. By having your SP type guy get skipped on those occasions you are losing, it allows for your best 4 usual SP to get the bulk of the work and the usual 5th SP type often would probably get skipped which would lead to better pitchers out there typically. If your traditional closer needs a day off, you just bump everyone up an inning to get your typical bullpen guys their rest.

[ptatc]

I would pitch my traditional closer in the 1st inning against the best hitters, 1-4. Then your usual 7th inning guy in the 2nd or 3rd and then 8th inning in the 3rd or 4th to again face the 1-4 guys, etc and then bring in the traditional starter around the 4th or 5th and have them close it out. Now if you are down big early, maybe you don't bring in the good starter later and just give him the day off and go with a usual long reliever guy. By having your SP type guy get skipped on those occasions you are losing, it allows for your best 4 usual SP to get the bulk of the work and the usual 5th SP type often would probably get skipped which would lead to better pitchers out there typically. If your traditional closer needs a day off, you just bump everyone up an inning to get your typical bullpen guys their rest.

The problem with this scenario is that your bullpen guys must pitch everyday. When do you decide to put the mop up 12 pitcher from the pen in the game. Even the most durable relievers pitch in only 100 games, most in the 80 range.You are essentially throwing those game knowing you will lose. This will not go over well with the players or the fans.

[QuickJones81]

It's been brought up several times that running such a system would be problematic when trading and bringing in new players. I can't help but think that this will end up not being an issue by taking a look at football. 3-4, 4-3, cover 2 defenses don't use players interchangeably across schemes (nose tackles, DEs, OLBs), and it still works because the player pool is so vast that while you are limiting your options, you still can find people to fit your scheme. The biggest trouble comes at the point where you decide to switch schemes and need to overhaul personnel.

 

Being the trailblazer of a new scheme is very risky from the standpoint of minimizing your margin for error with your bosses simply because you deviated from the norm. However, if you find a scheme that places value on skills and traits that aren't valued in traditional schemes, suddenly you're tapping a talent pool with no competition to drive up cost. The essence of Moneyball. Victory goes to the bold my friends, not the cautious trend followers.

[ptatc]

It's been brought up several times that running such a system would be problematic when trading and bringing in new players. I can't help but think that this will end up not being an issue by taking a look at football. 3-4, 4-3, cover 2 defenses don't use players interchangeably across schemes (nose tackles, DEs, OLBs), and it still works because the player pool is so vast that while you are limiting your options, you still can find people to fit your scheme. The biggest trouble comes at the point where you decide to switch schemes and need to overhaul personnel.

 

Being the trailblazer of a new scheme is very risky from the standpoint of minimizing your margin for error with your bosses simply because you deviated from the norm. However, if you find a scheme that places value on skills and traits that aren't valued in traditional schemes, suddenly you're tapping a talent pool with no competition to drive up cost. The essence of Moneyball. Victory goes to the bold my friends, not the cautious trend followers.

Some of the issues you discuss in football are philosophical differences based on physical attributes. A 3-4 nose tackle is physically different than a 3 technique in a 4-3. A cover 2 safety has different physical attributes than a team that uses primarily cover 1.

 

In baseball pitching is pitching. Much if it is mental but it's also physical and the attributes are similar. People are always trying to exploit some of these tendencies such as a groundball pitcher in a small park but these are more team specific not an over all deficiency.

 

Out of the box thinking is always good to try to get advantage but so far in the post-PED era it looks like the best pitching wins.