SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Are High Pitch Counts the New Market Efficiency?
|
|
Post by orcoaster on May 18, 2018 0:20:27 GMT -5
We all know four decades ago pitchers like Luis Tiant would routinely throw 150 pitches over 8 or 9 nine innings every fourth day. (Some of us even remember!) We also know such a regiment made mincemeat of many a promising young arm. Hence, the era of pitch counts and five man rotations was born. However, when pitchers like Chris Sale, Rick Porcello, and David Price leave a game after throwing 5 or 6 dominate innings simply because they have thrown 100 pitches, I have to wonder: Is the team leaving money on the table? Would these grown men be able to throw another 30, 40, or more effective pitches per start and be fully capable of competing again in a similar capacity after four days rest? If so, how valuable would those extra innings be to the team?
I am no expert, but I have read that data suggests while pitch counts protect developing arms in youth and young men, there is no benefit to them in fully grown men. So I wonder, would a team like the Red Sox be prudent to take advantage of this underutilized existent resource? Let their starting pitchers lengthen their game which in turn shortens and strengthens the bullpen. No need to replace Carson Smith when the starters can just throw an extra inning.
Certainly there are many moving parts in this equation. For instance, perhaps the 100 pitches a pitcher throws today have greater intensity than the 150 that Luis threw. Or perhaps we worry that Chris Sale already tires out by September so why ask him to do more? Bullpens have also evolved over the years to become much more potent than in eras gone by. Still, I wonder: why must the very best pitchers in baseball today absolutely leave the game after they have thrown the rock 100 times? Why is that the magic number? Why is it the same number for every single pitcher? Is it a magic number? Will a team one day discover that it is not so magic after all? Is there an inefficiency in the way current thinking believes the game must be played?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by patford on May 18, 2018 8:03:12 GMT -5
We all know four decades ago pitchers like Luis Tiant would routinely throw 150 pitches over 8 or 9 nine innings every fourth day. (Some of us even remember!) We also know such a regiment made mincemeat of many a promising young arm. Hence, the era of pitch counts and five man rotations was born. However, when pitchers like Chris Sale, Rick Porcello, and David Price leave a game after throwing 5 or 6 dominate innings simply because they have thrown 100 pitches, I have to wonder: Is the team leaving money on the table? Would these grown men be able to throw another 30, 40, or more effective pitches per start and be fully capable of competing again in a similar capacity after four days rest? If so, how valuable would those extra innings be to the team? I am no expert, but I have read that data suggests while pitch counts protect developing arms in youth and young men, there is no benefit to them in fully grown men. So I wonder, would a team like the Red Sox be prudent to take advantage of this underutilized existent resource? Let their starting pitchers lengthen their game which in turn shortens and strengthens the bullpen. No need to replace Carson Smith when the starters can just throw an extra inning. Certainly there are many moving parts in this equation. For instance, perhaps the 100 pitches a pitcher throws today have greater intensity than the 150 that Luis threw. Or perhaps we worry that Chris Sale already tires out by September so why ask him to do more? Bullpens have also evolved over the years to become much more potent than in eras gone by. Still, I wonder: why must the very best pitchers in baseball today absolutely leave the game after they have thrown the rock 100 times? Why is that the magic number? Why is it the same number for every single pitcher? Is it a magic number? Will a team one day discover that it is not so magic after all? Is there an inefficiency in the way current thinking believes the game must be played? Thoughts? We know Sale can't. He is tall but sleight and has a history of wearing down. He has always been only a pretty good pitcher towards the end of a season. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 18, 2018 8:16:23 GMT -5
There's a ton of evidence, at this point, of pitchers losing effectiveness the third time through the order, and of pitches past #120 (or so) having a huge injury impact.
