Bullpen Blather

[klaiggeb]

I, for one, am tired of hearing of how good out bullpen is.

This isn't the first time, and it's not the 20th time our pen has flat out blown up, given itself a swirlee, screwed the pooch... pick a metaphorical term, it doesn't matter; they all mean the same thing.

It's long past old, it's past pathetic, it's past Peto Bismal time.

We can't score, and they can't hold a lead.

Once again, a great performance by a starter hosed away.

I, for one, cannot wait for this season to end.

I was so glad we called up so many kids, because I wanted to see them play... only to find out from Bochy that they will only play in "not important" games... which means what, they'll play against Texas?

Every game coming up is important for the teams we're playing.

So I won't even get to see them play.

I'll be gone for 12 days, from September 11th-23rd, as Candee and I celebrate our 49th anniversary on a cruise from LA to Alaska.

I say again, I cannot wait for this season to end.

Just go away.

[rog]

Congratulations to hyou and Candee, Boly. That's one heck of an accomplishment, and you're just a way from the half-century mark. Clearly you guys were underage when you got married! Mere babes.

This has indeed been a very frustrating season -- as, sadly, most are for the vast majority of teams. It was probaby more frutstrating for you than others of us because our expectations were lower, and because you -- like Mordy -- are such great fans you wear your emotions on your sleeves.

I'm a little more optimistic about the bullpen than you, however. I said the other day there were four Giants relievers who had been closers for at least a brief time. I forot Tony Watson! So while the Giants are still looking for a true closer, they've got those five guys plus Reyes. And Ray Black has shown some potential. I see depth there.

As for a closer, clearly Mark Melancon was one of the best until last season. Just as clearly, he's not that guy any more, although it might be POSSIBLE he could become one again after a winter of added recovery. Probably not, but I wouldn't want to rule it out altogether.

I still think Will Smith can close. He had 11 saves in 13 attempts as a closer, which puts him at about the same success rate as Rob Nenn. He did have to be bailed out in one other outing, which didn't result in a blown save but could certainly be viewed as a failure on his part.

It is equally true though that one of his blown saves wouldn't have happened without an error keeping the inning alive. And it is also true that if we remove two straight days -- August 24th and 25th -- Will's record as a closer is exemplary. One thing that is intriguing is that guys like Nenn and Brian Wilson keep their jobs after two or three rough outings, while a guy like Smith or Sergio Romo or Santiago Casilla lose their jobs.

(As an aside, since becoming Tampa Bay's closer three months ago, Romo has saved 19 games.)

A final point, which I have brought up before, but which I still think is a strong idea, is that I believe a team should have TWO closers. I'm fine with their being a clear #1 and a clear #2 closer. But I don't think a reliever should pitch two days in a row, and three only in an emergency. Look at how often relievers go down. IMO their arms should be babied more, much as was the case with Smith and Melancon after they returned from injury.

I also think it's nice to have a right-handed closer and a lefty closer. While one guy would be a clear #1, the #2 guy might be used on occasion if the hand of the batters favors it. For instance, if closer #1 has worked the day before and the batting order favors closer #2, why in the world bring in #1, except for other overriding reasons?

The argument against this might be that a reliever needs to know his role. But closer #1's role WOULD be clear. And closer #2 would almost certainly be DELIGHTED to be used as the closer when the opportunity arose instead of being the set up man.

Maybe I'll open up another thread to cover how relievers can be used. Boly and I will be on different sides of where we're coming from, and most will be there with Boly. But I would like to learn from Boly and Randy how a PITCHER might feel about some of the "crazy" ideas of bullpen usage I've seen or concocted.

Speaking of concocted, which I haven't used in a while and while I'm not sure is as heavily used as it once was, I think it could provide the opportunity for a new word -- concoctail. Apparently the word IS in usage as a literally a new cocktail that is "concocted." I was thinking more of the concoctail being the result of concocting ideas in broader arenas as well as with regard to drinks.

I guess the word "concoction" pretty much covers it, but I like what to me is a more intriguing new "word." One might even say I concoctailed it. But I admit that might be carrying the idea too far.

Probably I already HAVE carried the idea too far!

Back to the bullpen drawing board.

