Baseball Innovation

[dgs49]

As a person who follows the most unsuccessful team in the history of Major League Baseball, I often consider strategic changes they might make that would help them to become competitive. It is obvious that with their payroll limitations they will never be successful if they employ the same basic strategies as the teams they are competing against. They have to be smarter.

As you may know, baseball is a neurotically-traditional sport, where simple and obvious changes in strategy sometimes take decades to come into favor, because Managers and General Managers are reluctant to make decisions that go against the norms, for fear that the decisions will be unsuccessful and they will get fired. For example, it would be a rare manager indeed who would use a left-handed pinch hitter against a left-handed pitcher, unless there was a specific history of that batter being spectacularly successful against that particular pitcher in the past (or there were no right handed batters available). It is simply not done.

The focus of this essay is the simple fact that the traditional strategy with respect to starting pitchers for the past hundred years or so is to bring in a “starter” to begin the game, then use him until he is no longer effective and replace him with a “reliever.” 70 years ago, when most starters were able to finish the game, that strategy may have made sense. Subsequently, however, it was realized that it is more rational to bring in a fresh reliever than to stay with a fatigued starting pitcher. It is also relevant that the batters may have seen the starting pitcher 2 or 3 times already that day, and are likely to have more success next time through the batting order.

But today’s common strategy is still based on the outmoded assumption that the starting pitcher will finish the game. Thus, the starting pitcher will usually stay in the game until the manager is convinced that he is no longer effective. (“Forward thinking” managers will pull a pitcher if the number of pitches exceeds a pre-set limit, but this is also stupid). This strategy accepts as a given that there will come a time in the game when the starting pitcher will be ineffective, and give up a number of walks, hits, and/or runs.

What sense does it make to employ a strategy that almost invariably results in the key defensive player (the pitcher) experiencing a significant failure? It’s almost like the gambler who is determined to keep playing until he runs out of money. It is impossible to win with that strategy.

I submit that the more rational utilization of pitchers is to create situations where the best pitchers on the staff (i.e., the “starters”) are most likely to achieve success. More importantly, since they are your best pitchers, you want them in the game and reasonably fresh at the time when it is most likely that the decisive scoring will take place – the last three innings.

The strategy is simply this: The pitcher who starts the game (the “Shortie”) should have the task of completing three full innings - ideally, going once through the batting order. That’s it. Then the Shortie is done for the day. All he has to focus on is getting through the other team’s lineup one time without allowing them to score.

Next, at the start of the fourth inning, bring in the pitcher who would now be thought of as a “Starter”; I will refer to him as the “Long Man.” His role is to finish the game. Ideally, the Shortie will have a completely different pitching style than the Long Man. The Shortie is left-handed and the Long Man is right handed. The Shortie is a junk-ball pitcher and the Long Man throws smoke. Give the opposing batters two different looks.

The benefits of this strategy are many:
• The other team’s “platoon” strategy is largely neutralized.
• The need for “relief pitchers” is minimized.
• The entire pitching staff gets a more predictable workload, and can plan their conditioning activities accordingly.
• Pitcher fatigue should not be a factor at the end of the game.
• Opposing batters will see two different pitchers their first two times up, thus reducing their comfort level.
There are some downsides, to be sure:
• The Long Man will not know exactly when (time wise) he will have to start pitching; he will have to be a little bit flexible in his pre-game preparation.
• This would create statistical anomalies: Shorties could never get credit for a Win, but they could be charged with a Loss. They would all end the season with records like 0-12. Long Men would get a corresponding boost to their W/L records; if they come in with their team behind, they (normally) cannot be charged with a Loss, but if they come in with their team ahead, they are much more likely to get a Win.
• Managers would often have to use a pinch hitter early in the game (batting for the Shortie), making that player unavailable later.
But I think this strategy would definitely improve a team’s overall ERA, because the Starting Pitcher’s inevitable bad inning as he tires out will be largely eliminated, and Shorties will be able to focus on their well-defined task.

I believe that the Long Men could be utilized pretty much as they are now, pitching every fifth game. The role of Shortie does not exist now, but I would assume for planning purposes that a Shortie should be able to pitch every third – or at worst every fourth – day. Remember, they will rarely be called on to pitch on other than their scheduled days, so the wear and tear of warming up every day (for a possible relief appearance) will be replaced with a three or four day regular conditioning routine. When they do start a game, I would expect the average outing to be about 40-50 pitches, but a 30-pitch outing would not be unheard of.

The general manager will have to go after pitchers who would be comfortable pitching three innings at a stretch, and mirror-image the Shorties with the Long Men (righties vs. lefties).

Will the Pirates adopt my strategy? Will anyone?

[Long Run]

Interesting idea. I think it fails because of the simple fact that a run scored in the first inning counts the same as a run scored in the 9th. Thus, it really doesn't matter when you have your long or short pitcher in the game, if they are going to pitch 6 and 3 innings respectively. By definition, the long pitcher is almost always a superior pitcher to the short pitcher, so if you can change the innings pitched ratio from 6:3 to 7:2 or 8:1 in a given game, you get superior pitching (more innings for your superior pitcher). Pitchers being human, sometimes can give you a terrible outing, 5 okay innings, or 9 brilliant innings, ace pitchers tending toward the latter, and average starting pitchers tending toward five or six innings. Pitchers are not machines, some days they have their best stuff and some days they don't. Thus, you ride the starting pitcher when he has his good stuff as long as it lasts.

In fact, one of my pet peeves is the over-managing of taking out the starter when he still looks good (this may make sense during the season to preserve his arm), and having a normal "set up" reliever to pitch an inning or two, before getting to the closer for the last inning. Having the "good stuff", especially for average pitchers is not a given. Thus, when managers take out a pitcher who is getting outs (whether as a starter or in relief) for a matchup or to make way for the guy who is designated the "closer" they are hurting their chances (unless you have a supremely gifted relief pitcher like Rivera).

[dgs49]

Points taken. The think I'm strategically avoiding is the inevitable bad inning that causes the starter to be removed. There is no reason why a starter on a typical day can't give you 6 innings.

Of course, the more pitchers come into a game, the greater the chances of getting one who is having an off day.

I think the decision to remove a pitcher is based on more than whether he is getting people out. They are looking at the JUGS gun, comments from the catcher, control, and whether the pitcher's "out" pitches are still getting the job done. after 90 pitches or so, there is almost always someone in the bullpen who can be as effective as a tired starter.

I am amazed sometimes when the batters are crushing the ball, but all of the balls are being caught. The manager will often keep a pitcher in when he is obviously not pitching well, but because the fielders are lucky enough to catch the balls. Conversely, a pitcher might give up a series of bleeders and bloops that happen to fall in for hits - nothing but luck - and the manager pulls him.

Too bad the umpire crew chief can't pull an umpire when he is having a bad day at the plate.

[Sean]

The easiest way to make baseball infinitely better to watch and play would be to add some stumps and a crease.

[Gob]

"Ah, the sweet sound of willow wood hitting leather...

But enough about my sex life...."

[dales]

[Rick]

Where ya gonna stick all the extra bodies?

Even middle relievers and closers have a rotation...

[The Hen]

We're not killing them!

They can just hang round in the Pavillion when they aren't fielding.

[loCAtek]

"Ah, the sweet sound of willow wood hitting leather...

But enough about my sex life...."

...and bring a book or a magazine.