An idea that would change pitching forever

[BigDDude]

Warning, this is a LONG read. So long, that I am doing this in link form.

If you are in, read on to see how one long time pitching coach and former pitcher would change completely and totally how pitchers are used.

Pitching Change: Renowned Coach Foresees An Era Of Bigger Staffs And Shorter Outings | ThePostGame

 

[JDM]

I'd be even less likely to watch than I am now, and I don't think I'd be the only one.

Big names sell the game, and this makes them harder to recognize.

 

[steveringo]

That theory has been gaining momentum for a few years.

I doubt it will ever come to his examples, but I wouldn't be surprised to see teams limit starters to five innings, and use more three inning relievers.

 

[BigDDude]

That theory has been gaining momentum for a few years.

I doubt it will ever come to his examples, but I wouldn't be surprised to see teams limit starters to five innings, and use more three inning relievers.

Last year, the Rockies did this to some degree, but it wsa out of sheer necessity, as they did not have any starters with real talent and stamina to go the full 9.

I know how that worked out, but I have no idea what would go on if you went at that with a talented staff, like the Nationals that were mentioned.

 

[Swangin]

first of all you would need a ton of arms to make this work. And wouldn't it be great to have that many arms to pencil a guy in after your starter to throw 3 innings every day? what happens to that week where the guys you bring in can't make it 2 innings? Sounds like a mess and a lot of runs scored to me. A little different but would like to add, I feel being a BP guy getting up and throwing, sitting back down, and getting over used in a week is worse than a guy throwing 100 pitches every 5 days.

 

[Reverend Jim]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the guy who came up with this concept never played fantasy baseball.

 

[BigDDude]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the guy who came up with this concept never played fantasy baseball.

No doubt whatsoever.

 

[Darkstone42]

I don't think this will gain all too much traction unless rosters expand to accommodate more pitchers.

When it comes down to it, even in today's era of specialized and talented bullpens, starters will go until they start getting hit, losing control, or otherwise showing signs of fatigue (or the magic number 100 pitch limit, depending on age and reputation). Why? Because the manager knows a starter pitching well in a game will likely continue to pitch well in that game until he starts showing signs of fatigue or the hitters start showing signs of figuring him out. Whey, then, would managers start to pull starters after three, four, or five innings to put in another guy who, while perhaps talented, may not be "on" that day, when you already know the starter is on.

I think most managers have the mentality, to a point, to get as many quality innings out of each pitcher they can, only changing pitchers when the game situation (in the NL for example, using a pinch-hitter to try to get a much-needed run across), the pitcher himself starts losing command, or the other team starts hitting him hard, telling the manager to pull the guy. And I think that's the right mentality. You give your team the best chance to win when you take the surest available option.

The benefit of a bullpen is that it can cover for a tired or "off" pitcher, but it would be a waste of talent to not let starters who keep their stuff and command going late into games pitch until they're pooped, and I believe it would reduce the team's odds of winning that game.

 

[The Cubs fan]

I see a lot of problems with what was said. What happens is Straus is getting pounded, and gives up 7 runs in the first and already has thrown 35 pitches. You leave him in for 3 innings and hope for the best or do you break your routine and head to the bullpen? Also you'd be too predictable. Also if Straus is perfect through 3 with 7 K's and is pitching utter dominance do u want to take him
Another issue is you'd need a very deep bullpen. Just having 1-2 pitchers who can't hold down a lead is disastrous for the entire team. If you know Marmol will pitch every 3 days every 3rd day you'd lose unless you hold a nice lead.
IMO bullpen usage should be changed. Not SP usage. I think there should be a bullpen ace. Old teams used to do this.. The A's with i believe Eckersly was his name (Something like that) would have him come in and pitch 2-3 shutout innings to secure a win. I think this is much better than having Rivera come out and face the 6-7-8 batters with a 3-0 lead bottom of the ninth. I think a team like the Tigers Who have lots of starters (With everyone healthy) Should have Verlander a reliever. If Fister is bad going 5 INN allowing 5 ER, but the offence scores 6 runs, Verlander comes in and shuts the other team out for a 4 INN save. The next day Tigers up 5-3 8th INN facing 4-5-6 Verlander comes in to face the toughest INN left. Then you hope someone else can handle 7-8-9 to end the game. Verlander gets game or 2 off and hes back ready for usage. I think this is a great way to secure leads.

 

[steveringo]

Very good comments here....

Rosters would not need to expand. The reason for shifting to shorter inngs is so they could pitch every three days or so. What would be difficult is to tell a 'starter' that he isn't a starter anymore. They may also need to change some rules (even though it is a worthless stat, some people still put value in the "W")...

The format would also need to be very fluid - so if one pitcher gets rocked and yankd early, he'll be available in two days instead of three...


I think it would take about 50 years for this version to happen. The way to go would be to first shift to a four man rotation and tell the starters they'll only get six innings at the max (five if the PC is up). This way, they'd still be alinged to get the precious W, and their total IP at the end of the year would be the same.

From there, they could try to modify it further.