[kay]

a Dodger fan beat me to the gun in publishing my idea for a new way to look at the use of pitchers......start your relief pitchers and let them pitch the first 2 or 3 innings, then bring in your starter to finish the game. If your starter is RH, start the game with a LH reliever...and visa versa for a LH starter...this coxes the other team to match up early or wait until the "starter" comes into the game....this would make it a little easier for the reliever who starts the game....

[klaiggeb]

I don't agree, Kay, sorry.

As Bochy pointed out last night, if you start off with a reliever, it's automatically a bullpen game.

My solution is different, but not innovative.

In the minors:

1-TRAIN pitchers to go more than 100 pitches

2-TEACH them HOW to pitch when they haven't got their best stuff.

3-Take that 100 pitch number and flush it down the nearest toilet.

[rog]

Welcome aboard, Kay.

I love your idea and was thinking yesterday myself how excellent it was for the Rays to use a reliever to start the game and then replace him with a starter of the opposite hand. That idea worked particularly well when the batters at the top of the order were right-handed hitters who could be handled right away by a right-handed pitcher who knew he was required to throw a slight number of pitches. Same with lefty on lefty.

Boly makes some good points too, and in fact the two can fit together. More on that as soon as I am free (or at inexpensive at the very least).

[sfgdood]

To Boly's original point...I have been saying for MONTHS, this new stats geek driven trend to yank starting pitchers around the 5th inning is killing the game and most of the bullpens in the league. I guarantee if this isn't corrected you're just going to see more and more blown leads in August and September unless the roster is expanded or some other rule change happens. Kids need to be left in games longer starting in the minors, if they are ever going to be conditioned to go deep in games at the major league level.

[klaiggeb]

You know I agree, Randy.

Plus, look at all of the tired bullpens NOW.

Sheesh!

And it's the beginning of September.

[rog]

I'm not sure the Giants fall into the category of teams whose bullpens have faded. Their worst month was May, with a 4.88 ERA. They had started at 3.71 in April. Their best months came in the next three -- June, July and August -- at 2.33, 3.34 and 3.53. At 6.00, they've been bad this month, but there are still 3 1/2 weeks left. September's ERA will likely be high though, with the expanded 40 man rosters.

Bullpens and rotations BOTH get tired this time of year. The Giants rotation has gone 4.05, 3.77, 2.93, 4.36, 3.12 and 4.66. The Giants' starters actually averaged their most innings per start in August, and are ahead even of that pace in September.

The Giants are just one team, and I haven't checked any other teams out. But the Giants don't really back up the claim.

[rog]

So, now do we put Kay's ideas together with Boly's?

First, let's use Kay's idea to start the game with a reliever. She mentioned two or three innings, but we could cut it to as fine as a single inning if we wished. There would be lineup advantages, and the starters shouldn't complain, since that set up would favor more wins for them and help them receive fewer losses.

The game has now has a closer. Why not have an opener? There is a debate as to whether pitchers would benefit from higher workloads in the minors, but let's assume for a minute that they would. If an opener pitches the first inning, the normal starter can still go eight. Pitchers almost never go beyond eight any more anyway.

Juan Marichal is a pitcher from 50 years ago who did a great job of finishing what he started. There are probably others, but he is the only pitcher I know for sure had more complete games than wins. Yet, a third of the time Juanito himself didn't make it into the eighth inning.

[rog]

So why don't pitchers pitch more deeply into games? There are two primary reasons.

First, as Randy and Boly have alluded to, in what they believe protects arms (and as with Boly and Randy, not everyone agrees it does), they try to limit pitch counts to protect arms.

Second, pitchers tend not to pitch as well as they throw more pitches. And the relievers who replace them are able to air it out, because in most cases they aren't expected to go much more than an inning themselves. Relievers have lower ERA's than starters, even though most relievers are failed starters. And their ERA's are MUCH better than the final inning or innings pitched by the starters they replace.

Today's pitching is better than ever, and part of the reason is that pitchers are able to go more all out. Think about when you guys were pitching, Randy and Boly. If you could have gone all out rather than pace yourselves, think you could have pitched better?

Do you notice too that the better starters tend to pitch longer than their lesser peers? Part is that good pitchers tend to throw fewer pitches per inning than lesser pitchers. Part is also that the better pitchers are good enough that their stuff still holds up for an extra inning or two.

If a team wants its starters to go longer, it should get better starters. That would be an excellent start.

