By Ryan Anthony Dreyer
Twitter: @Secad0ra ————-- By now, we've all familiarized ourselves with the stereotypical pitching equation that major league baseball teams have followed for decades: 5 starters, 5 or 6 relievers and a closer. Typically, the starters are asked to pitch as long as possible, often times to their detriment (just ask Mark Prior, pictured above. Thanks, Dusty!). When a starter loses his "stuff,” even to the casual fan, the signs are obvious. Sometimes, the manager is able to get out in front of the situation and pull his starter before he begins to completely unravel, but in other instances the starter isn't removed until the damage has been done, both on the scoreboard and to their body. Ultimately, baseball is big business and in this particular business, profits are dependent on winning, which in turn is dependent on pitching. I get it. But MLB's pitching system is not only antiquated, it's flat-out broken and I'm here to show how it can be fixed with a bit of creativity. Fair warning, baseball purists won't like what they're about to read. Here's what I'm proposing: STARTERS, BY RULE, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PITCH MORE THAN 5 INNINGS We'll call it the 5-5-5 system. 5 starters, pitching every 5th day, for 5 innings at a time. It sounds crazy, I know, but hear me out. For a moment, forget everything that has been embedded into your brain about pitching and think of the benefits this new system would bring, not only for the starters, but for the fans as well. Let's begin with the most obvious question, why specifically 5 innings? First of all, In general, most starters don't lose their "stuff" or become fatigued this early in the game. To be fair, you could point to the 7.26 ERA posted by Cubs starters in the first inning last season and you'd have a legitimate argument. But this also ties into my second point, that being, if a starter does give up some early runs, deficits are not usually insurmountable in the first 5 innings. And lastly, a starter needs to go 5 innings to qualify for the win. It just seems cruel to deny them the chance to do so. As for the health benefits, "Low-Impact Starters,” as I like to call them, would be fresher, more durable and thus have a greater ability to avoid significant time on the disabled list. Last year, from opening day until March 17th, MLB reported 70 injuries, a ridiculous 64% of which were pitchers. That's downright alarming. Here's something to consider: in the last four years, as a whole, the collective ERA of every team's starting rotation has risen from 3.82 to 4.10 to 4.34 and finally 4.49 in 2017. Talk all you want about the recent increase of power hitters, but you'd be naive to think that fatigue and pushing through injuries hasn't played a significant role in this downward pitching trend. Imagine what all this would mean for a guy like Clayton Kershaw, a first-ballot hall of famer, who recently has dealt with a string of back injuries, undoubtedly caused by wear and tear. His stuff is absolutely filthy. We all know that. But his body seems to be slowly breaking down. The 5-5-5 system would add years to his shelf life. And this would also apply to guys like Max Scherzer and Corey Kluber, aces who seem to be dealing with nagging injuries on a yearly basis. Side note: the entertainment value of seeing Mad Max’s reaction when he’s constantly being pulled in the 5th would be priceless, wouldn’t it? On the other hand, I’d be remiss if I didn’t openly discuss the negative effect this system would surely have on certain starters. Rick Porcello, for example, who doesn’t have elite stuff but creates value through his durability, as he showed by finishing 7th in the league in innings pitched. In my system, he simply wouldn’t get the chance to exploit his best asset and ultimately, the Rick Porcello-like pitchers (*coughs* Clayton Richard, 16th in innings pitched) would slowly become extinct. But I’ll be completely honest with you; if prolonging the careers of players like Kershaw meant sacrificing guys like Porcello, I’d take that trade off in a heartbeat. Now, take into account the entertainment value of this system. Yes, the number of runs scored would probably decrease, but think about how much better the starters would pitch knowing they can only go 5 innings. There would be no reason to save anything for later. Because of the extra rest, their stuff would be more consistently electric and every pitch would be a maximum-effort, no-holds-barred experience for the fans. This would create a playoff-like atmosphere from March until the end of September. When the fans are happy, they're buying more tickets and when they're buying more tickets, the owners are happy. It's a win-win. Cue the skeptical eye rolls and the inevitable "this guy is off his rocker" (possibly meaner?) comments. Change is uncomfortable. I understand. But what if I were to tell you the 5-5-5 system might not be as far fetched as you think? In fact, a study conducted by two professors at Brigham Young University in 2015 suggests MLB teams have been subtly experimenting with this concept for a few years, just in a slightly different way. Here's a short excerpt from the paper they wrote for the MIT Sloan Sports Conference: "325 different pitchers started at least one of the 2,429 games in 2015 (counting both home and visiting teams there were 4,858 total starts for the season). Collectively, these 325 starters (45% of the 712 pitchers) hurled over 64% of the balls originating from the mound before leaving the game. Interestingly, of the 325 starters, 174 of them (53.5%) also pitched in a non-starting role at least once during the season. Analysis reveals that an additional 48,923 pitches come from these starters when they are not starting (10% of their pitches are in relief of other starters). This suggests there is indeed mixing of roles in the individual games. Naturally, teams are responding to the season’s game schedules, unforeseen injuries, and experimental contracts with minor league players. We propose that, among other strategies, this “mixing” can be extended such that a franchise employs twice as many starters (10) and uses them in much more varied sequences, specialized match-ups, and different rotations." In summary, over half (53.5%) of the starters in 2015 also appeared in relief at least once during the season. That percentage increased in both 2016 and 2017. If we simply reverse engineer the 5-5-5 system, in which starters are basically acting as long relievers, going no more than 5 innings at a time, it's not such a stretch to say this cockamamie idea of mine might actually make sense. In an interesting twist, the two authors of the paper suggest employing 10 starters instead of 5 and using them in various roles, depending on the situation. In my proposal, these extra "starters" would amount to who I consider relievers. So, in essence, our two proposals are aligned. Which brings me to the second, and equally important, part of my system. If the starters can only pitch for a maximum of 5 innings, this inevitably creates the need for a dominant, or “super” bullpen. This concept is hardly foreign, and we’ve seen numerous teams over the years attempt to shorten the game by assembling a shutdown group of relievers, particularly on the back end (innings 7 through 9). The most glaring example to me, is the 2015 Kansas City Royals. The Royals finished the year ranked 24th in starting-pitcher ERA and 26th in innings pitched by starters. Only one team before them had ever won the World Series with such poor quality from their starting rotation, the 1976 Cincinnati Reds. To compensate, the Royals constructed a bullpen for the ages. They sent out a combination of Jason Frasor (3-0, 1.53 ERA) or Luke Horchevar (5-2, 1.92 ERA) in the 6th, followed by their three-headed monster, setup men Kelvin Herrera, Wade Davis and closer Greg Holland to finish the game. If the Royals had the lead entering the 6th frame, their bullpen was so dominant that their opponents knew the game was all but over. This trend continued in the coming years, with teams like the Indians and Yankees attempting to replicate the Royals’ blueprint for pitching success. Now, take a second and think about what the 5-5-5 system would mean come playoff time. If a manager finds himself at the opposite end of the spectrum, unable to trust most of his bullpen like the Royals could (Joe Maddon, I’m looking at you), my system would give him more options. Over the course of a long season, limiting your starters to 5 innings would mean their arms are well-rested for October baseball. In theory (I say this because things rarely work out perfectly for a manager) you wouldn’t have to use a single reliever, besides your closer, in a playoff series AND you could limit your starters to only 4 innings each. As an example, let’s use the Cubs’ starting rotation for last year’s NLCS against the Dodgers (we’ll include Wade Davis in this formula since he was the only trusted reliever). Game 1: Quintana, 4 innings Lester, 4 innings Davis in the 9th Game 2: Hendricks, 4 innings Arrieta, 4 innings Davis in the 9th *Travel Day* Game 3: Quintana, 4 innings Lester, 4 innings Davis in the 9th Game 4: Hendricks, 4 innings Arrieta, 4 innings Davis in the 9th Wash, rinse, repeat. Even if Quintana and Lester had to come back and pitch game 5 on a single day’s rest, they could because they only went 4 innings in game 3. Add another travel day before game 6, and everything falls back into place. It works. It’s unconventional, sure, but it works. And when you get into the playoffs, it doesn’t matter how you win, so long as you win. The Astros proved that with their bullpen strategy in game 7 of the World Series. Manager A.J. Hinch’s relief corp posted a 7.29 ERA in the first six games and he seemingly lost all confidence in guys like Ken Giles, who he relied heavily upon during the regular season. So, in the final contest he turned to Lance McCullers as his starter and closed the final four innings with Charlie Morton, another starter (although, to be fair, Hinch sprinkled in a few traditional relievers in a very limited fashion). The result? The Astros hoisted their first World Series trophy in the franchise’s history. In conclusion, I'd like to go back to the paper written by the two professors from BYU and share their final summary: "The data seems to indicate that starting pitchers are likely to be able to deliver a greater number of quality pitches in one outing than relief pitchers. This may be, at least partially, a function of relief pitchers intentionally throwing harder for a shorter number of pitches. In other words, the task of relief pitching is different from that of starting pitching, just as running a marathon is different from running a 100-meter dash. We propose a middle ground of grooming pitchers to pitch exactly three innings in an outing. Overall pitch counts for the starters would be reduced and this may allow for them to start more often. Regrettably, no MLB team has ever adopted such a strategy to our knowledge, but it has been shown recently that relief pitchers are now pitching more innings on average, and have a lower OPS+ for opposing batters compared to starting pitchers. Maybe it’s time to level the playing field between these two groups in the form of three-inning outings." Three-inning outings for starters? Yeah, that may be a bit too radical even for me. But the thinking is similar. Replace "three-inning" with "five-inning" and I couldn't have said it better myself.