The market inefficiency isn't the number of innings/pitches thrown by the first pitcher in the game, it's the ones thrown by the ones who come after. There are pitchers who throw 180+ innings a year and ones who through 50, but there's no pitcher who is intentionally used for 100-120 innings. Which is crazy, because that's probably where most pitchers would hit max value. Drew Pomeranz, for example, would be a stud 18-batter-per-game pitcher, but we're still so deeply involved in our conceptions of starter vs. reliever that we can't end up there. I saw an article on Travis Lakins last week and how he's been used for three innings (basically) since his return, and a discussion of whether it makes sense to move him toward longer or shorter outings, and I can't help but think that's self-defeating. If he lacks the durability to go seven but his stuff plays up for more than one, why not embrace the middle? You get 100 to 120 or so innings from Hector Velazquez and potentially open up a bench spot for a Bryce Brentz who can give you a little pop as a pinch hitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by orcoaster on May 18, 2018 9:53:55 GMT -5
Back in 2013 Zachary Rymer explored this issue in Bleacher Report. Some of his findings: * Despite decreased workloads, arm and shoulder injuries in pitchers have increased, particularly TJ surgeries. * While pitch counts produce verifiable results of health and longevity in youth, their benefits are much more elusive in adults, and have come under scrutiny in some professional sports medicine circles. * The real issue is arm fatigue. Pitchers should not pitch once they are fatigued, and they should be allowed to recover before they pitch again. Pitch counts can be one tool to help monitor this fatigue, but because pitchers are humans and not robots, counting pitches is not an accurate way to measure fatigue. * Building arm strength is the best way to overcome arm fatigue. However, many between start regiments teams recommend for pitchers may actually decrease arm strength. It's an interesting story with some helpful links. bleacherreport.com/articles/1622573-do-innings-limits-pitch-counts-actually-prevent-serious-injuries |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2018 9:56:18 GMT -5
Regardless of the injuries, an average relief pitcher is going to be better than the best starter the 4th time through the order, let alone after 120 pitches.
|
|
|
|
Post by orcoaster on May 18, 2018 10:08:25 GMT -5
There's a ton of evidence, at this point, of pitchers losing effectiveness the third time through the order, and of pitches past #120 (or so) having a huge injury impact. The market inefficiency isn't the number of innings/pitches thrown by the first pitcher in the game, it's the ones thrown by the ones who come after. There are pitchers who throw 180+ innings a year and ones who through 50, but there's no pitcher who is intentionally used for 100-120 innings. Which is crazy, because that's probably where most pitchers would hit max value. Drew Pomeranz, for example, would be a stud 18-batter-per-game pitcher, but we're still so deeply involved in our conceptions of starter vs. reliever that we can't end up there. I saw an article on Travis Lakins last week and how he's been used for three innings (basically) since his return, and a discussion of whether it makes sense to move him toward longer or shorter outings, and I can't help but think that's self-defeating. If he lacks the durability to go seven but his stuff plays up for more than one, why not embrace the middle? You get 100 to 120 or so innings from Hector Velazquez and potentially open up a bench spot for a Bryce Brentz who can give you a little pop as a pinch hitter. Good point. It could be true that both things are true. There likely are many relief pitchers who can pitch much more than one inning. There could also be many starting pitchers who can exceed a 100 pitch count with no ill effects. Things change slowly in baseball, until someone wins a WS using a new paradigm and suddenly everyone adopts it. The Royals reinvented bullpen usage and composition in 2015. Last year, the Astros upended conventional thinking about hitters working pitch counts. It takes courage to challenge The Book, but when new ideas succeed The Book gets a new chapter. Seems like there is enough underutilized value in enough pitchers that we may be on the brink of such a shift. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 18, 2018 10:09:07 GMT -5
Yeah, I think you're focusing too much on the injuries issue and not enough on the effectiveness aspect. Matt Barnes on pitch one is a better pitcher than Rick Porcello on pitch 145. If it were *only* the injury issue I think we'd see more pitchers going deeper into games. But by focusing starters on shorter outings, they're able to expend more effort per pitch, making them more effective.