As an aside, fans often don't fully appreciate starters who pitch more deeply into games. Jeff Samrdzija led the National League in innings pitched last season, but how much respect did he get here?

No one knows for sure if having pitchers throw more innings in the minors would allow them to pitch EFFECTIVELY for longer periods. Some think yes, and some think no.

One school of thought is that a pitcher has only so many innings in his arm. That school wants to see pitchers brought up to the majors as quickly as is reasonable. Better to use the innings a good pitcher has in his arm with him pitching in the majors instead of the minors.

In fantasy baseball, I'm a little hesitant to use a starter who has thrown lots of pitches in his previous start. Pitchers seem to tend not to do as well in the next game. Perhaps it is having one's emotions spent by pitching a no-hitter, but oft times pitchers don't fare well in the next outing.

The game after Tim Lincecum pitched his first no-hitter, he gave up eight earned runs in 3.2 innings. The game afer his second no-hitter though he pitched eight shut out innings. The game after Matt Cain's perfect game, he gave up three earned runs in five innings.

Jonathan Sanchez gave up three earnies in six innings. Chris Heston gave up three runs -- two earned -- in five frames. On only Tim's second no-hitter did the pitcher pitch well in his next outing.

Speaking of Tim, he was worked hard in college. He pitched 125 innings the year (2006) he was drafted. That included starting AND relieving. He threw something like 156 pitches in one game. When he reached the majors, Tim pitched more deeply into games than most starters. But he wasn't close to leading the league in innings pitched either.

We just don't KNOW how pitching more innings in the minors would affect starters. The general thinking now is that pitching throwing fewer pitches helps preserve the arm. Not everyone agrees.

Boly and Randy should like this article:

www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/dodgers-no-hitter-scott-stripling-sf-giants-pitch-limit-rookie-100-pitches-reason-why-040916


Probably like this one too:

bleacherreport.com/articles/144276-why-cant-pitchers-throw-as-many-innings-as-they-used-to


My personal thought is that every pitcher is different, and should be treated and used in the best way for that pitcher. Of course the tough thing is quickly establishing which way that is. I also think that strict pitch counts are a mistake. Every pitcher is different, and for that matter, every game is different for HIM. Let his pitching determine how many pitches he throws, although I would err on the side of caution.

One think from the first article that I don't believe is right is that the Pitcher Abuse Points system mentioned is based on 100 pitches. Perhaps that is true as a starting point, but abuse points also come from more pitches in a single inning, especially later in the game.

There is some research that indicates how many times a pitcher comes out to pitch a new inning is more important than his actual pitch count. There is probably some truth to that. Then there is the aforementioned theory that the more pitches a pitcher throws in an innings makes a difference. Probably truth to that too. And that the difficulty the pitcher faces in relationship to the score. Likely truth there as well.

I think pitch counts -- as adjusted by these other factors -- could be used as guidelines. But seeing how much a pitcher's stuff changes and how hard he is having to work should be strong factors. Even the weather. How much has the pitcher run the bases?

I don't believe in strict pitch counts. I could be wrong, but I think there are several other factors involved, and that a strong pitching coach -- and the pitcher himself, if he is honest -- can learn things in an outing that go beyond what the pitch count says.

One rule of thumb used to be that that when a pitcher's fastball declined by 5 mph, it was time to look seriously into pulling him. In today's game, by the time a pitcher has lost 5 mph, it is usually too late.

The catcher is in the best position to see how much a pitcher's stuff is degrading. The pitcher himself is in the best position to determine how he feels, although he often lies to himself and to others. The pitching coach can perhaps best detect small mechanical changes that may be caused by fatigue. The manager can best determine what the game situation dictates.

It seems to me that the decision to pull or not to pull involves a pitching "team." The pitch count can be and perhaps should be a guideline, but the "team" -- especially of the pitcher is honest with himself and the others on the team -- can best decide when the time is now.

[klaiggeb]

No. Leading off with the bullpen is foolish, IMHO.

It's one of those current fads that if anyone tried it for the whole year, they'd see it wouldn't work for most teams.

[sfgdood]

I think my point has been made clear by the abundance of stats geekery ably provided by Rog. The bean counting monkeys are taking over and ruining the game. 1 or 2 innings starts by a "relief pitcher???" Are you freakin SERIOUS? Is this what the game is coming to? Is THIS what you call pitching getting better??

