|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 3, 2017 19:30:36 GMT -5
Here is a 12-man pitching staff based on the following principles:
. Pitchers pitch better in shorter spurts.
. Most starting pitchers have a number of pitches above which they don't pitch as well.
. Relievers can pitch 81 games a year if they are used every other day.
So here is how to arrange a 12-man pitching staff so everyone gets enough rest.
Let's begin with four starters, whom we'll call S-1, S-2, S-3 and S-4.
Then let's have four relievers who are capable of pitching a fair number of innings per game. These would not be called long relievers or middle relievers, but let's call them R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4. Maybe R2-D2 if necessary!
Then let's have four finishers (what are now called set up men and closers). We'll call them F-1, F-2, F-3 and F-4.
The starters now pitch every fourth game (every fourth or fifth day). The relievers also pitched every fourth game, although that could be changed on occasion as circumstances dictate. Two finishers pitch every other game as needed.
With the Giants, let's put some names to these guys:
S-1 -- Madison Bumgarner, R-1 -- George Kontos, F-1 -- Hunter Strickland, F-2 -- Mark Melancon
S-2 -- Johnny Cueto, R-2 -- Josh Osich, F-3 -- Derek Law, F-4 -- Will Smith
S-3 -- Matt Moore, R-3 -- Matt Cain, F-1 -- Hunter Strickland, F-2 -- Mark Melancon
S-4 -- Jeff Samardzija, R-4 -- Steven Okert F-3 -- Derek Law, F-4 -- Will Smith
So what happens? The four starters get somewhere between 180 innings (4 1/2 innings per each of 40 starts) and 240 innings (6 innings per each of 40 starts). The four relievers get between 40 innings (1 inning per 40 appearances) and 100 innings (2 1/2 innings per each of 40 appearances). The four finishers get around 80 innings (1 inning per 80 appearances).
The pitchers all stay fresh, and they are used with variable innings based on the game situation. Adjustments would need to be made in the case of extra innings, but that wouldn't be overly difficult. With the exception of emergencies, the pitchers would know how they are going to be used.
In the Giants' instance, Ty Blach could slip into almost any role in case of injury -- or roles could be adjusted accordingly. Other pitchers including Corey Gearrin could be slipped in as well.
Because of days off, the starters and relievers would be pitching every fourth day about half the time and every fifth the other half. Obiously the primary "closer" (Melancon) would get fewer save opportunities than usual, but by pitching in 80 games, he would still get quite a few. Maybe he wouldn't be needed in a blowout game, so he would move on to the next day, with F-4 (Will Smith) moving down as well.
The starters should be able to pitch their most effective innings, and the relievers would receive regular work. In fact, the whole staff would get regular work and be pretty clear on its roles.
Let's use some examples here:
Madison Bumgarner sometimes has trouble in his first 25 pitches, but from 26 to 75 pitches he pitches his best. When he gets up around 75 pitches, the staff begins to watch him closely.
Johnny Cueto also can get off to a slow start, but he's at his best from pitch 26 to pitch 50. He's still pretty good on pitches 51 trough pitch 100, so he is treated similarly to Madison.
Matt Moore does his best pitching on pitches 26 to 50 and also from pitch 76 to pitch 100. He too would be monitored after 50 pitches.
Jeff Samardzija pitches best from pitches 26 through 75. He would be monitored accordingly.
The four starters could likely average over 200 innings each if healthy. With 40 starts each, they would have ample opportunities for wins. The idea with the four pitchers per day is to get as many lefty-lefty and righty-righty matchups as is practical, as the opponent is forced to react to the varied pitching matchups.
For the most part, the pitchers are pitching as few or fewer innings per game, and they have a clear, consistent role. When changes are necessitated by game conditions, they can be made according to situation.
The primary closer won't get quite as many save opportunities, but he'll likely pitch more innings and still have the opportunity to make a big contribution. If the starter and reliever are having great days, the finishers can be used less or even not at all. Thus the primary closer can catch up on his save opportunities if he isn't used in a low-leverage game. The saves the closer does have may be higher-leverage saves, increasing his contribution.