Frankly, that Rymer article uses a lot of partial data and confuses correlation with causation. A lot of the pitchers getting hurt more are relievers, who lacked the stamina to be starters in the first place. So instead of guys who in 1968 wouldn't have made it out of the minors, these guys are switched to the bullpen, succeeding in short roles, and then getting hurt. That has nothing to do with pitch counts and everything to do with baseball actually getting more out of its "fragile" pitchers. Neftali Feliz, who he uses, is a great example. "He got hurt anyway, so they should have pushed him harder" is kind of backwards. Maybe if they push him harder he never has that run helping the Rangers to the World Series. In that case, the number of pitching injuries is the same (1), but the value provided before the injury is greater.
But even if his theory is correct, those extra pitches they'd be throwing aren't the effective ones that you want to be squeezing out of a pitcher. The number of runs Rick Porcello allowed last year when John Farrell was consistently slow with the hook are a great example of that. He's an outstanding example of a pitcher whose durability and mechanics could allow him to throw like 140 pitches in a start but in terms of winning baseball games would be a self-defeating practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 18, 2018 10:18:46 GMT -5
James, the article you saw (if it's the one I'm thinking of) did, in fact, reference the middle: www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2018/05/12/red-sox-are-still-process-rebuilding-their-farm-system-and-shows/Kq9Q6etwKj3udYbjwthnSJ/story.htmlI thought that was very interesting. We're kind of seeing teams start to do that too, with guys like Archie Bradley and Josh Hader (although the former is pitching in a more traditional one-inning setup role than I'd realized, now that I look at his game log). It's an interesting thought experiment. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with a "should pitch counts be higher?" discussion because that's been done at this point and we're never going back to having starters go deeper into games. And as James said, it's not just a health thing - teams have realized that pitchers are less effective when they're facing hitters for the third time in a game. It's a strategy thing. Right now, the starter is really only expected to get you to the 6th or 7th. There is only one starter in baseball averaging >7 IP per start (Kluber at 7.3), and he was the only one who did that last year (7.0). Just 33 averaging 6 or more; last year it was 34. Only 20 pitchers are averaging >100 pitches per start; last year it was just 15. Only two pitchers have thrown >120 pitches in a start this year. Only 27 have even thrown 110. Last year, just 16 pitchers even reached 120 pitches in a start, and only two pitchers did it more than once. Finding a middle ground with some pitchers makes sense, and I wonder if this is where the Rays' "bullpen game" experiment may lead us. Just because, say, Travis Lakins may be unable to stay healthy going 6 innings every 6th day, why does that mean the only other role he can fill is going 1 inning every other day or whatever you want to call a "typical" bullpen role? Say as an example that Houck, Shawaryn, and Lakins aren't going to stick as starters, but they're super effective throwing 2-3 innings every second or third day. Your pitching staff could break down as 5 starters, 3 long relievers, and 3 or 4 short relievers. If you really want to think outside the box (and this is where the Rays' experiment could lead), you go 4 starters, 3 long relievers who can also spot start when you need a fifth starter, and 4 short relievers. Or something like that. The long relievers rarely see batters twice in a game unless they're shoving at a low pitch count. You fill in with the short relievers as necessary and you probably have a closer and setup guy. If this sounds kind of familiar - it's what the Red Sox do a lot at the lower levels of the minors, but for development purposes when they have 6-8 guys on a roster who they want getting starter innings. In Salem, Daniel Gonzalez and Hildemaro Requena are throwing 50-80-pitch outings out of the bullpen. Algenis Martinez is throwing 40-60 pitches per outing. It wouldn't necessarily be those guys in those roles in the majors (it'd be the starters who can't hack it as starters), but why not let guys go longer, with the caveat being they might need more rest than the average reliever? I hope we see teams try this. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2018 10:20:50 GMT -5
It happened last night even with Price on his best night, couldn't get Machado out a 4th time and gave up the HR. If it was a 2-0 game instead of 6-0, he would have been taken out even with 80 pitches because he should have been. The 4th time through the order is a huge penalty for every pitcher.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on May 18, 2018 10:27:57 GMT -5
I'm actually really intrigued by this idea. Putting all 12 pitchers on a rotation rather than mix and match a bullpen. So let's say you want to stick with a 12 man rotation, is it really just as simple as building a 4 day rotation with a closer and backup closer? You switch to 4 game rotation since your "starters" are only going 3-4 innings now.
