- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why do baseball teams have starters?
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:45 pm to SwaggerCopter
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:45 pm to SwaggerCopter
I could see using that approach for the back end of the rotation but it could leave your bullpen pretty exposed on the other days. I think you're underestimating how much better a lot of teams number three guys are than their average middle reliever
The other thing about this is it would make things really interesting in the NL as far as pinch hitters and double switches.
The other thing about this is it would make things really interesting in the NL as far as pinch hitters and double switches.
0
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:47 pm to SwaggerCopter
id be interested in it if we are talking about this instead of your last two starters, but not for the top three
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:50 pm to SwaggerCopter
12 guys would have to average 121 innings apiece, assuming no extra innings. Why remove your best pitcher and bring in a worse alternative? You say they would impact more games but it would give those you try to hide (hence lefty specialist) more opportunities to suck. If rosters expanded to 30-35 players and teams had more opportunities to add pitchers this could work, but today not every team has 12 above average arms.
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:50 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
id be interested in it if we are talking about this instead of your last two starters, but not for the top three
With this approach, you wouldn't have a Top 3. I'm gonna put together a better post when I have time. Solid relievers are so much cheaper than top aces. I really feel like if it was done right, it could have a Moneyball impact.
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:51 pm to tduecen
quote:
but today not every team has 12 above average arms.
Again. You could afford 12 above average arms if you weren't spending so much money on your starters.
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:51 pm to SwaggerCopter
and then i wouldnt want to do it, there is no scenario in which im ok with clayton kershaw and zack greinke losing innings for the dodgers
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:52 pm to WestCoastAg
Yeah. You don't have guy like that in your roster in this situation. If this worked, it would phase out the need for a dominant starting pitcher.
The first team to try this would have to be a shitty team with a bad rotation that could afford to blow it up without fan backlash.
The first team to try this would have to be a shitty team with a bad rotation that could afford to blow it up without fan backlash.
This post was edited on 6/8/15 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:53 pm to SwaggerCopter
quote:
Solid relievers are so much cheaper than top aces.
It's not like there is an abundance of dependable relievers though, and even those guys have success that is fleeting. It wouldn't be easy to put together a roster of 12 "solid relievers". You would still have at least a few guys who are shitty and in this scenario they would be playing a larger than normal role
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:54 pm to SwaggerCopter
Not true at all, if you look around MLB as a whole you have possibly 20-30 pitchers who are very good to elite then maybe another 30-50 who fall into that good to average range... they just don't have enough quality arms in mlb. If you were talking 8 guys doing it could possibly happen but then the innings would jump to about 180 and you are right back to where you are. I mean how many teams can field 5 above average guys to throw 160+ innings, it is hard.
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:55 pm to SwaggerCopter
quote:
Sometimes I think using 5 or 6 pitchers each game would be the way to go.
you are assuming that all of these pitchers are of the same quality.
starters are starters because they have the temperament and nerves to start and they have 3 or more pitches that are dependable most of the time. relievers usually only have 2 reliable pitches.
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:56 pm to LSU GrandDad
And 2 reliable pitches can get you through an inning and a third.
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:56 pm to SwaggerCopter
While I think that can work on paper, the next issue is finding 12 players who can do this. This works well until you are stuck with three players who aren't any good and their level of suck gets multiplied for how much large a role they now have
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:58 pm to tduecen
quote:
Not true at all, if you look around MLB as a whole you have possibly 20-30 pitchers who are very good to elite then maybe another 30-50 who fall into that good to average range
Yeah. Not enough for every team to do it. But a few teams could pull it off before the others realized it worked.
There aren't enough great QBs in the NFL for teams to run pro-style offenses, but that doesn't stop anyone.
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:59 pm to SwaggerCopter
quote:
I'm gonna put together a better post when I have time. Solid relievers are so much cheaper than top aces. I really feel like if it was done right, it could have a Moneyball impact.
Do you know how many innings those solid relievers are accustomed to throwing? In this scenario, you would double it. That's not going to work.
Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:59 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
While I think that can work on paper, the next issue is finding 12 players who can do this. This works well until you are stuck with three players who aren't any good and their level of suck gets multiplied for how much large a role they now have
True. I can't deny that.
for having an actual conversation about it.Posted on 6/8/15 at 1:59 pm to WestCoastAg
This scenario is also assuming a clean bill of health, and your team would be penalized much more when you're throwing out AAAA relievers as your guys called up to replace them.
How would you handle your minor league staff? Would you draft all college relievers or convert starters to relievers immediately? A lot of relievers are failed starters
It's an interesting thought and like I said, I think it would work in a vacuum for your fifth spot and possibly fourth spot for some teams. But you would be exposed on the other days. It's why you see teams do it, or close to it, in do or die playoff situations when they are shaky with their starter
How would you handle your minor league staff? Would you draft all college relievers or convert starters to relievers immediately? A lot of relievers are failed starters
It's an interesting thought and like I said, I think it would work in a vacuum for your fifth spot and possibly fourth spot for some teams. But you would be exposed on the other days. It's why you see teams do it, or close to it, in do or die playoff situations when they are shaky with their starter
This post was edited on 6/8/15 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 6/8/15 at 2:04 pm to SwaggerCopter
i think shane pointed out that you can turn to this instead of using your 4th or 5th starter and i agree with that, i just dont like the idea of giving up on dominant starting pitching if you have it. i would say that if a team did turn to this level of platooning their pitching, it would be very interesting to see how it worked
Posted on 6/8/15 at 2:07 pm to WestCoastAg
They would be throwing a lot of warm up pitches as well, more than normal.
Posted on 6/8/15 at 2:07 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
So many things wrong with this
1) The prep needed for getting your arm warmed up and ready to throw takes a toll on your body. Its sort of like accelerating in a car, it burns lots of gas to get started but once you can cruise, its not that taxing. This is why the best starters throw 200+ IP per year and relievers only throw 70 on the high end.
2) When you pull a guy when he is dealing you run the risk of using way more pitchers than you need to and could exhaust your arms quickly
3)In the modern game the best relievers cost just as much per inning as the starters. David Robertson at 10mil will cost ~150k/inning at 65ip. Kershaw will cost ~140k/inning at 230 ip.
1) The prep needed for getting your arm warmed up and ready to throw takes a toll on your body. Its sort of like accelerating in a car, it burns lots of gas to get started but once you can cruise, its not that taxing. This is why the best starters throw 200+ IP per year and relievers only throw 70 on the high end.
2) When you pull a guy when he is dealing you run the risk of using way more pitchers than you need to and could exhaust your arms quickly
3)In the modern game the best relievers cost just as much per inning as the starters. David Robertson at 10mil will cost ~150k/inning at 65ip. Kershaw will cost ~140k/inning at 230 ip.
Posted on 6/8/15 at 2:09 pm to SwaggerCopter
quote:
Starters cost so much damn money to play 1/5th of the season. I think financially, having 12 really solid relievers would help a team more.
starters are the way they are because when you get down to winning time, you want a starter that can go 8 or 9 and shut the other team down like a badass
if you put in 12 relievers, there's more of a chance that one gets hit
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News