Master Index of Archived Threads


Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

Vic Sage May 08 2014 10:40 AM

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/ ... er=ya5nbcs I've always thought that there was at least some untapped potential (in Moneyball terms, inefficiencies in the market) in using good-hitting pitchers and good-pitching hitters to expand the depth of a team's bench. Why can't a pitcher pinch-hit now and then, or even start at a position, if his bat warrants it? Or a hitter who can throw 95-mph strikes used in relief occasionally, to rest the pen or even to get higher leverage outs, allowing a team to carry an additional bench player, rather than a 12-man pitching staff. If a pitcher can hit the curve in the minors, they find a position for him and his pitching days are abandoned. And if a hitter has a better arm than a bat, he's given a shot on the mound, and if he makes it, then that's it. He's a pitcher. It was an early form of positional specialization that was adopted throughout the sport quite early on, but is it at least worth reconsidering, even as we reconsider the wisdom of things like bullpen specialization?

Edgy MD May 08 2014 10:57 AM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

It seems to me that if a player is draftable both as a hitter and a pitcher, and you decide that he's better as a one, rather than abandon the secondary craft, pay him a few extra dollars to do the other thing in winter ball, and so keep his secondary skills sharp. But the whole bloody culture is moving toward specialization --- with youth coaches selling hard to parents the notionthat their 12-year-old shouldn't be allowed to play both baseball and soccer, or lacrosse and basketball. He or she has to pick one sport and play it year round, or be an utter failure in everything ever. It's madness.

Benjamin Grimm May 08 2014 11:09 AM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

I've heard that when Babe Ruth was still in the Red Sox pitching rotation, but also playing as an outfielder, that he batted ninth on days that he pitched, and cleanup on days that he was in the outfield. I never checked to see whether or not that was true.

Mets – Willets Point May 08 2014 11:15 AM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

I looked at a few boxscores for the 1919 season here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams ... ores.shtml and it looks like Ruth batted 4th as a pitcher and batted 9th as a pitcher that season.

Mets – Willets Point May 08 2014 11:16 AM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

Actually, it's a lot easier to see on this page: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams ... ders.shtml

seawolf17 May 08 2014 11:18 AM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

That actually makes some sense, because if Ruth doesn't have it that day and you have to replace him, you don't want someone who can't hit in the middle of your lineup. (Unless they just moved him to the outfield after taking him out.)

Ceetar May 08 2014 11:21 AM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

well part of it is convincing anyone in charge of such decisions to actually do so. The four best hitting pitchers by fWAR in 2011-2014 are Zack Grienke, Mike Leake, Clayton Kershaw and Yovani Gallardo. They've been used to pinch hit a mere 17 times in their combined careers. There are other caveats of course. Pitchers rarely throw other pitchers breaking balls in the dirt and the like. I'm sure the percent of fastballs is crazy high. Once a pitcher gets a reputation for maybe being able to hit a little bit, the guy on the mound tries a little harder, which means the pitcher-batter has to be even better to really add value as a pinch hitter. In theory I love the idea, but even a .200/.300/.400 pitcher is probably less valuable than a lefty/righty masher type. And is the increased batting power of your 6th pinch hitter more valuable than being able to have that same guy pitch an inning or two in the 17th? The other side, a hitter pitching, intrigues me a little more, but with the state of most bullpens, particularly the back-ends, if you can get batters out with anything approaching reliability you're probably going to be a reliever already. Benjamin Grimm wrote: I've heard that when Babe Ruth was still in the Red Sox pitching rotation, but also playing as an outfielder, that he batted ninth on days that he pitched, and cleanup on days that he was in the outfield. I never checked to see whether or not that was true. He's also quoting as saying doing both (pitching and playing OF) was too much and supposedly the Red Sox desire for him to keep pitching was part of what upset him about the team.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2014 11:53 AM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

I've always wondered why they didn't try this in more blowouts-- especially over the last two years-- with Ike, who was apparently a low-'90s fastball-slider reliever at ASU.

