re: Why wouldn't a pitching staff of 9 closers not work?

I used this strategy on RBI baseball back in the
day, not practical, but I'd love to see somebody
try it

quote:

---

Buddy of mine and I tossed around a different idea: sign one top flight pitcher, an aging workhorse kind of guy, a knuckleballer, and maybe a guy who only throws junk.

Four of the five games of your rotation are those guys. The fifth pitcher is always open. For that spot, most of your remaining staff are open and you basically pitch Johnny Wholestaff. Here, you might occasionally see 9 pitchers in 8 innings, or you may just go with the hot hand. But the poibt is that the opposition can't prepare for who is out there.

---

my goodness this is a thread of terrible thoughts

quote:

---

This would not work because the ninth inning only happens once per game

---

I think you think something different than what it means, I think.

Well you can't just have 9 pitchers on your roster anyways, so it would have to be more like 13-15 closers, which you could give other a day off inbetween.

Be weird, but could work.

quote:

---

Well you can't just have 9 pitchers on your roster anyways, so it would have to be more like 13-15 closers, which you could give other a day off inbetween. Be weird, but could work.

---

it would not work. having 15 pitchers on your roster is a terrible idea and would mean only 10 position players. also, the number of innings and consecutive pitchers days simply would not work. other reasons? do you honestly think there are 450 closers available in MLB? there are tons of relevant differences between closers and starters. starters have more pitches and have a completely different mental approach.

I agree with most everybody in this thread...the closer thing wouldn't work (for all the reasons already listed).

But if we're throwing crazy ideas out there, what about this one....

Carry 10 Starters and 3 relievers. Have the starters throw on a buddy system. 4-5 innings apiece every start. The two starters either combine to finish the game, or need a reliever to get the last inning.


Arms stay fresh over the year and they'd rarely (if ever) have to go through a lineup 3 times in one outing.

Thoughts?

I'm with you. Have at least 6, max 10 starters that rotate constantly.

quote:

---

Pitch an inning-maybe two-every day

---

quote:

---

Arms all stay fresh

---

quote:

---

No tiring

---

Not to mention, what do you do in extra innings?

quote:

---

Carry 10 Starters and 3 relievers. Have the starters throw on a buddy system. 4-5 innings apiece every start. The two starters either combine to finish the game, or need a reliever to get the last inning.

---

If I'm not mistaken, the Astros have started doing that in the minor leagues this year. It could work but you would need to have a really deep pitching staff with 10+ pitchers who are capable of being competent starters.

I don't think the idea would work for the injury risk, but I love the non-conformist thinking. I hate that so much of baseball knowledge is stuff we just "know" when it's really "well, we've always done it this way so there."

I think bad teams, like the Astros, should genuinely try radical ideas like this. Maybe not this specific idea, but they should spend their offseasons sitting around a boardroom saying "what can we try that no one is doing? Will that help us win?"

I think a team should go to a four-man rotation, shrink their pen to about 5 guys, and carry 15-16 hitters. Reverse the platoon on people, as most teams try and control the platoon split via their pitching staff. If you're the only team looking for platoon hitters, you should be able to clean up on them. Besides, most one-out only guys are pretty terrible pitchers.