Has an MLB team ever tried to have a team where they have no “main” starting pitchers, and only have reliever type pitchers? Would this be feasible if they have decent non-pitcher players (so they at least be assured they’re not sacrificing offense to get this unusual lineup)?
Right now teams usually have a few starting pitchers throw on average anywhere from 6-9 innings, depending on circumstances. Then you have the bullpen with a bunch of relievers that specialize in a few pitches, or are great in small doses. The drawback of a starting pitcher would be that as great as they are, they only pitch once every few days, and as the first line of defense, its easier to prepare for one guy than multiple ones. Also, by the end of the inning 6, 7, or 8, they get tired and give up more hits than early on.
So what if a team has a bunch of pitchers that only pitch 1-3 innings, and depending on what team they’re playing, the manager switches them up at the last minute so the opposing team can’t prepare for them as well, and each of those pitches, as great as they are, only pitch limited innings so that they can pitch every single game. Could this work? Watching the recent 14 inning game between the Dodger and Nationals, I see that the Dodgers used 8 pitchers and Nats used 10. I had no idea they kept that many on staff! So what’s wrong with having 9 regular pitchers, each one for one inning, with the flexibility to rotate them in and out of the game depending on circumstances?
I’ve never heard of anyone trying this. It would be far, far too demanding on the bullpen. If a guy guys more than one inning in a game, he’s unlikely to be available the next day - and if a guy throws one inning for maybe three games in a row, he’ll also need a day off. So you would have to use lots of roster spots on pitchers, and you would need more good ones than a typical team. Finding five reliable starters and a handful of reliable relief pitchers is hard enough.
One thing I see wrong with it is that on any given day, a pitcher may be really “on” and “have his best stuff.” Under those circumstances, the last thing you would want to do is take a pitcher out who is baffling the other team in favor of another pitcher who may “just not have it” on that day and be his predecessor’s total opposite.
But under your scheme, all pitchers would be equipped due to their usage schedule to go no more than a couple of innings or so maximum, so this is what you’d have to do.
Furthermore, nowadays even “specialist” relief pitchers, who may only pitch to a batter or two, still are not typically inserted for more than three games in a row at most. So regularly pitching only one inning would still not produce a staff that could appear in game after game without it taking a toll on their arms.
About a century ago, it was common. The 1910 Cubs, used 12 pitchers that year. Ten of them pitched at least one complete game, 7 of them pitched at least 5 CG. Pitchers who proved to be more consistent got more of the starts. But 99 of their games were CG, and only 55 in which any relievers were used at all. Only two pitchers suited up all year who never gota start.
In the modern era, when a complete game is rare, it would make little sense to have Kershaw or Wainwright starting only about 12 games a year.
In the 50’s, pitchers like Spahn and Roberts always made a half dozen or so relief appearances during the course of the year. During the 6 straight years that Spahn won 20 games, he made 25 relief appearances.
They’d all get hurt. A starter needs to be “stretched out” if he’s going to pitch more than 1-2 innings every time, and he needs to pitch the kind of innings a starter does if he’s going to *stay *stretched out. Relievers can’t go out every day, or even more than a third or so of the time, or they get worn out and injury-prone as well as ineffective. Maybe with enough roster expansion that you could have a 20 or 30 man staff, you could do it, but why?
Marley’s and DChord568’s explantions: It’s too hard to set up a schedule of rest that works out easily. One inning per guy per day … for how long? 162 games over 182 days? And they finish that one inning and only one inning no matter or how well or how poorly they pitch?
Relatedly, nobody knows what the physical toll of that is. If we’re talking about professionals, you’re putting a lot of million-dollar arms up for an experiment.
Players are accustomed the traditional structures and are going to be unhappy if you use them in other ways. A guy who has spent his whole life being a starting pitcher, with the sense of ownership that entails is not going to like being told he’s getting three innings every third day and then getting yanked no matter what the score is.
Biggest of all, it’s a sub-optimal use of your best pitchers. As it is, you can decide which pitchers to use based on game circumstances. In a close game, you can ask an effective starter to go a bit longer than he usually does, and/or bring in your best relievers. If it’s 8-0 in the sixth inning, you use your weaker relievers as mop-up men.
Tony La Russa tried that basic idea in 1993 with the As. His plan was for a 9 man starting staff, with three groups of three pitchers pitching every third day. Eck was to lead a five man bullpen. It lasted for 5 games, and the team went 1-4.
This isn’t really relevant. Batters don’t gain all that much by preparing for any specific pitcher.
Also not mentioned - it’d double the length of the game, since each new pitcher gets to warm up longer.
Of course these days I think the concept of small sample size is prevalent enough that a lot of fans would tell you that five games doesn’t tell you much of anything - but it’s true that you would need the staff to be very committed to this idea because fans and the press would take any 1-4 stretch as proof that the concept was an unworkable failure. DCnDC’s link is interesting, but of course it should be mentioned that the Diamondbacks suck and I don’t think they are awash in pitching talent. The Astros, who are a year or two away from starting to try to compete, are also trying some rotation experiments in the low minor leagues. The theory that some pitchers who are giving you 80 innings could give you another 40 innings and some who are giving you 180 innings would be better at 120 or 140 makes some sense. The problem is identifying the right level for each pitcher. If you have a potential Kershaw on your staff or in your system, you want to find out and then get him out there as much as you can without jeopardizing his health.
I think that was part of the point (and why this article appeared on the Diamondbacks’ blog); it’s a system designed to maximize the effectiveness (and/or minimize the damage) of not-so-great pitching.
It might work if the whole game of baseball was doing things this way. If all pitchers were brought up as 3 inning pitchers, and that’s the way they all trained and pitched through their careers, they might do better than the starter/reliever system. But the pitching model now works pretty well already. 3 inning pitchers will still have bad days, managers will still leave pitchers in too long, and injuries will still mess up the rotation just as they do now. The potential and uncertain payoff wouldn’t be worth the risk.
One of the comments La Russa made in the piece I linked to was that the pitchers got cranky that as starters they couldn’t earn a win going only 3 innings. The As also came in last that year, so a 1-4 record probably just wasn’t due to the new rotation.
Right, that’s another factor: if none of the other teams adopt this system, the pitchers will probably be concerned that this system will depress their statistics and their value as free agents, and they won’t like that at all.
Even if they were great that year- like I say, it’s too small of a sample to make a definitive conclusion. But a team that tried this experiment would really have to commit to it because fans and the press tend to be really harsh on anyone who bucks tradition.
I could see a team decide to try it by replacing their 5th starter with two three inning pitchers, since those guys often don’t make it through the line up twice anyway.
The Rockies basically tried that last year. First of all their starters sucked and even then they only tried it for a couple of months. The basic concept was that the thrid time through a lineup a pitchers ERA increases about a point so generally they set a 70 pitch limit on their starters and planned on using the relievers for 4 innings per game. I’ll see if I can come up with more then vague memories
Yeah, a hard pitch count makes more sense than a strict innings limit if you are going to try this method. It would be a less radical change of course, but would also allow the flexibility of saying that pitcher A’s count is 85 while B’s is 70. It would also allow the team to more easily tap into players developed in a different system, and just tell them if you want to be eligible for a win, make sure you get through at least five innings in 75 pitches.