Vic Sage May 08 2014 12:07 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch? Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 08 2014 12:12 PM

well part of it is convincing anyone in charge of such decisions to actually do so. Since we can't get managers to stop with the "closer" bullshit, i have absolutely no expectation that this will change. But before even considering that, though, i just wanted people's thoughts on whether it's worth doing. The four best hitting pitchers by fWAR in 2011-2014 are Zack Grienke, Mike Leake, Clayton Kershaw and Yovani Gallardo. They've been used to pinch hit a mere 17 times in their combined careers. There are other caveats of course. Pitchers rarely throw other pitchers breaking balls in the dirt and the like. I'm sure the percent of fastballs is crazy high. Once a pitcher gets a reputation for maybe being able to hit a little bit, the guy on the mound tries a little harder, which means the pitcher-batter has to be even better to really add value as a pinch hitter. This analysis is based entirely on the CURRENT system, where good hitters are pushed off the mound toward a position while in the minors or even in college, never to return. So yes, we know that pitchers are, by and large, not good hitters. It's practically definitional. In theory I love the idea, but even a .200/.300/.400 pitcher is probably less valuable than a lefty/righty masher type. of course he's less valuable. But that lefty/righty masher type (a 1-dimensional PHer, a power guy who has too many holes in his swing to play everyday and may not have a defensive position) is certainly less valuable than the same guy who can pitch a few innings. And is the increased batting power of your 6th pinch hitter more valuable than being able to have that same guy pitch an inning or two in the 17th? I'm nor sure i understand the question. what if the increased power comes from your 2nd or 3rd PHer, who can ALSO pitch an inning or 2 in the 5th-6th innings? Isn't that a useful guy? But we'll never find out, because that kind of hitter never stays a pitcher, and that kind of pitcher never hits. The other side, a hitter pitching, intrigues me a little more, but with the state of most bullpens, particularly the back-ends, if you can get batters out with anything approaching reliability you're probably going to be a reliever already. Right. my point exactly. If you can pitch like that AND hit like that, why do they take the bat out of your hands and stop developing that skill while still in the minors? Benjamin Grimm wrote: I've heard that when Babe Ruth was still in the Red Sox pitching rotation, but also playing as an outfielder, that he batted ninth on days that he pitched, and cleanup on days that he was in the outfield. I never checked to see whether or not that was true. He's also quoting as saying doing both (pitching and playing OF) was too much and supposedly the Red Sox desire for him to keep pitching was part of what upset him about the team. Well, at least this is an argument to discuss, though i don't know if judging modern players by Babe Ruth's WORK ETHIC is really useful. At any rate, he's an extreme example, because he was their best hitter AND their best starting pitcher, throwing over 200-300+ innings a year, even with 133 IP as a full-time OFer in 1919. That may well be too much to expect of a normal human being. But a guy who can give you 150-200 PAs and 50-60 IPs would not necessarily be working harder than a full time hitter or pitcher. The question is, i think, assuming that such athletes existed (and I believe they would, if minor-league systems allowed them to exist), does this roster flexibility help a team? And if so, does it help only a little or alot? And if it would help alot, is it only conservative traditionalism that prevents it from happening?

seawolf17 May 08 2014 12:11 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I've always wondered why they didn't try this in more blowouts-- especially over the last two years-- with Ike, who was apparently a low-'90s fastball-slider reliever at ASU. This is why.

Vic Sage May 08 2014 12:29 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

yes, if your an everyday player in your 30s who hasn't pitched since college, you may well blow your arm out because your mechanics will likely suck. but if that hitter had continued to develop as a pitcher, and so had sound mechanics, he's no more likely to blow out his arm than any other pitcher. Pitching probably does increase a player's chance of injury over a guy who doesn't pitch, which is why you probably don't want a full-time starting player, much less Babe Ruth, taking that risk, if your team is dependent on his bat (and vice versa). But, if Ike Davis was a good enough college pitcher to be an occasional middle-inning guy, or even a mop-up guy, in the majors, then even if he is no more than a .230/25hr who can't hit lefties, i would think he'd be a great guy to have on our bench as a platoon 1bman/PHer who could also give us the kind of 50-75 IP we gave to guys like Scot Atchison, Greg Burke, Brandon Lyon or David Aardsma last year, while giving us another roster spot to play with.

seawolf17 May 08 2014 12:34 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