I NEVER paced myself on the mound, nobody was counting my pitches, but if I had to guess, there were very few games I failed to surpass the 100 pitch level. I once threw a no hitter (7 innings) in which I walked 6 and threw over 140 pitches at the age of 14. Nobody ever asked me if I was tired...in fact after 4 innings, nobody said a word to me until after the game. The only reason I learned the pitch count was because it was a championship game and more complete stats were taken.

[rog]

No. Leading off with the bullpen is foolish, IMHO.

It's one of those current fads that if anyone tried it for the whole year, they'd see it wouldn't work for most teams.


Rog -- What is wrong with it, Boly? It can play a little havoc with the opposition's lineup, and it gives the normal starter a better shot at wins and less likelihood of losing.

We've talked about how starters tend to go only five or six innings. Teams often use one set up man for the seventh and one for the eighth. Why not use one of those set up men in inning #1 instead of #7? Using an opener can mess up the opposition's matchups.

Incidentally, old friend Sergio Romo was used in this role early in the season before graduating to closer, where he has 19 saves.

I realize this strategy is neither proven nor proved wrong, but what are its flaws, and do they outweigh its advantages?






Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather#ixzz5QMxXObbM

[rog]

I don't believe the Rays use this strategy every game, but their first inning ERA this season is 3.56 compared to 3.61 overall. Last season the first inning was 4.33 compared to 3.99 overall. Last season the Rays' first inning ERA was higher than their overall ERA, and this season it is slightly lower than the overall.

So what strategy seems to have done this season is improve the first inning while causing potential lineup problems for subsequent innings. Plus, the normal starter gets more chance to win the game and less chance to lose. No strategy is perfect, but I'm curious as to what the flaws are with this one.

[klaiggeb]

Bochy addressed your question the other day, and HE called it unwise as, as I stated, it would burn up the bullpen.

Teams want a fresh, lively arm to pitch the last 2 innings, so let's suppose, and still assuming we foolishly stick to NOT teaching pitchers in the minors how to pitch without their best stuff and foolishly holding to 100 pitch limits, the "Starter" comes in, in the 2nd, throws 100 pitches and takes him through the 7th.

You still need a set up guy and a closer...but since you've opened the game with a reliever, you've now already used 3 bullpen guys.

What's the point?

They're needed at the end of the game, not the beginning.



To me, this is just fans jumping on a new fad like they did with:

Money ball

Launch angle

And how many more I can't remember.


If you can't see the reasons why not, rog, nothing I say is going to convince you.

[rog]

I NEVER paced myself on the mound, nobody was counting my pitches, but if I had to guess, there were very few games I failed to surpass the 100 pitch level. I once threw a no hitter (7 innings) in which I walked 6 and threw over 140 pitches at the age of 14. Nobody ever asked me if I was tired...in fact after 4 innings, nobody said a word to me until after the game. The only reason I learned the pitch count was because it was a championship game and more complete stats were taken.


Rog -- How many pitches did you throw 90 mph or faster? The pitches you were throwing took far less toll on your arm than today's pitches do.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather#ixzz5QQyXcr8a

[rog]

Bochy addressed your question the other day, and HE called it unwise as, as I stated, it would burn up the bullpen.


Rog -- So let's look at that statement. Let's say a starting pitcher is going to go six innings (or make it five; the analysis is the same). Is he going to pitch fewer innings because he started the game in the second inning than the first? If anything, the "opener" faced the first three or four or five hitters in the order, making the "starter's" job easier.

Let's say the starter pitches the first six innings, and then set up men are used in both the seventh inning and then in the eighth. The closer pitches the ninth. That's three relievers pitching three innings total.

Instead, the "opener" pitches the first inning, and the starter pitches the second through seventh. The set up man pitches the eighth, and the closer pitches the ninth. That's three relievers pitching a total of three innings.

The second is harder on the bullpen than the first? Sorry, Bruce, there's no logic to what you are saying here. So if there is a reason not to use an opener, it must be something else.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather?page=1#ixzz5QQyuq0hB

[rog]

Teams want a fresh, lively arm to pitch the last 2 innings, so let's suppose, and still assuming we foolishly stick to NOT teaching pitchers in the minors how to pitch without their best stuff and foolishly holding to 100 pitch limits, the "Starter" comes in, in the 2nd, throws 100 pitches and takes him through the 7th.