It's not perfect, but how would you like to have Madison Bumgarner and Johnny Cueto starting 80 games between them? As for saves and holds, the idea is that the starters and relievers might pitch even better, increasing wins and therefor hold and save opportunities.
Since there would be a secondary closer, an injury to the primary closer wouldn't be as devastating. Clearly the case of characters (pitchers) would make some difference in how each pitcher would be used, but the model would be as shown above.
Arm injuries would quite possibly go down, especially among the finishers who would get more regular work and have fewer arm stress situations to handle. Relievers tend not to pitch well on their third straight day and should be at their best pitching every other day. The best relievers would get more innings without putting more stress on their arms.
And a position roster with 13 players could be more valuable than the presently cramped position rosters.
This should generate a lot of thoughts, both positive and negative. In the words of Pat Benatar, fire away!
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 4, 2017 2:49:24 GMT -5
only a moron would use a 4 man rotation
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 4, 2017 10:42:12 GMT -5
Kontos doesn't make my roster.
I'd take Suarez first because I want a swing man.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 4, 2017 12:57:58 GMT -5
only a moron would use a 4 man rotation dk...the HOF must be full of ex-managers who were morons....  |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 4, 2017 21:31:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 4, 2017 21:44:14 GMT -5
Kontos doesn't make my roster. I'd take Suarez first because I want a swing man. Rog -- Barring a trade, George will almost certainly make the roster -- as well he should. I understand the swing man concept. Since George hasn't gone as far as others in the "reliever" role, I put him with The Horse. Make that The New Horse. Matt Cain is the old one. I suspect George could stretch it out if needed. If not, he could easily be traded for true long reliever. George has a career ERA of 2.90. Albert has an ERA of 4.29 in the majors and 4.34 in AAA. At this point, I don't believe Albert -- who did a nice job last season, despite the 4.29 ERA -- is even the top Suarez prospect in the Giants' organization. Baseball America lists 23-year-old southpaw Andrew Suarez as the Giants' #5 prospect. Albert did a fine job of filling in last season. Although the level was a little low, he was quite consistent. If I were going to add another "reliever" though, it would be Ty Blach. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3758/12-man-pitching-staff-overworking?page=1#ixzz4aPmi60Ml |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 4, 2017 21:48:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 4, 2017 21:59:27 GMT -5
The regular season is a different animal than the postseason, of course, but here is something from last postseason to consider. That teams used no more than four starters wasn't a surprise, of course. Except for an injury or matchup situation, teams have used four or fewer virtually every postseason. The Cubs' rotation was so deep last season that 15-game winner Jason Hammel wasn't even included on the Cubs' postseason roster.
What was surprising though was that postseason starters averaged only 5.0 innings per start. In the World Series, no starter recorded an out in the seventh inning.
I realize the pitching staff utilization I'm recommending here is very unusual. We probably shouldn't expect to see the Giants using it anytime soon. But changes are coming. Even if it's simply by moving pitchers up and down from the minor leagues to the majors, something needs to be done to limit pitching staffs to 12 pitchers. I might even recommend that the major leagues rule that except for defined emergencies, teams have no more than a dozen pitchers on their staff.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 5, 2017 1:32:48 GMT -5
Judging by recent history, not too many feel like 4 man rotations will be making a return to the modern game. There's a reason it's now extinct, old timers.