Vic Sage wrote: yes, if your an everyday player in your 30s who hasn't pitched since college, you may well blow your arm out because your mechanics will likely suck. but if that hitter had continued to develop as a pitcher, and so had sound mechanics, he's no more likely to blow out his arm than any other pitcher. Pitching probably does increase a player's chance of injury over a guy who doesn't pitch, which is why you probably don't want a full-time starting player, much less Babe Ruth, taking that risk, if your team is dependent on his bat (and vice versa). But, if Ike Davis was a good enough college pitcher to be an occasional middle-inning guy, or even a mop-up guy, in the majors, then even if he is no more than a .230/25hr who can't hit lefties, i would think he'd be a great guy to have on our bench as a platoon 1bman/PHer who could also give us the kind of 50-75 IP we gave to guys like Scot Atchison, Greg Burke, Brandon Lyon or David Aardsma last year, while giving us another roster spot to play with. I completely agree. But a move like this is akin to a manager not using his closer in a save situation and having some other guy blow it. He'd get pilloried. The last guy to try it was Brooks Kieschnick in the mid-00s with Milwaukee. Had an .837 OPS in 133 PA in 2003-04, along with a 4.59 ERA in 96 innings.

Edgy MD May 08 2014 12:38 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

Regarding Canseco... there's a big jump between letting a hitter pitch and letting an MVP pitch. Just like there are pitchers whose arms you'd more willingly abuse than others. It starts with throwing a few innings to Kirk Nieuwenhuis, not Mike Trout Though who wouldn't have spooged if David Wright got somebody out in the All Star Game, as generally doomed as that appearance likely would have been? It's unlikely to evolve this way, though. Recent talks suggest that teams may soon have a 26th spot on the roster. That's how things evolve --- toward the specialist. That's probably not a good thing, but it's the way the world is evolveing. I think it makes players more interesting when they are used outside of their field of specialty. (Who didn't love William Perry?) And you'd get that if you sent teams out there with 16-17 men on the roster. That's how it is in high school. That's how it was in the Negro Leagues. And these are/were places where hitters pitched and pitchers hit. Scouts would beg Darryl Strawberry's high school coach to stop calling him in from centerfield to pitch in relief, but he had games to win, and Darryl's teammates needed him.

Frayed Knot May 08 2014 12:44 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

I'm not even sure that Canseco pitched in college. IIRC his getting onto the mound was more a vanity project on his part where he convinced his manager that he had a good enough knuckleball (EVERY position player thinks he has a workable knuckleball) and he wanted to try it out in a real game mostly just to say he did it and to add to his (then) image of a great all-around player. A guy like Ike is the obvious type of candidate, maybe even more so once he failed (so far anyway) to blossom into the hitter his draft spot suggested. Even if all you'd use him for was the emergency extra LOOGY that you'd swap in for two ABs or so and then right back to 1B. Other guys who come to mind that did and/or could have worked in similar spots: - it was debated whether John Olerud was more suited as a pitcher or hitter when he was being drafted - the BoSox allowed, at his request, 2008 1st round pick Casey (son of ML IF Pat) Kelly play about a year of SS in the minors before restricting him to the pitchers mound - Brooks Kieschnick appeared 74 times as a pitcher among his 260 ML games, although very little of it simultaneously. Like most 'two way' players, he was more of a pitcher only after the hitting proved not enough to keep him employed

Vic Sage May 08 2014 12:49 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch? Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 08 2014 12:57 PM

That's a good example. Kieschnick was basically replacement level, as both a hitter and pitcher, but he had his uses, and maybe the roster spot he save the Brewers in that period (by having him fill the slot as the last guy on the bench and the last guy in the pen) allowed them to carry a kid like Billy Hall, who would ultimately become a decent major league player. And Keesh did this in a system specifically designed to prevent these type of players from succeeding. Imagine if he was actually cultivated. i agree it's not going to happen, that all trends are towards specialization (not just in baseball), but i think its interesting to consider. And i think, like bullpen specialization, its not for the better. For that matter, I think that specialization in work, academia, arts, etc., has made for a lessening of civilization overall, if we measure the quality of leadership of the founding fathers (a generation of philosopher/warrior/statesman/scientist/writers) against our current one-dimensional leaders (in politics, business, the arts), you can measure our fall so far. But that's a story for another day.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2014 12:57 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

Vic Sage wrote: That's a good example. Kieschnick was basically replacement level, as both a hitter and pitcher, but he had his uses, and maybe the roster spot he save the Brewers in that period (by having him fill the slot as the last guy on the bench and the last guy in the pen) allowed them to carry a kid like Billy Hall, who would ultimately become a decent major league player. Which is why I suggested someone like Ike. Why not extract all possible use out of him while he's hanging around... or maybe advertise some value-added?