Day 1: Starter 1(Innings 1-3) | Reliever 1 (Innings 4-6) | Reliever 2 (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Closer 1 (9th)
Day 2: Starter 2(Innings 1-3) | Reliever 3 (Innings 4-6) | Reliever 4 (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Closer 2 (9th)
Day 3: Starter 3(Innings 1-3) | Reliever 5 (Innings 4-6) | Reliever (1 or 2) (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Closer 1 (9th)
Day 4: Starter 4(Innings 1-3) | Reliever 6 (Innings 4-6) | Reliever (3 or 4) (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Closer 2 (9th)
4 "Starters", 6 2-3 inning "relievers", 2 1 inning "closers"
You take the Sox for example:
Day 1: Chris Sale (Innings 1-3) | Brian Johnson (Innings 4-6) | Matt Barnes (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Craig Kimbrel (9th)
Day 2: David Price (Innings 1-3) | Hector Velazquez (Innings 4-6) | Carson Smith (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Joe Kelly (9th)
Day 3: Rick Porcello (Innings 1-3) | Drew Pomeranz (Innings 4-6) | Heath Hembree (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Craig Kimbrel (9th)
Day 4: Eduardo Rodriguez (Innings 1-3) | Steven Wright (Innings 4-6) | Bobby Poyner (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Joe Kelly (9th)
You can mix and match rotations (maybe following Chris Sale's FB with Wrights's knuckleball makes hitters more uncomfortable, or always having lefty pitchers follow righty pitchers so if teams put in their LHP lineup, it's useless by the 4th inning, etc.
Now, this will never happen because it requires starters to not care about wins, starters to move to piggy-back roles, no use for specialist relievers, stats are all completely out of whack (your K leader at the end of the season will have like 100) and goodbye to no-hitters and perfect games. It's basically how minor league pitching staffs are run, as most starters have stricter pitch/inning limits and the bullpens are almost all run on "rotations" where guys pitch every 3rd or 4th day, no matter the score/situation
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 18, 2018 10:29:42 GMT -5
It happened last night even with Price on his best night, couldn't get Machado out a 4th time and gave up the HR. If it was a 2-0 game instead of 6-0, he would have been taken out even with 80 pitches because he should have been. The 4th time through the order is a huge penalty for every pitcher. Yes, AND it's also a good time to realize that the goal isn't to give up no runs, it's to win the game. So, while Price probably was less effective than Barnes would've been in the ninth, the opportunity to give Barnes a night off is a great benefit, and you have to weigh those benefits against the potential costs. And the most obvious potential cost (the chance Price would just blow the game), is just not that high in a six-run game. The frustrating thing is that teams do that with starters all the time, but so much less frequently with relievers. To bury John Farrell more, how many times did we see a starter get pulled in the six winning like 9-4, to put in, say, Alexi Ogando, who got the last two outs of the sixth inning? But then he'd throw Tazawa out there for the seventh, despite the fact that the chances he'd blow the game weren't substantially lower than the chances Oganda would. ----- Chris, good catch on that Lakins article - I had missed that point, and that's encouraging. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 18, 2018 11:15:04 GMT -5
I'm actually really intrigued by this idea. Putting all 12 pitchers on a rotation rather than mix and match a bullpen. So let's say you want to stick with a 12 man rotation, is it really just as simple as building a 4 day rotation with a closer and backup closer? You switch to 4 game rotation since your "starters" are only going 3-4 innings now. Day 1: Starter 1(Innings 1-3) | Reliever 1 (Innings 4-6) | Reliever 2 (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Closer 1 (9th) Day 2: Starter 2(Innings 1-3) | Reliever 3 (Innings 4-6) | Reliever 4 (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Closer 2 (9th) Day 3: Starter 3(Innings 1-3) | Reliever 5 (Innings 4-6) | Reliever (1 or 2) (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Closer 1 (9th) Day 4: Starter 4(Innings 1-3) | Reliever 6 (Innings 4-6) | Reliever (3 or 4) (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Closer 2 (9th) 4 "Starters", 6 2-3 inning "relievers", 2 1 inning "closers" You take the Sox for example: Day 1: Chris Sale (Innings 1-3) | Brian Johnson (Innings 4-6) | Matt Barnes (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Craig Kimbrel (9th) Day 2: David Price (Innings 1-3) | Hector Velazquez (Innings 4-6) | Carson Smith (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Joe Kelly (9th) Day 3: Rick Porcello (Innings 1-3) | Drew Pomeranz (Innings 4-6) | Heath Hembree (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Craig Kimbrel (9th) Day 4: Eduardo Rodriguez (Innings 1-3) | Steven Wright (Innings 4-6) | Bobby Poyner (Innings 7-8 or 9 if not in lead) | Joe Kelly (9th) You can mix and match rotations (maybe following Chris Sale's FB with Wrights's knuckleball makes hitters more uncomfortable, or always having lefty pitchers follow righty pitchers so if teams put in their LHP lineup, it's useless by the 4th inning, etc. Now, this will never happen because it requires starters to not care about wins, starters to move to piggy-back roles, no use for specialist relievers, stats are all completely out of whack (your K leader at the end of the season will have like 100) and goodbye to no-hitters and perfect games. It's basically how minor league pitching staffs are run, as most starters have stricter pitch/inning limits and the bullpens are almost all run on "rotations" where guys pitch every 3rd or 4th day, no matter the score/situation The problem with this is that now you're throwing your best pitchers (Sale, Price, Porcello, in this example) far less often in order to give significantly more innings to inferior pitchers. You're always going to want your best pitchers throwing as many innings as they can effectively. That statement bakes in (1) "effective innings", or put another way, using the pitcher in such a way that he pitches better when he does pitch, and (2) keeping the pitcher healthy such that he throws as many innings as possible without fatiguing the arm such that he suffers an injury that puts him on the shelf. You're never going to want to treat Chris Sale the same way you treat Brian Johnson or even Eduardo Rodriguez, which is what this would do. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 18, 2018 11:22:27 GMT -5
Under that scenario, Chris Sale would end up somewhere around eighth or ninth on the team in batters faced.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on May 18, 2018 11:41:13 GMT -5
Not sure if it's always been done like this, or if it's a tweak, but Ball McGrath Workman Cosart Weems Lau Gorst Buttrey are all at 1.5 to 2.5 IP/G out of the pen. Hader is at 1.7, Hembree Kelly Barnes Smith are 0.8-1.1.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on May 18, 2018 12:23:34 GMT -5
The problem with this is that now you're throwing your best pitchers (Sale, Price, Porcello, in this example) far less often in order to give significantly more innings to inferior pitchers. You're always going to want your best pitchers throwing as many innings as they can effectively. That statement bakes in (1) "effective innings", or put another way, using the pitcher in such a way that he pitches better when he does pitch, and (2) keeping the pitcher healthy such that he throws as many innings as possible without fatiguing the arm such that he suffers an injury that puts him on the shelf. You're never going to want to treat Chris Sale the same way you treat Brian Johnson or even Eduardo Rodriguez, which is what this would do. I guess my point was more you would build a pitching staff to fit this model, I was just using the players on the Sox to clarify what I was saying. Ideally, you would be signing and developing "inferior" (ie cheaper) starting pitchers that are only good for 3/4 innings, which would keep you from paying $15-$20M a year to one starter like Chris Sale or David Price. You would deliberately seek out those pitchers that are putting up excellent stats the first 2 times through the lineup, and invest in 6-8 of them for the same price as 1 Ace or #2. That's the market efficiency, signings 2 pitchers for less money to do the job of one with similar results. You can also exploit the differences between pitchers approaches with how you order them (deliberately following a lefty after a righty, high velo after a control guy, etc) to increase discomfort of hitters. It would require tearing down your entire staff and starting over, but it just strikes me as a fascinating approach that could maybe be implemented in an independent league team to test the theory. |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on May 18, 2018 13:04:57 GMT -5