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 5, 2017 2:00:07 GMT -5
Judging by recent history, not too many feel like 4 man rotations will be making a return to the modern game. There's a reason it's now extinct, old timers. dk...one of the teams used a 4 man rotation in recent time...forgot who it was.... |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 5, 2017 2:58:49 GMT -5
I believe it was Colorado...they were desperate...the experiment was to only pitch their "starters" 4 innings and use a huge bullpen...it crashed and burned miserably
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2017 13:15:09 GMT -5
Judging by recent history, not too many feel like 4 man rotations will be making a return to the modern game. There's a reason it's now extinct, old timers. Rog -- It's kind of funny, isn't it? As far as I know, Don and I are the two oldest on the board, yet we think like young men and are the most apt to come up with fresh ideas and points of view. You have a point though. When I first came up with this idea (I'm sure others did too.) 30 years ago when four-man rotations were closer to the norm, I called it an 8-man rotation. Back then the plan was for the normal 10-man pitching staff. I called it four starters, four "finishers" and two closers who would be used as necessary. The idea was that the starter and the finisher would pitch the whole game if possible. Instead of starter and finisher, perhaps I should have called them the primary starter and the backup starter, or the primary starter and the secondary starter. Again, I don't expect to see this concept put into use, but some day it or perhaps something akin to it will quite possibly be used. Remember, the game used to be four starters, some failed or developing starters (long men) and firemen. Baseball used to be a very staid sport, but its ideas have really opened up the past decade or so. So back to you, Randy. You call Don and me old-timers in an effort to put us down. Aside from its rudeness, it merely emphasizes that Don and I are the creative thinkers and that you are set in your ways. Open your mind, Randy. You'll find it opens up a great new world. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3758/12-man-pitching-staff-overworking#ixzz4aTXAtpve |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2017 13:44:17 GMT -5
I believe it was Colorado...they were desperate...the experiment was to only pitch their "starters" 4 innings and use a huge bullpen...it crashed and burned miserably Rog -- It was indeed the Rockies. They didn't limit their starters to just four innings, but have a 75-pitch limit. As you say, Randy, the plan didn't work well at all. But here's the thing about new ideas such as closer by committee or a four-man rotation. As you mentioned, these ideas usually spring from desperation -- a very failed situation. Remember back when we said in 2012 that the Giants were doomed when they went to a closer by committee? The point was made that it wasn't the system (closer by committee) that was at fault, but that the experiment had previously been used by teams with poor relievers. Since the Giants had a good bullpen, the prediction was made that the plan would work out -- which it did, resulting in the Giants' second World Championship. In 2014 the Giants also used two different primary closers over the course of the season. The result? Another World Championship. It pays to keep an open mind. We would be surprised what we might learn. Or we can simply put our heads in the sand. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3758/12-man-pitching-staff-overworking?page=1#ixzz4aTc7QM9i |
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 6, 2017 0:57:36 GMT -5
Judging by recent history, not too many feel like 4 man rotations will be making a return to the modern game. There's a reason it's now extinct, old timers. Rog -- It's kind of funny, isn't it? As far as I know, Don and I are the two oldest on the board, yet we think like young men and are the most apt to come up with fresh ideas and points of view. You have a point though. When I first came up with this idea (I'm sure others did too.) 30 years ago when four-man rotations were closer to the norm, I called it an 8-man rotation. Back then the plan was for the normal 10-man pitching staff. I called it four starters, four "finishers" and two closers who would be used as necessary. The idea was that the starter and the finisher would pitch the whole game if possible. Instead of starter and finisher, perhaps I should have called them the primary starter and the backup starter, or the primary starter and the secondary starter. Again, I don't expect to see this concept put into use, but some day it or perhaps something akin to it will quite possibly be used. Remember, the game used to be four starters, some failed or developing starters (long men) and firemen. Baseball used to be a very staid sport, but its ideas have really opened up the past decade or so. So back to you, Randy. You call Don and me old-timers in an effort to put us down. Aside from its rudeness, it merely emphasizes that Don and I are the creative thinkers and that you are set in your ways. Open your mind, Randy. You'll find it opens up a great new world. dk...since I just turned 91, I can't help being an old timer....however, I see no reason why pitchers couldn't copy the pitchers of other era's. There is no reason why a pitcher with decent control couldn't go out and pitch to spots and forget about trying to blow everyone away...Weaver did it somewhat last year with a fast ball that barely went over 80...and a sore arm. I have a new theory that modern pitcher's arm problems might be due to the way they are taught to grip the ball...I think the modern grip puts a strain on the arm when you just hold the ball...I don't know how feels when you throw as those days are long gone... I would like to see pitchers come to camp , throw some BP and a few innings of intra squad games...then when the spring games start, the starters should pitch 3 innings for a couple of games and then go six and close out going 9. They should be able to pitch 250 innings a year.... my high school days in the 40's, we started baseball indoors playing catch until the snow melted and the fields dried out...we pitched batting practice for a few days, started intra squad games and we would pitch 2 or 3 innings...then we would start playing games and the pitchers were expected to pitch all 7 innings. I wasn't great, but I was never pulled from a game... develop 6 guys capable of starting or pitching long relief...With all the modern equipment and medical training, guys should be able to pitch 250 innings unless ill or injured.... Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3758/12-man-pitching-staff-overworking#ixzz4aTXAtpve |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 6, 2017 13:27:38 GMT -5
Don: this is a subject that Don Sutton, the Braves announcer has been saying for years.
