Would it be feasible to have a pitching staff composed only of short relievers?

I'd like to see someone try. I mean if you have a Kershaw type, let him throw, but otherwise go with relievers. Everyone freaks out about the bullpen for some staffs in the 7th, 8th, and 9th, but if they're great for those innings, why not fill in the other 6 innings in a similar manner? Surely it is better than some of the 3rd-5th guys on most staffs.

quote:

---

Surely it is better than some of the 3rd-5th guys on most staffs.

---

The reason why they are middle-releivers is because they are not better than the 3-5 in the linup except maybe the setup and closer.

quote:

---

While correct, they arE feared because the lineup is only seeing them once, twice at most. It makes a difference.

---

That's my point. If a pitcher is only throwing an inning or two he can be a completely different animal.

If you had only short relievers it means you have no starters and likely no set-up man/closer right?

In an average game you throw out 4 pitchers but they are only throwing 30 or so pitches, so they can pitch every 3rd day maybe, so you could have 10 or so and still potentially make it work. It would be at least an interesting way to play

quote:

---

Would it be feasible to have a pitching staff composed only of short relievers?

---

I think taller guys generally throw harder. I mean I don't have a problem with some short guys on the staff if they can play... but what is the advantage of having ALL short relievers on the staff other than saving on uniform material costs?

Makes no fricking sense.

Yes

If you had a knuckleballer that you could throw out each day, that might make it work. Maybe 3 "starters" that can go 50 pitches giving you 2-4 innings.

Seems like a house of cards. One guy gets injured then the entire rotation goes to shite.