You still need a set up guy and a closer...but since you've opened the game with a reliever, you've now already used 3 bullpen guys.


Rog - And guess what? You've still got the closer and set up man available -- just like you do after seven innings now.

Today's relievers usually pitch an inning each. Whether that is the seventh, eighth and ninth or whether it is the first, eighth and ninth, it's still three innings.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather?page=1#ixzz5QR162IGd

[rog]

To me, this is just fans jumping on a new fad like they did with:

Money ball

Launch angle

And how many more I can't remember.


Rog -- What do Money Ball and launch angle have in common? They have both worked. Money Ball was simply identifying an undervalued aspect of the game and taking advantage of it. Originally, Money Ball identified the ability to get on base as an undervalued skill, and taking advantage of it enabled the A's to play excellent ball despite the very limited budget they had.

Would you feel better about launch angle if you realized it is simply teaching a batter to hit the ball in the air more often? That's what we used to call it. We would take a guy with power and try to get him to hit the ball in the air so he could take advantage of it.

You know what launch angle is? It's the exact same thing -- with a little icing on the cake. The problem with hitting the ball in the air is that the batter can get under it TOO much, resulting in anything from a pop up to a warning track out. What launch angle does is show the best angles to hit the ball to give it the maximum chance of going out. If a batter is getting under the ball too much, launch angle allows the hitter to see not only that he is getting under the ball too much, but it identifies by how many angles too much.

Did you know that Money Ball wasn't about simply getting guys who could get on base more? It was about finding market inefficiences and taking advantage of them. The problem was that getting on base was cherry picking. As teams caught on to the concept, it became more difficult to find significant market inefficiencies. As other teams narrowed the "smartness" gap, Money Ball had a harder timer getting as much bang for the buck.

And did you know that "launch angle" is simply about getting under the ball more, or in the case of a less powerful hitter, hitting it in the air less?

I don't think you properly understood what you were criticizing. And you have yet to show how relievers in the seventh, eighth and ninth innings take more out of a bullpen than relievers in the first, eighth and ninth innings.

The issue here isn't that you don't know baseball. You guys know a LOT of baseball. The issue is that you're too "old school." Being old school isn't a problem in itself, but it does become one when it closes the mind to new ideas.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather?page=1#ixzz5QR1lLTO0

[rog]

If you can't see the reasons why not, rog, nothing I say is going to convince you.


Rog -- Simply tell me the reasons why not, Boly, so we can examine them together.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather?page=1#ixzz5QR4jT2jO

[klaiggeb]

I've already given you 2. That is plenty for aboard discussion

[rog]

Maybe I missed something, but here are the two reasons I saw:

. "No. Leading off with the bullpen is foolish, IMHO.

It's one of those current fads that if anyone tried it for the whole year, they'd see it wouldn't work for most teams."

and

. "Bochy addressed your question the other day, and HE called it unwise as, as I stated, it would burn up the bullpen.

Teams want a fresh, lively arm to pitch the last 2 innings"


Let's address them one at a time:

. "if anyone tried it for the whole year, they'd see it wouldn't work for most teams."

Actually, the wouldn't. They would see one of two things: They would see that it worked for them at that particular time or it didn't. Even if it didn't work for him he couldn't see that it wouldn't work for most teams because they were the only team that tried it. All he could see was that it didn't work for him at that particular time.

Not that it would never work, and certainly not that it wouldn't work for MOST teams.

Using the logic you're presenting here, Boly, if you had seen only a girl when you first walked into your first class, you would be concluding that there would be no boys in either your classes or those of any other teacher.

. "Teams want a fresh, lively arm to pitch the last 2 innings"

What is it that by using an opener one inning and a starter for six that makes the arms of the set up man and closer less fresh and less lively than using the starter for six innings and bringing in the other guy who in my example would be the "opener" to pitch the seventh inning? In each case, one reliever would have been used prior to the starter, and the set up man and closer would have two innings to cover.

Did I miss any other reasons?

[klaiggeb]

Rog, all I can say is this; it makes no sense.


I can understand why teams went away from hitting a "move the guy over" type of guy out of the 2 hole.

I get it.

More power at the top of the line up.

