Master Index of Archived Threads


Now that the complete game is as dead as a dodo,

iramets Nov 30 2007 07:50 AM

I confidently predict that the strategy of using starting pitchers in the middle innings will become a fad at some point. If some manager is successful with this idea, other managers will use it, and if someone wins a pennant or three right out of the box with this strategy, every manager will copy it. Simply, it derives from the near-certainty that a relief pitcher will be used during a given game, and the very likely probability that several relievers will appear. The starting pitcher will pitch about 5-6 innings at some point in the game, just as he does now, but the difference being that he will come into the game at a strategic point, and not just at the game’s outset. The aim of using one or two relievers to begin the game is to prevent the other team from loading its lineup any special way. Why put all your righty batters in the game to face today’s lefty starter when you know that he’s only going to pitch for an inning or two? The strategy of putting in all righties to face Scott Schoenweis is going to backfire when Aaron Heilman comes out to start the second inning (and perhaps pitch once or twice through the batting order, especially if it’s all righthanded.) Sure , if used like this, Schoenweis will probably get knocked around a bit some days in inning one (like that’s never happened to Glavine?) , but other days he’ll be serviceable for an inning. The point is, Schoenweis (or some middle reliever) will almost certainly get to pitch an inning that day, and if he’s going to get hit hard, it’s probably better to have him hit hard early rather than late—certainly it’s less frustrating to have him bombed out early enough in the game to mount an offense to get those runs back over 9 innings rather than 3 innings, and if he really gets killed, you could even push your scheduled starter back a day rather than waste him in a blowout loss. For the Mets, with an old pitching staff, getting to use your rotation starters sparingly could be a real advantage.

Valadius Nov 30 2007 08:14 AM

I actually think that's a damn good idea, with the only thing stopping it being the current definition of a pitching decision. The ability to pinch-hit the first time through the order could be beneficial.

iramets Nov 30 2007 08:28 AM

Valadius wrote: the only thing stopping it being the current definition of a pitching decision. Well, here we get into Billy Wagner territory. Wagner ripped the Mets (i.e. Randolph) the other day for using his relievers in unaccustomed roles, but I think that's one of WIllie's high points as manager. To the extent that Willie DOESN'T say "This is a good spot for Schoenweis, only he's used to coming into the game AFTER Mota [or in the sixth inning, or facing a lefty, or on alternate Tuesday or whatever]" Willie deserves some credit for old school managering, which says, "Tough it out, pitch the ball when I hand it to you, I don't wanna hear shit about how you're being used because if you don't like how I use you, I'll see that you just get used less, okay?" The strategy I'm talking about here would be that same philosophy taken to an extreme, and I think there's considerable strategic advantage if some manager would have the stones to tell his pitching staff "I don't give a fuck about your saves, your holds, your wins, your dainty preferences--the only thing I care about is that you pitch well when you get in the game. It's your job to get batters out, and whatever stats accrue to you as a result are your business. Mine is winning games, and if you don't like that, you can shut up or pitch elsewhere."

seawolf17 Nov 30 2007 09:10 AM

Sounds like something Tony LaRussa would do.

iramets Nov 30 2007 09:22 AM

No need to be insulting here. Maybe I'm just reacting as a result of managing people at work. Yesterday, a teacher in my department complained to me about a policy that her boss (who works for me) decided on, understanding that some people would find it difficult. Her logic was "I've been teaching for x years, I've been successful, I've never had to do this before, so change your policy" and I was all "Uh, let me know when you get made a policy maker around here, would you?" That's what Willie should communicate to guys like Wagner or LoDuca (if he doesn't take the more tactful position of ignoring their public pronouncements). He sets policy, not the players, and they need to know that they've contracted to play ball in the rioles the Mets want, not the roles they'd like in an ideal world. If you're really unhappy, change teams when your contract is up, but while you're signed here, do what your assignment is, as management determines it.

