WHY ALL PITCHERS DON'T PITCH 2 INNINGS EVERY DAY.

[James52411]

Middle relievers are often less talented pitchers who go max effort for 1 inning. Closers have at least one pitch that is plus, but lack stamina. If you make relief pitchers throw every day for one inning, they will not be able to go max effort. If you make them go 2 innings every other day, the same thing will happen. That's 160 IP, which is way too much for a reliever. Anything over 80 IP on a reliever is dangerously close to overuse. Same problem with 3 IP every three days. Plus, middle relievers are notoriously fickle from a performance standpoint, which means that this system will be far more uncertain.

 

[Wes]

In addition to being unrealistic from a health perspective, you're also making your team worse by having your best pitchers pitch less total innings.

 

[cgilmo]

In addition to being unrealistic from a health perspective, you're also making your team worse by having your best pitchers pitch less total innings.

There is no excuse for this kind of logical thinking. You know better wes.

 

[LWMM]

Middle relievers are often less talented pitchers who go max effort for 1 inning. Closers have at least one pitch that is plus, but lack stamina. If you make relief pitchers throw every day for one inning, they will not be able to go max effort. If you make them go 2 innings every other day, the same thing will happen. That's 160 IP, which is way too much for a reliever. Anything over 80 IP on a reliever is dangerously close to overuse. Same problem with 3 IP every three days. Plus, middle relievers are notoriously fickle from a performance standpoint, which means that this system will be far more uncertain.

For some players, without a doubt. But we should be careful in drawing absolutes. There are not simply "starting pitchers" who are defined by an ability to go 6 innings, and "relief pitchers" who get 3 outs before dumping their arms in a bucket of ice. Some of the former regularly go for 7-8, while others struggle to go 5, and get sent to the bullpen. Some relief pitchers only have one good inning in them, while others can go longer. Additionally, the view that relief pitchers cannot go more than an inning per appearance mistakes cause for effect: with pitching staffs set up the way they are (5 man rotation, 5-6 relievers, closer), relievers are expected, and groomed, to only go one inning. So why not find the "inbetween" pitchers--the former starters that struggled to go 5 innings, and the relievers that look strong when they throw 2 or 3--and have three of them throw 3 innings a game?

To bring money back into this, look at all the low payroll teams that can't afford to go out and buy starters. Using Colorado as an example, they have a 78 million payroll (22rd lowest in MLB) and 5.10 team ERA.

Juan Nicasio: 5.28 ERA, .48 million
Jamie Moyer: 5.7 ERA, 1.1 million
Jeremy Guthrie: 6.35 ERA, 8.2 million
Christian Friedrich: 4.5 ERA, .48? million (it's not on the MLB contracts site, I'm just assuming it's the league minimum since it's his first year)
Alex White: 5.6 ERA, .48? million (same deal: not listed, but only his second year)
Jhoulys Chacin: 7.3 ERA, .48 million
Drew Pomeranz: 4.7 ERA, .48(?) million (same as White)

The starters above combine for a 5.62 ERA (the relievers, conversely, combine for a 4.92 ERA). Colorado doesn't have the money to shell out for elite starters, or even just solid ones, who still get paid alot. They thus have a combination of young and cheap pitchers (who, unproven, are proving themselves to not be doing well); Guthrie, the one player they shelled out for, and who isn't living up to that investment by any means; and Moyer, the old and washed up (and now released) veteran. So a combination of players who used to be good, who just aren't good, and who are too young yet to know if they're good or not. (Guthrie is interesting, becuase his struggles demonstrate that even when you do scrape together enough money to place a sizeable investment in one player, it's still a crapshoot.)

Colorado is paying those above starters a combined 12 million a year, after which they still have to fill out their staff. If that 12 million was instead invested in a bunch of relievers who cost 1-2 million, you could get 8 extremely solid pitchers, ultimately creating a staff that costs much less, and, historically, has thrown for a better ERA (albeit in 1-2 inning relief, but see point above).


There are certainly other ways of remaining competitive without spending huge amounts of money. Tampa, for example, has done extremely well drafting (in part because they draft so many pitchers), uses their pitchers until they hit free agency, and then call up AAA for the next crop. But using a staff of 3 inning pitchers seems to me to be another viable option; and if you're as bad as Colorado is, can it really hurt to try?


Edit: Wes, my argument assumes you're creating a staff of pitchers who can't cut it as effective 5-6 inning starters. So while Friedrich in the above example is solid, Colorado could trade him for some good relievers or position players. You're not taking solid starters and making them pitch fewer innings.