I DON'T get, nor do I like, hitting the pitcher 8th.

Another new, useless fad even if it's Madison

Leading off with a guy who's going to pitch 1 inning?

What's the point?

Where's the upside?

There is none.

[rog]

Leading off with a guy who's going to pitch 1 inning?

What's the point?

Where's the upside?

There is none.


Rog -- I still haven't seen a legitimate reason not to do it.

You said it simply doesn't make sense, yet the only two reasons you gave for its not making sense were refuted.

As for the upside, let's suppose a team's lineup begins with four good right-handed hitters. We're planning to pitch a southpaw, so right off the bat he would be facing three or four good right-handed hitters -- just the type of hitter he DOESN'T want to face. Why not start a good right-handed reliever instead? That would give us a better chance to retire the top of the order to begin the game.

Plus, guess what? We worry about our starter facing the order for the third time -- particularly against their top hitters. By starting the right-handed reliever we set it up so the southpaw faces the middle and bottom of the order for the third time before he faces the top of the order that third time. He misses the third-place hitter virtually every time, and the fourth-place hitter much of the time. I haven't even seen this advantage mentioned, but it's a good one.

When do we virtually NEVER get to determine a matchup? Against the batters who start out the game. But if we begin with a RELIEVER of our choice, we DO get to choose that matchup.

By the end of the sixth or seventh inning, we've used the same starter and reliever we normally would have -- but we've used the reliever to a better advantage, and kept our starter away from that third time through the top of the lineup for longer -- perhaps as long as two innings later. This may actually allow the starter to pitch a little longer, taking pressure OFF the bullpen. Another idea I haven't seen, but which would go AGAINST Bruce Bochy's ill-founded comments.

So there are three possible advantages:

. Choosing whom WE want to face the top of the order the first time.

. Having the starter avoid facing the top of the order for a third time for as many as two innings later.

. Because of #2, perhaps getting an extra hitter or two or even inning or two out of the starter.


Three possible advantage, and no disadvantages except that it goes against "The Book."

A manager's job is to put his players in the best situation for them to succeed. This provides the matchup we want the reliever to have, rather than waiting until later in the game and perhaps not getting that matchup. It makes it easier for the starter to begin the game. It perhaps allows the starter to pitch deeper into the game.

This is an example of how a manager can give both his starter and his "opener" a better chance to succeed. Not every game provides such a good opportunity to help the pitchers succeed and perhaps get more innings out of the starter. But when the opportunity arises, why not take advantage of it?

Saying it doesn't make sense isn't enough. We need to know the reasons WHY it doesn't make sense.

One of those reasons isn't likely that the starting pitcher won't want to do it. As explained earlier, it gives him a nice opportunity to improve his won-loss record, which might come in handy at contract time. Or All-Star time. Or Cy Young time.

A clear shot at a better record and a decent chance to pitch more innings? Sounds like a win/win for the starter. And for the "opener," we've created a new role of beginning the game on the right foot. He'll likely be proud he got the opportunity.

This idea just keeps getting better and better the closer we look at it.

But, of course, it goes against "The Book." Shouldn't that be enough?

It's enough if one is content with winning fewer games.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather#ixzz5QTYlmOzb

[Islandboagie]

There are some people that believe you should change things for no other reason than saying you changed things. These are called progressive Liberals.

[rog]

There are some people that believe you should change things for no other reason than saying you changed things. These are called progressive Liberals.


Rog -- Does that mean that people who believe you shouldn't change things for no other reason than saying you didn't change things are called conservatives? Or would that fall all the way over to reactionaries? My sense is that the better lable would be fools.

As you know, my personal preference is not to vote party lines or to be a straight-out liberal or conservative, but rather to think the issues out on their own merits.

In this case, several good reasons for trying out this change have been presented, and the reasons not to have been refuted. It gets me that "reasons" such as "it just isn't done that way" or " it would burn up the bullpen," (really? using the same pitchers the same number of innings but just in DIFFERENT innings would burn up the bullpen?), "all I can say is that it just wouldn't work," "if anyone tried it for the whole year, they'd see it wouldn't work for most teams" (That defies logic, and WHY wouldn't it work?)," and "What's the point? Where's the upside? There is none." are used when for the most part, they aren't reasons at all.