He agrees with you completely.
There is no reason NOT to have 4 man rotations... and the research he quoted did NOT support arm problems due to 3 days vs 4 days rest.
He also said that one of the reasons teams won't go to 4 man staffs because of the money they invest in their starters... and that they are basing their belief on what he considers faulty information.
Kind of like that Simon and Garfunkel song; the Boxer. "...a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 7, 2017 20:18:38 GMT -5
Don and Boly, all three of us have mentioned the possibility of four-man rotations. Apparently that makes us morons.
And why was it again that when the little moron and the big moron were standing by the cliff that one fell off and the other one didn't? The big moron fell off, but the other one didn't because he was a little mor-on.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 8, 2017 4:42:41 GMT -5
mentioning the possibility isn't the same thing as doing it...I would think that all three of you are smart enough to realize the game is a far different one than the one in which 4 man rotations were the norm
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 8, 2017 11:59:06 GMT -5
mentioning the possibility isn't the same thing as doing it...I would think that all three of you are smart enough to realize the game is a far different one than the one in which 4 man rotations were the norm Rog -- No question about it, and the proposed rotation won't be happening anytime soon. I'm curious, Boly, which differences you see in the game now from when we were kids. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3758/12-man-pitching-staff-overworking#ixzz4akqChK00 |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 8, 2017 13:35:06 GMT -5
Pitchers are pampered, babied to the point of vomiting.
The players don't play the game with the same angst.
Pitchers are taught "formulas" on how to 'compact' the delivery, those who actually ARE taught, and the others have developed goofy, to the point of dangerous mechanics which should have been corrected at age 5.
Such as Russ Ortiz and his bow and arrow delivery come to mind.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 8, 2017 22:27:50 GMT -5
Wow! And I just thought the caliber of play was better with all the positive changes in the game. One thing for sure is that the players are in much better shape, especially entering spring training. Spring training used to be a time to get into shape. Now it's a time to be in shape so you don't get behind.
One negative to this is that while spring training has long seemed protracted to the players, now it truly could be shortened by a week or two without missing much. It isn't likely to happen soon as long as the spring training games are profitable, but the game would benefit from starting the season a couple of weeks sooner and increasing days off by about half. Or how about this for an idea: Cut spring training short by two weeks and split the extra time between extra days off and an adding an extra week to the season.
There is no really, really, that the Bay Bridge Series and its equivalent between other teams couldn't be games that count, increasing the attendance to help make up for the lost spring training attendance. There would be early weather-postponed games, but there would be extra days off for makeup games. And there might wind up being a few more double headers, which as a fan I have long thought were great.
Have the early season games played in a combination of the warmer cities and/or between teams that are close geographically, taking some of the stress out of makeup games. Allow teams to begin the season with three extra players on the roster, as the league once did.
One other thing: Allow the first round of the playoffs to be a seven-game series. Maybe make the All-Star break a little longer. That way the All-Stars could get more rest too, and starting pitchers who pitched the last game before the All-Star game wouldn't have to miss the game.