Centerfield Nov 30 2007 09:29 AM

Oddly, it might benefit a starting pitcher's win total if this strategy were implemented. The reliever who actually starts the game would not be eligible for the win because he wouldn't go 5 innings. The "starter" would then go innings 3 through 7 (or 8) meaning he would stick around longer and be more likely to pick up the decision.

A Boy Named Seo Nov 30 2007 09:31 AM

Welcome back, Sal. I know that's been talked about here before. Only thing that seems like a big roadblock is that most pitchers typically hit a wall around inning 5 or 6, which under this scenario would be in the crucial 7-9 innings. It'd be nice to have a fresh bad-ass to go to there (Wagner at the end, I'm sure) but I think I'd not have a great outlook if El Duque ran into trouble in the 8th and Heilman was burned in the 2nd. I still think managers will be concerned with L/R matchups in those later innings when pinch hitters start coming up and that would put out-of-box thinking manager into a tough spot, too. Would he take out his starter after 3 2/3 to bring in a LOOGY in the 7th?

Edgy DC Nov 30 2007 09:31 AM

Yup. You can only pick up a win in innings five and after. So the starter sheds two win-impotent innings at one end for two win-eliglble innings later.

iramets Nov 30 2007 09:33 AM

This strategy is also the result, in my view, of a 12-man pitching staff. Now your opponent has only 5 potential pinch hitters sitting on his bench, and you have a realistic goal of getting him to burn that bench early. So either you'll get favorable matchups for your Schoenweis-Heilman (in my example) "starters" or you'll see some bench-burning being done early to take advantage of these guys. If that happens, the opposing manager may not have a lot of options in the late innings, facing your starter or your closer. This is a chess-style move, and takes some guts, but as I say, it's gonna happen.

Centerfield Nov 30 2007 09:38 AM

The biggest obstacle here is who do you start? Assuming you have two "quality" middle relievers, and the rest are inferior, do you start Heilman or Feliciano every other day? Do you rotate your top three? Do you give Mota a start here and there? If you were to limit your starts to quality guys, you use your quality middle guys in every game...even ones that end up being blowouts because you don't know it's going to be a blowout that day. The traditional way, when Tom Glavine gets bombed, you bring in Aaron Sele and rest your better pitchers.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 30 2007 09:39 AM

I'm not expressly against such a strategy being tried. I'd like to see it tried. But, I would imagine teams would: a) chicken out the first time their short-man starter gets bombed in the first inning and/or b) fail to even try it on the grounds that organizationwide training procedures would have to change first with regards to a guy warming up, etc. If we don;t know how liong the first inning or 2 will take, how will we know how to properly warm a guy for 5-6 innings work, etc etc. Turning around an aircraft carrier takes time.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2007 09:42 AM

Well, nobody would like the randomness of it all, but a team could be down 5-0 after two and say, "You know what, we'll send Seaver out there tomorrow. Cardwell, get loose for the middle innings."

iramets Nov 30 2007 09:42 AM

A Boy Named Seo wrote: It'd be nice to have a fresh bad-ass to go to there (Wagner at the end, I'm sure) but I think I'd not have a great outlook if El Duque ran into trouble in the 8th and Heilman was burned in the 2nd. In that scenario, I think you'd need your closer to be ready to replace the weakening starter, even if it's in the eighth. (This obviously rules out Wagner, who's been wah-wah-wahing about being misused.) If Duke comes out to start the fourth (which is about where most starters would come into the game, or maybe in the middle of the third, if needed), then the eighth inning would be his fifth inning of work. If your starter is unable to get through five, you're in trouble, aren't you? I'd have my closer warming up at the beginning of the eighth, and I'd redefine his job as getting the final 1,2,3,4,or 5 outs.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 30 2007 09:43 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2007 09:44 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Well, nobody would like the randomness of it all, but a team could be down 5-0 after two and say, "You know what, we'll send Seaver out there tomorrow. Cardwell, get loose for the middle innings." Which reminds that the Mets wouldn't likely pioneer this strategy at the risk of screwing up theior precious home Pedro start attendence boosts.

