Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium Member today for an ad-free experience. 

     

IGNORED

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


gotbeer

Recommended Posts

The more I think about it, the more I'm in favor of this line of thinking.  For the low minors.

 

Instead of a starter not making it, and turning him into a reliever.  Start them all as short 2-3 inning guys.  Then find out who can make the next step up.  Actually, start them as 1-2 inning guys in A.  1-3 inning guys in A+.  1-4 inning guys in AA.  1-5 inning guys in AAA.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see things evolving in this direction. Though, not to this extreme. I think baseball will need to expand their rosters 1-2 players to make it happen.

 

People will often list Cy Youngs 511 (?) wins as one of the records that will never be broken. The reality though is baseball is just one freak and an opened minded management away from being able to break it. With a win only requiring 5 innings, one guy who can go 5 every third day coupled with a 3 inning marvel and a top closer could really rack up the wins (and pitch 3 of 7 games in a playoff series).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the really staggering stat: 749 complete games for Cy Young.

 

Those days are long gone.

 

 

Even going closer in history.  222 complete games for Nolan Ryan.  

 

The best pitcher in our time, Greg Maddux had 109.  

 

To put those numbers in perspective.  Weaver has 11.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting theory.  If it's ever used, it would turn traditional stats upside down.

Very interesting. The main thing, like the author states, is the wins and saves. Unless MLB changes the rules so that 3 innings provides a win, I'm not sure if any change is done. Too much money involved in addition to ego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting. The main thing, like the author states, is the wins and saves. Unless MLB changes the rules so that 3 innings provides a win, I'm not sure if any change is done. Too much money involved in addition to ego.

 

 

You have to remember though.  Saves is a fairly new stat itself.  

 

But Wins is a pretty important stat in baseball.  That's why I think this system would be ideal in the minors, where it's an important stat, but it's the minors so who cares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really is a great idea and one that teams employ in the low levels of minors, but mostly to build stamina. The Rockies actually gave it a shot last year to limited success, but that had more to do with their lack of talent. I would not be the least bit surprised if the Astros gave it a shot in the next few years as they are toying with it in the upper levels of their farm system.

 

The one real hindrance I see to it is that it would blow up the contract structures for starting pitchers and relievers since starters would be throwing fewer innings and relievers would throw more. The pay scale would be completely out of whack which would make it hard for a team to do this and still attract talent via free agency if every other team is using a traditional rotation (and thus paying starters big bucks).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read the article yet but the Rockies tried this during the last half of 2012. It didn't produce some of the results they wanted but the theory is sound as it has been proven that relievers over 1-3 innings are more effective (by not having been through the lineup more than once).

 

I'm assuming that is what the article hints at and it would seem to make some sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Angels are doing this now, taking pitchers out by the 4th inning. Not really reaping any wins.

The difference here is that the Angels are forced to do this tactically, the OP article talks about it being used strategically. Theoretically if you did this a starting pitching and reliever would be interchangeable so I'm not sure why rosters would need to be expanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game is moving in this general direction, there are two hindrances impeding this change.

 

1) Limited roster spots - rosters would need to be expanded to accommodate the extra pitchers teams would need to really pull this off.

 

2) Lack of talent - While teams will be using their pitchers in a more impactful manner, this comes at the cost of needing to give more innings to worse pitchers who previously wouldn't have been pitching. 

The real question is where does the balance point lie. If the impact of shorter outings is greater than the drop off from the last guy in the pen to the first few guys at AAA, then we could end up seeing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...