Edgy MD May 08 2014 01:01 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm not even sure that Canseco pitched in college. Jose Canseco went to college?

Frayed Knot May 08 2014 01:03 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

Pitcher Don Robinson had a 16 year career (Pitt & SF mostly) ending up with a career batting line of .231/.252/.330 [146 for 631 including 23 2Bs & 13 HRs] 26 of those trips to the plate were as a PH although he was just 3/24 w/2 BBs & 1 HR. He also played the OF twice As I side note I know I saw him hit a HR and I believe it was as a PH. Prior to looking this up I would have assumed that he had hit more than one.

Frayed Knot May 08 2014 01:07 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

Edgy MD wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: I'm not even sure that Canseco pitched in college. Jose Canseco went to college? As it turns out, no - although, if forced to guess before looking it up, I would have put him as one of the U-Miami gang, which I'm not sure qualifies as college anyway. Mostly I was just responding to an earlier post about using someone who hadn't pitched since college and then was into his 30s when he threw out his arm on a ML mound

Ceetar May 08 2014 01:15 PM Re: Moreland mops up - shoud pitchers hit and hitters pitch?

Vic Sage wrote: Well, at least this is an argument to discuss, though i don't know if judging modern players by Babe Ruth's WORK ETHIC is really useful. At any rate, he's an extreme example, because he was their best hitter AND their best starting pitcher, throwing over 200-300+ innings a year, even with 133 IP as a full-time OFer in 1919. That may well be too much to expect of a normal human being. But a guy who can give you 150-200 PAs and 50-60 IPs would not necessarily be working harder than a full time hitter or pitcher. The question is, i think, assuming that such athletes existed (and I believe they would, if minor-league systems allowed them to exist), does this roster flexibility help a team? And if so, does it help only a little or alot? And if it would help alot, is it only conservative traditionalism that prevents it from happening? I'd certainly like to see it attempted more often, even If I disagree that it's as possible/likely as you outline. I think it's more likely guys like Babe Ruth are the exceptional guys that are able to do both. These are the elite. Specialization is not a sin though, it's just often taken to extremes too often. That 12 year old that doesn't drop football for baseball might not ever develop the skills necessary to succeed at MLB without the specialization. At least not enough to beat out the guys that do devote that extra time. If you sent Mike Trout back to the minors for 4 years to pitch, he'd probably become at least a capable pitcher. If you sent him to the Knicks, he'd probably be a fine player. I think specialization is born of the increase in the level of competitiveness. Ike Davis was a top draft pick, considered to have the athleticism/talent to be able to succeed. And baring a couple of months here and there over the last couple of years, he hasn't. That couple of hours a week to work on his delivery in order to pitch, keep loose, work on the arm muscles, has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere would be his hitting practice. And what happens the next time he slumps? Does he skip a throwing session to get more cage time in? Does that cause his pitching to suffer? Babe Ruth had plenty of work ethic, more so than his fellow players anyway. First ballplayer to have a personal trainer. Yes, that probably pales in comparison to the work guys put in nowadays, but I just don't know if most players have the ability and work time to become good enough to be useful at two different tasks. That's where the specialization comes in. the limited usefullness lefty-mashing slugger on the bench, through specialization, is almost always going to be better than the versatile guy who can also pitch 2-3 innings a week. And the dedicated reliever is almost always going to be a better pitcher. Right now (And as Edgy mentioned, we already have a 26th man roster sometimes and it seems right around the corner along with the NL DH.) carrying the two better players at the individual tasks is more valuable than saving the roster spot by consolidating them. And managers know this. It's why they burn through benches and bullpens so fast. That marginal platoon advantage for one or two matchups a game helps more than the occasional 15 inning game where you end up short because you burned everyone. Especially because the other guy probably did too, so you're not even at a competitive disadvantage. That said, a 23 man roster would go a long way towards some of these utility guys trying their hands at pitching and some other creative usages. It'd also speed up the game because less pitching specialists means less 3-pitcher innings.