Centerfield Nov 30 2007 09:44 AM

It might make for some interesting situations. For instance, at what point is a player burned for the game? If you submit a lineup card with Endy, then decide to sub in Carlos Gomez before a pitch is thrown, is Endy still eligible to pinch hit? What would stop a visiting team from declaring Heilman as their starter, then after the left-handed hitting team has fielded the top of the first, send out Feliciano in the bottom of that inning (assuming Heilman hasn't batted yet)?

iramets Nov 30 2007 09:51 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: But, I would imagine teams would: a) chicken out the first time their short-man starter gets bombed in the first inning and/or b) fail to even try it on the grounds that organizationwide training procedures would have to change first. Turning around an aircraft carrier takes time. A team that won a pennant with this strategy would turn that sucker araound PDQ. Even getting into the playoffs might do the trick. For all its radicalism, this is a pretty old-school strategy, in that it puts the team's need ahead of the players' (perceived) needs. As to Martinez attendance, I'm not sure the Mets draw all that many more fans from Pedro's name on the "scheduled starter" form any more--besides, they'd still know that this was the day that he's probably going to go five or six innings anyway. I'm not expecting the rotation guys to get bumped back more than a dozen times a season, tops, and half of those wil be on the road. I'd guess that this would actually affect Pedro maybe once or twice a year, and it's all for the team, right?

iramets Nov 30 2007 09:53 AM

Centerfield wrote: If you submit a lineup card with Endy, then decide to sub in Carlos Gomez before a pitch is thrown, is Endy still eligible to pinch hit? I think you've got a burned Endy there.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2007 09:59 AM

This is also close to what is going on in the lower minors (A+ and under) these days --- at least in the Mets system, where arm babying of pitchers has the rarely going long enough to earn a decision. They almost have two rotations of guys scheduled to go 3-4 innings each.

iramets Nov 30 2007 10:07 AM

Centerfield wrote: Oddly, it might benefit a starting pitcher's win total if this strategy were implemented. Not only is this possible, but instead of losing games because your middle relief got hit like a gong, your rotation guys would probably pick up wins where the Schoeneweis/Heilman brigade left the game with a deficit which the offense would be able to turn into a win eventually. The edge here (that the starters would quickly see) is that by coming into the game down a run or two, it's impossible to get tagged with the loss but you are eligible to get the win. Pedro might just go 15-2 and under this scheme, and won';t THAT make it popular with rotation guys?

Nymr83 Nov 30 2007 10:12 AM

i'm all for unconventional pitcher usage, but i think a better (and not necessarily inconsistent, you can do both) idea would be to start using starters on their "throw" days in relief. So if Maine pitched Monday and won't pitch again until Saturday I'd put him in the game on Wednesday or Thursday instead of bringing in some middle reliever we don't really trust anyway. Over the course of the season this could lead to 50 extra innings by guys you like taken away from the worst pitchers on the team.

RealityChuck Nov 30 2007 11:23 AM

I definitely see it as an option. I could even see a team going with eight pitchers who expect to pitch four innings every four days, and four relievers. But the problem is mainly talent. Can you find enough pitchers who pitch at a ML level and who can handle this sort of load? You'd probably have to develop it in your farm system for a few years before moving to the parent club.

iramets Nov 30 2007 02:58 PM

Centerfield wrote: The biggest obstacle here is who do you start? Assuming you have two "quality" middle relievers, and the rest are inferior, do you start Heilman or Feliciano every other day? Do you rotate your top three? Do you give Mota a start here and there? If you were to limit your starts to quality guys, you use your quality middle guys in every game...even ones that end up being blowouts because you don't know it's going to be a blowout that day. The traditional way, when Tom Glavine gets bombed, you bring in Aaron Sele and rest your better pitchers. I don't think this is a big issue. You start whoever is available, rested, very likely to pitch that day anyway, etc. If you're down to no one, I guess you can go with your rotation guy, and tell him, just as you do now on such days, "My bullpen's pretty beat, I'm gonna need some innings from you today," and hope it works out. But most days, you'll find someone in the pen is ready to give a quality inning or two.