IMO it is not possible to build a pitching staff based on that model, you still have to have really good pitchers to have a really good staff. It seems like you want to build a staff with guys that would be considered middle relievers. Don't get me wrong I brought this discussion up over the winter and believe teams should piggyback more but what it requires is what we thought the Sox had a few weeks ago, 7 or 8 guys you would trust starting. When you have that you have the depth to have the starter get thru the lineup twice and go to the next guy who can do the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by patford on May 18, 2018 13:16:13 GMT -5
When it comes to fatigue resulting in lack of effectiveness and injury I believe there is a factor which is often overlooked. A pitcher can become extremely fatigued in one inning by throwing a ton of pitches in that inning. At the end of a thirty pitch inning a pitcher probably is more fatigued than David Price was entering the 9th inning last night at 80 pitches.
You can test this at home. Do as many push-ups as you can comfortably do see how quickly you recover to do another set. Then try pushing yourself to do more push-ups than is comfortable and see how fast your recover.
I think 80 pitches in four innings might be harder on an arm that 100 over nine.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 18, 2018 14:01:05 GMT -5
When it comes to fatigue resulting in lack of effectiveness and injury I believe there is a factor which is often overlooked. A pitcher can become extremely fatigued in one inning by throwing a ton of pitches in that inning. At the end of a thirty pitch inning a pitcher probably is more fatigued than David Price was entering the 9th inning last night at 80 pitches. You can test this at home. Do as many push-ups as you can comfortably do see how quickly you recover to do another set. Then try pushing yourself to do more push-ups than is comfortable and see how fast your recover. I think 80 pitches in four innings might be harder on an arm that 100 over nine. I tried that, no dice. I easily recovered after two hours when I did 2 pushups, same as when I did one. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 18, 2018 14:25:14 GMT -5
When it comes to fatigue resulting in lack of effectiveness and injury I believe there is a factor which is often overlooked. A pitcher can become extremely fatigued in one inning by throwing a ton of pitches in that inning. At the end of a thirty pitch inning a pitcher probably is more fatigued than David Price was entering the 9th inning last night at 80 pitches. You can test this at home. Do as many push-ups as you can comfortably do see how quickly you recover to do another set. Then try pushing yourself to do more push-ups than is comfortable and see how fast your recover. I think 80 pitches in four innings might be harder on an arm that 100 over nine. For a while, the Red Sox had an automatic hook when guys in the minors threw 30 pitches in an inning. Zero discretion. I recall one Matt Barnes start in which we all panicked after he came out after one inning that pre-dated pitch counts in milb.com box scores at all levels. |
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on May 18, 2018 14:32:48 GMT -5
It happened last night even with Price on his best night, couldn't get Machado out a 4th time and gave up the HR. If it was a 2-0 game instead of 6-0, he would have been taken out even with 80 pitches because he should have been. The 4th time through the order is a huge penalty for every pitcher.Once upon a time Nolan Ryan was 156-0 when leading after 8 innings (and pitching the 9th). It would seem "huge penalties" are for mortals only. |
|
|