There are a lot of things that could be done to give the players more rest during the season and allow the owners to make even more money. Or the object could simply be to give the players more rest.
In theory at least, the caliber of games would be better and there would be fewer injuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 9, 2017 12:58:51 GMT -5
No question the players are in better shape, and stronger... but that 'strength' they've acquired, in the opinion of MANY that I've read or heard is CAUSING so many injuries, especially oblique and hamstring injuries are BECAUSE they are now 'too strong' for their bodies.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 9, 2017 14:37:08 GMT -5
No question the players are in better shape, and stronger... but that 'strength' they've acquired, in the opinion of MANY that I've read or heard is CAUSING so many injuries, especially oblique and hamstring injuries are BECAUSE they are now 'too strong' for their bodies. Rog -- Good point, and one worthy of examination. \It used to be that players were told not to lift weights, that it would bind up their muscles. I remember Chris Speier doing weight training, but he also did cardio and flexibility work. His wife Aleta tole me he would be quite happy just working out every day, and in the off-season, he did so for hours. When he and Aleta lived in Montreal, he could go cross country skiing right out his back door. Today's training regimens are something like that, involving cardio and flexibility as well as strength work. Despite that, it is probably true that the demands on bodies that are bigger, faster and stronger are tougher. More speed in running, swing speed and pitching velocity places added strains on the muscles, tendons and ligaments. Especially in pitching, the body's limitations are constantly being threatened. There are several reasons why pitchers aren't able to pitch as many innings. In fact, the downward trend in innings pitched by a starter was started soon after the game began and continues to this day. Pitchers place more strain on their arms and overall bodies, plus they are no longer able to rest as much to certain hitters. The very best-performing pitchers are those who pitch a single inning, not having to worry about holding back at all. Madison Bumgarner is one of the most durable starters in the game. Quite possibly THE most durable starter in the game. But after 75 pitches, even his performance falls off. Not horribly, but a noticeable fall-off nonetheless. Madison's best segment of 25 pitches comes on his 51st through 75th pitches, when he holds opposing batters to a .601 OPS. From pitches 76 through 100 that increases 10% to .660. Derek Law has a .586 OPS on his first 25 pitches, so he usually pitches better coming into a game than Madison does after 75 pitches. Hunter Strickland is even lower at .564. Even George Kontos' .639 is slightly lower than Bumgarner after 75 pitches. So what does this mean to a pitching coach? Clearly he wants to leave Madison in as long as possible. But if he can take him out and replace him with a pitcher who is likely to do as well or better, he not only doesn't hurt his team in that game, he keeps Bumgarner fresher for his next start. If a horse like Madison is better off pitching fewer innings at times, one can imagine how much better it could be for a pitcher with less stamina to be relieved a little earlier. Jeff Samardzija is a strong pitcher as well, but his OPS allowed jumps from .706 on pitches 51 through 75 to .771 on pitches 76-100. After a certain point, pitchers don't pitch as well. There is little sense in pitching them as long as starters used to go. Back in the old days, a starter who three less than 100 pitches was often relieved not by a strong reliever, but by a failed starter. It made more sense to leave the starter in longer. Pitching just a single inning on most occasions, many of today's relievers are a clear improvement when the starter begins to tire. When the starter doesn't go long enough, he places a strain on the bullpen. But when he his allowed to go too long, he places a strain on the score. A great manager finds the balance between the two, relying heavily on communication between the starter, the catcher and the pitching coach. History can help, and evidence of mechanical degrading is perhaps the best clue of all. Handling a bullpen is one measure of a manager, and how well he performs that task can make a big difference. The Giants won their three World Series in good part because of how well the bullpen responded when Bruce Bochy called them in. This past postseason, he used five pitchers to hold a three-run lead for a single inning, and they were unable to do so. Perhaps the biggest reason today's starters don't go as far as their predecessors is that there are much better relievers to take over for them. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3758/12-man-pitching-staff-overworking#ixzz4arCX2pUT |
|