2 Comments
News broke this morning that reigning NL MVP Giancarlo Stanton was going to be traded to the New York Yankees and the majority of the sports world was outraged. Most of the takes I saw this morning (mostly from Boston fans) included accusations of collusion with Derek Jeter, CEO and part owner of the Marlins, helping his old team out one more time. I’m not ready to go that far and say this was all a set up to make the rest of America angry, but it does seem terrible for the other 29 teams in baseball. Pairing Aaron Judge (52 home runs) with Stanton (59 home runs) is something I’ve unsuccessfully tried to obtain in video games. If the 27 titles weren’t enough already, this gives baseball fans everywhere another reason to hate the Yankees as “the rich get richer” is truer now than ever. As bad as this looks on the outside, Cubs fans everywhere should be happy with this result.
Ever since the Marlins announced they were shopping Stanton this offseason, it was assumed that he was going to the Dodgers, Giants or Cardinals. I was mentally prepared for Stanton to hit 60 tanks off the arch every year or for him to be paired with Cody Bellinger and Corey Seager in Los Angeles. If he went with St. Louis, the NL Central automatically becomes much more competitive and if he joins the Dodgers, they become the Golden State Warriors of baseball. With Stanton playing in the American league, this won’t be a problem for the Cubs until the World Series. Stanton playing in the American League would have been nice in any regard, but him playing for the Yankees is perfect for the Cubs when it comes to free agency for next year. Following the 2018 season, Bryce Harper is expected to test the waters of free agency and bring in a historic amount of money with his new contract. Early on, it was assumed that Harper would sign with the Yankees after 2018. With Stanton and Judge already patrolling the outfield corners while having Stanton’s contract on their hands, I don’t see any way that Harper will end up in The Bronx. It’s still no guarantee he’ll sign with the Cubs given the inevitable raises that the young core of the Cubs will receive, but I still like our chances for Kris Bryant’s best friend, who has a dog named Wrigley, to end up playing for the Cubs in the future. Am I selfish for being happy about this because it helps the Cubs chances at signing a superstar? Probably. Is creating a “super team” bad for the game of baseball? Maybe, but it would be the exact same situation if he ended up playing for the Dodgers. Watching the Yankees swoop in out of nowhere to trade for arguably the best hitter of this generation is an annoying flex, but it really isn’t hurting the Cubs. I’ll stress about this if/when the Cubs and Yankees meet in the World Series. Today, the Cubs signed Tyler Chatwood to a 3-year $38 million contract. While the numbers for the 27-year-old RHP look rough at first glance, they are very deceiving. This past season for the Rockies, he posted a 4.69 ERA to go along with a 7.31 K/9 and a 4.69 BB/9 for an 8-15 record. None of those numbers are glamorous in any way, but if you look at how he’s performed away from Coors Field, it’s obvious why the Cubs are so thrilled with this signing. In 77-1/3 innings away from Coors last season, he posted a 3.49 ERA, a 1.228 WHIP and his opponents hit .200 against him to compare to .302 at home. He also had the best road ERA in all of baseball in 2016 when he posted a 1.69 and his 2.57 road ERA the last two seasons is tied with Stephen Strasburg for 2nd in the NL behind Clayton Kershaw. Obviously, we can’t expect him to come in and immediately be elite because he’s no longer consistently pitching at elevation, but these numbers are enough to get excited about. Combine his 58.1 % groundball rate, which was 5th best in baseball in 2017, with the Cubs infield defense that had the best defensive efficiency against grounders in 2017 and he can have a superb 2018 campaign.
My greatest concerns for Chatwood is his durability and his control. The man is 27 years old and has never made more than 27 starts in a season or thrown more than 160 innings. There can be a lot of reasons for this and maybe this will end once he gets to Chicago, but it is cause for concern. His BB% over the last two seasons is also the worst in baseball out of 86 qualified starting pitchers, so that’s clearly something that needs to be fixed, but I am optimistic about this signing. He doesn’t need to be a star and I think he’ll excel in his role as our 4th/5th starter. Welcome to Chicago, Tyler Chatwood. We’re glad to have you. |
Kyle MalzhanFounder who is an aspiring journalist who covers the Chicago Cubs daily. Archives
April 2020
Categories |