It's kind of like if a young child is told not to play with fire and asks why: Because you're liable to get burned is a reason. Because that's the way it's always been isn't a reason. It's kind of like the parent who says because I said so.

[rog]

Let's look at the concept of burning out the bullpen. If the starter pitches innings one through six, the bullpen pitches three innings. If the starter pitches innings two through seven, the bullpen pitches three innings. No difference here. None.

But the Giants' starters haven't pitched six innings per start. They've averaged five and a half. No wonder there's a strain on the bullpen. That half inning difference doesn't seem like much, but over the full season it's 81 more innings for the pen. That's the equivalent of about one and a half relievers.

So if we could just get starter through six innings, we would take a lot of the burden off the pen.

So -- aside from not being stretched out in the minors, etc. -- why do pitchers last only 5 1/2 innings on average. Well, pitchers face just a little over four batters per inning, which may mean that in the sixth inning, the pitcher faces the #3, #4, #5 and #6 hitters. That is sometimes called the heart of the order.

So we send the starter out to pitch to the heart of the order when he's beginning to tire in his sixth inning of work. Is it any wonder that on average he pitches only half of that sixth inning?

If we have him pitch innings two through seven, he faces hitters #7, #8, #9 and #1 in the inning he's trying to stretch out and get through his sixth inning. Does he have a better chance of finishing that inning when facing the heart of the order or when facing mostly the bottom of the order? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

So by having the starter pitch innings #2 through (hopefully) #7, we may increase the odds that the starter completes his sixth inning.

But let's suppose that on average all he does is make one more third of an inning. That takes 54 innings of pressure off the bullpen. That allows the team to save one reliever. Think a team would benefit from having five position players on its bench instead of four?

So using a reliever to start the game not only isn't likely to burn out the bullpen like the unthinking Bruce Bochy said, it might take a little pressure OFF the bullpen.

So what is the upside? One of the multiple upsides is that opposite to what Bochy (and I call him unthinking here because he obviously hasn't thought this through, since starting the game goes against The Book and thus must be wrong) said, starting a reliever would make it likely that the starter would pitch more innings on average. If that starter could get even one more out per game, it would save a reliever.

Bruce would be happy. We fans would be happy.

[rog]

Let's just put it this way: There are enough potential advantages to using a reliever to start the game for one inning that it is worth a try. Logically it makes sense, so let's put it to the test.

But The Book says no. Here is what some who have analysed the situation say:


nypost.com/2018/05/21/making-sense-of-rays-bizarre-strategy-to-start-a-reliever/


Teams are looking for any little advantage. The season is 162 games long. Over that many games, even the slightest advantage could result in one more win. That can be the difference between making the playoffs and not making them. It can be the difference between the winning the division and winning the wild card and playing an extra game where the chances of advancing are only 50/50.

Using a reliever to start the game could allow for one more player on the bench. Would that be an advantage? Show Bruce Bochy how he can have an extra player on his bench, and he'll very likely change from thinking that starting a reliever will burn out his bullpen to thinking, man, this would make my job easier.

And the bullpen coach would say, man, I've only got to deal with seven selfish relievers, not eight.

And the normal starting pitcher would say, man, this gives me more chance to win a game and less chance to lose it? What are we waiting for?

It wouldn't actually be that simple. Baseball has long rejected change. Going against The Book? Now way. But show a manager that he can have one more bench player, and he's likely in. Show a starting pitcher he'll probably win more games and lose fewer, and he's likely in.

Given the potential for the move, the only guy who would seem to have a rationale for being against it would be the guy who is hoping to be the eighth reliever. Maybe the clubhouse man who may have to clean up after one or two more victory celebrations. And the networks who might lose an extra commercial. And the opponents, who might lose out on a win or two. And the traditionalists, who might lose a page or two from The Book.

[klaiggeb]

Roger, I disagree with you.

Bochy disagrees with you.

The majority of managers in baseball disagree with you.

The majority of starting pitchers disagree with you.

Your arguments are falling on deaf ears.

[rog]

Roger, I disagree with you.

Bochy disagrees with you.

The majority of managers in baseball disagree with you.

The majority of starting pitchers disagree with you.

Your arguments are falling on deaf ears.


Rog -- At this point you're probably right. And it is a sad thing when people won't listen to logic.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather#ixzz5QWPoQCtK