MLB 2018 Season

[wadesworld]

That's old thinking as the game has changed. Only 12 teams had a starter who went 200+ innings last year - none over 215. It will likely be less than that this year.

We are nearing the time that few if any pitchers will throw 200 IP.

Right.  I'm starting to think some people in this thread haven't followed baseball for 3+ years.

[MU82]

That's old thinking as the game has changed. Only 12 teams had a starter who went 200+ innings last year - none over 215. It will likely be less than that this year.

We are nearing the time that few if any pitchers will throw 200 IP.

When people talk about the records that will never be broken, they talk about Bonds' 73 HR or Joe D's 56-game streak ... but the ones that really will NEVER, EVER, EVER be broken are all of the old pitching records.

When you want a good laugh some time, check out some of Cy Young's numbers. Or if you don't want to go back to that era, even Nolan Ryan's numbers.

For some crazy reason, I'm thinking that Jack Chesbro's modern-era record of 48 complete games in one season is not gonna be broken. I know, I'm so negative!

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Right.  I'm starting to think some people in this thread haven't followed baseball for 3+ years.

I'm not sure you've ever paid attention.

[wadesworld]

I'm not sure you've ever paid attention.

Coming from the source it did, that's a big time compliment.  Thanks.

[wadesworld]

I'm guessing all these Scoop experts think no batter should ever come anywhere close to 200 strikeouts in a season, batting average is super important, midrange jumpers in basketball is a skill that every player needs, running backs are the most important players in the NFL, etc.

Sports evolve.  Scoopers apparently don't.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Coming from the source it did, that's a big time compliment.  Thanks.

Bullpens and relief pitchers are not as or more valuable they starters. It's ludicrous.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I'm guessing all these Scoop experts think no batter should ever come anywhere close to 200 strikeouts in a season, batting average is super important, midrange jumpers in basketball is a skill that every player needs, running backs are the most important players in the NFL, etc.

Sports evolve.  Scoopers apparently don't.

Where's the data on your RP argument?  I posted some earlier from the past couple of years that you conveniently ignored.

Please share some data - I think most of us here are open to be convinced. We'll be waiting.

[wadesworld]

Where's the data on your RP argument?  I posted some earlier from the past couple of years that you conveniently ignored.

Please share some data - I think most of us here are open to be convinced. We'll be waiting.

I’m glad you’re waiting. Go read up on what the Diamondbacks have done with their bullpen and their approach. Google is your friend. These things aren’t hard to find at all. Some articles even mention the amount of money relievers are starting to command, since apparently that is how at least one Cubbies fan determines the importance of a player to his team. 😂

[wadesworld]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-bullpens-took-over-modern-baseball/amp/

An article from 4 years ago, and the trend has only gained momentum since then. “As recently as 1988, the OPS+ allowed by starters and relievers was almost equal; now, relief pitchers are consistently hurling much sharper innings than starters. It’s a change that also goes hand in hand with the aforementioned increase in relievers deployed per game. Managers have gotten wise to the fact that more innings should go to the more effective subgroup of pitchers, and that they’re even more effective when called upon in waves to throw aspirin pills past helpless batters.”

Going further into the “spending money = more importance for a team,” 7 teams are spending more money on their bullpen than they are on their starters. Want to make a bet on whether that number increases or decreases over the next 2 or 3 seasons?

[StillAWarrior]

When you want a good laugh some time, check out some of Cy Young's numbers.

The mind boggles at the thought of 511 wins.  What would a guy be worth that could get you 25 wins per year for 20 consecutive years (with a few thrown in to spare)?  Or, if 25/year is too much, you'd have to settle for 20 per year for 25 years.  But it's not all seashells and balloons...he's going to have 13-15 losses per year, too.  And, 749 complete games in 815 starts?  Are you kidding me?

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I’m glad you’re waiting. Go read up on what the Diamondbacks have done with their bullpen and their approach. Google is your friend. These things aren’t hard to find at all. Some articles even mention the amount of money relievers are starting to command, since apparently that is how at least one Cubbies fan determines the importance of a player to his team. 😂

You made a claim. The burden of proof to back it up is on you, genius. That's how it works.  Unreal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-bullpens-took-over-modern-baseball/amp/

An article from 4 years ago, and the trend has only gained momentum since then. “As recently as 1988, the OPS+ allowed by starters and relievers was almost equal; now, relief pitchers are consistently hurling much sharper innings than starters. It’s a change that also goes hand in hand with the aforementioned increase in relievers deployed per game. Managers have gotten wise to the fact that more innings should go to the more effective subgroup of pitchers, and that they’re even more effective when called upon in waves to throw aspirin pills past helpless batters.”

Going further into the “spending money = more importance for a team,” 7 teams are spending more money on their bullpen than they are on their starters. Want to make a bet on whether that number increases or decreases over the next 2 or 3 seasons?

That article does not prove a single thing about relief pitchers being more valuable than starters.  I've already said that bullpen's have become more important and are being used more. BC has already covered why the innings pitched by high-leverage relievers are so effective.

Try again.

[TallTitan34]

Wadesworld, would you trade Hader for a top notch starter?  You still haven't answered this.

[4everwarriors]

Nah, hey?

[buckchuckler]

I'm guessing all these Scoop experts think no batter should ever come anywhere close to 200 strikeouts in a season, batting average is super important, midrange jumpers in basketball is a skill that every player needs, running backs are the most important players in the NFL, etc.

Sports evolve.  Scoopers apparently don't.

You haven't exactly been the model of credibility in this thread. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

You haven't exactly been the model of credibility in this thread.

To his credit, he was saying those things aren't true, which they're not.  Although there are certainly arguments to be made against K'ing 200 times per season. 

[MU82]

Maybe it's too soon to know yet, but I wonder what how oft-used relievers' arms are going to be affected by this trend.

We already know that pitches thrown, days of rest and innings pitched are being monitored closely for starters, who are being coddled more and more as the years go on. If a starter can give a team 5 decent innings, they are deemed successful.

But I do wonder about these relievers who are being used in 70, 80, 90 games, sometimes throwing more than 1 inning in the games. They warm up in the bullpen, sometimes more than once in a game; they are brought into highly stressful situations; they pitch to multiple batters and occasionally work multiple innings.

Is it only a matter of time before the Andrew Millers (and cheap imitations) start to break down? Or do they already have a lot of research to know that pitching 4 consecutive days in stressful situations is not as "bad" as throwing 120 pitches in 2 consecutive starts?

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Maybe it's too soon to know yet, but I wonder what how oft-used relievers' arms are going to be affected by this trend.

We already know that pitches thrown, days of rest and innings pitched are being monitored closely for starters, who are being coddled more and more as the years go on. If a starter can give a team 5 decent innings, they are deemed successful.

But I do wonder about these relievers who are being used in 70, 80, 90 games, sometimes throwing more than 1 inning in the games. They warm up in the bullpen, sometimes more than once in a game; they are brought into highly stressful situations; they pitch to multiple batters and occasionally work multiple innings.

Is it only a matter of time before the Andrew Millers (and cheap imitations) start to break down? Or do they already have a lot of research to know that pitching 4 consecutive days in stressful situations is not as "bad" as throwing 120 pitches in 2 consecutive starts?

It absolutely has in impact and there is so much volatility in bullpens and relief pitchers as it is.  Starters going 6+ regularly and keeping a pen fresh and healthy is a big deal. 

Granted, this is just one example out of money but the Cubs had some health and effectiveness issues in their rotation last year.  Hendricks missed time, Lackey was bad, they rolled out pure garbage from what was the #5 spot until they traded for Quintana.  With basically the same personnel their bullpen hit the toilet the last two months of the season. 

March/April:  2.87 ERA/ 78.1 IP
May: 3.49 ERA/108.1 IP
June: 3.55 ERA/88.2 IP
July: 3.36 ERA/85.2 IP
August:  4.96 ERA/90.2 IP
Sept/Oct: 4.36 ERA/107.1 IP

Again, this is obviously a small sample size of one team in one season but I'd be surprised it it was uncommon. 

[MU82]

It absolutely has in impact and there is so much volatility in bullpens and relief pitchers as it is.  Starters going 6+ regularly and keeping a pen fresh and healthy is a big deal. 

Granted, this is just one example out of money but the Cubs had some health and effectiveness issues in their rotation last year.  Hendricks missed time, Lackey was bad, they rolled out pure garbage from what was the #5 spot until they traded for Quintana.  With basically the same personnel their bullpen hit the toilet the last two months of the season. 

March/April:  2.87 ERA/ 78.1 IP
May: 3.49 ERA/108.1 IP
June: 3.55 ERA/88.2 IP
July: 3.36 ERA/85.2 IP
August:  4.96 ERA/90.2 IP
Sept/Oct: 4.36 ERA/107.1 IP

Again, this is obviously a small sample size of one team in one season but I'd be surprised it it was uncommon.

Interesting stats, VBMG. Thanks.

[drewm88]

Go read up on what the Diamondbacks have done with their bullpen and their approach.

If starters were as important as relievers, they would get carts, too. Checkmate.

[TallTitan34]

If starters were as important as relievers, they would get carts, too. Checkmate.

This is better than any evidence wadesworld has presented so far.

[GGGG]

Could it be as simple as...

A good bullpen is just as important as a good starting rotation, BUT...

Good relievers are more replaceable than good starting pitchers.

[MUBurrow]

Could it be as simple as...

A good bullpen is just as important as a good starting rotation, BUT...

Good relievers are more replaceable than good starting pitchers.

Woah. Its almost like constructing a pitching staff is about getting as many high quality innings as you can, while balancing a limited number of roster spots and diminishing returns due to fatigue.

[wadesworld]

Wadesworld, would you trade Hader for a top notch starter?  You still haven't answered this.

It depends on who the "top notch starter" is, but for the most part no.

This is better than any evidence wadesworld has presented so far.

Please, tell me more about how player salaries prove how important that player is to a team...

[MU82]

If MLB cared about the health of its pitchers, it would expand rosters to 26 or 27 (or more) ... but that would make for higher payrolls without a salary cap, so it ain't happening!

[Dr. Blackheart]

I always felt a good bullpen was like a crapshoot.  Good one year and then scouted the next.  Many relievers, especially middle and set-up, are one pitch ponies.  I remember Carlos Marmol was unhittable one year and unpitchable the next.  Batters learned just to take his pitches and wait for him to mentally self-destruct.

Many great closers, on the other hand, had a variety of pitches (Rivera), many were ex-starters (Eckersley, Gossage).  So, I think the advancement is to use these guys today selectively and situationally to save a starter when his efficacy drops in-game, versus fillers between a starter pushed as far as he could go without getting into too much trouble before you bring the closer in.

Predictive today, reactive yesterday.