A Baseball Thought

[Oski]

Right now the Dodgers have runners on 1st and 2nd, one out and the pitcher is up. Score is 0-0 in the bottom of the second. A hit can potentially break the game open. Instead, the pitcher is hitting which is a rally killer. This got me to thinking:

Why not start each game with a short reliever and bat him in the nine-hole. When the nine comes up to bat, the manager puts in a pinch-hitter, and then has the "starter" come into the game.

This would serve a few purposes: 1. You can take advantage of early rally opportunities; 2. You can give your bench at least one at-bat every day. 3. If you have a weak staff, you can use this for the 3rd, 4th, and 5th starters who are likely to go 5-6 innings at best.

Furthermore, this works better if your offense is already strong. If your team can get on base 5-8, you can really capitalize by having a power hitter pinch hit in the 9. At the very least, the other team knows it has no breathing room through the first 17 at-bats.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[censored], I can't remember his name, but some Math professor from the 60's and 70's wrote the first real book about baseball stats. He said the exact same thing in regards to pitching. He said you start a relief pitcher, then take him out at the first oppurtunity, then you insert a starting pitcher who would only have to bat once or twice for the rest of the game.

[andyfox]

The problem is most teams don't have enough quality relievers to give them two or three solid innings. If they were that good, they'd be starting anyway.

Contrary to popular opinion, the DH adds to baseball strategy. If this were the American League, the number 9 hitter could hit away, they could play hit and run, or he could bunt. And he's probably a very adept bunter. In the National League, this is a bunt situation 99% of the time.

[Oski]

Yeah, I see you point: but if you had a thin staff after the 1 and 2, it seems easier to get a quality long reliver that can go consecutive days than 3 decent starters, and you can increase your options on offense.

Also, many starters throw between starts. Why not have your 1 and 2 "start" one of these games and go 1 or 2 innings?

Of course, I am starting from the assumption my idea is really crappy, otherwise someone would try it. But, so far, I have not seen a compelling reason why this would not work.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I am starting from the assumption my idea is really crappy, otherwise someone would try it. But, so far, I have not seen a compelling reason why this would not work.

[/ QUOTE ]
That guy I was talking about some how computed that if a team did just what you are suggesting, they would score on average something like 20 more runs per year. Apparently the only reason he could think of why no one has tried it is because baseball managers are so steeped in tradition that they would never try it.

Take a look at this article from ESPN.com
its sort of long, but its interesting (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=schwarz_alan&id=1835736)

[andyfox]

Quality long relievers are few and far between. The best pitchers on the team are starters. That's why they start: they're better. Then there are the closers who are usually one inning specialists. The middle relievers are the worst pitchers on the staff, called upon to try to stop the bleeding when the starter gets pounded. They usually have the highest ERAs on the team.

When starters throw between starts, they're not throwing game-quality stuff.

While your idea may not be great, it's probably not that some teams have considered it and rejected it that keeps it from being tried. It's that most managers and teams think John McGraw knew all there was to know about managing and they continue to utilize many of his strategies and tactics fifty years after they have outlived their usefulness.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored], I can't remember his name, but some Math professor from the 60's and 70's wrote the first real book about baseball stats. He said the exact same thing in regards to pitching. He said you start a relief pitcher, then take him out at the first oppurtunity, then you insert a starting pitcher who would only have to bat once or twice for the rest of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you mean Bill James?

[craig r]

i can't remember who it was either that Salt is talking about, but I know it wasn't Bill James.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Quality long relievers are few and far between. The best pitchers on the team are starters. That's why they start: they're better. Then there are the closers who are usually one inning specialists. The middle relievers are the worst pitchers on the staff, called upon to try to stop the bleeding when the starter gets pounded. They usually have the highest ERAs on the team.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the best pitchers are the starters ... however, complete games are a rarity these days. With your 3rd, 4th, and 5th it is quite certain you won't see a complete game.

Yes, generally, long relievers are the worst on the staff, because under the current, accepted strategy, that is their role. If you change the importance of the role, obviously you will need to upgrade the quality of pitcher ... that is just a matter of personnel. There are many quality middle relievers around. Furthermore, a team like the Dodgers has a few extra starters sitting around and they tend to get work as long relievers (that is how Alvarez and Lima were able to step into the the rotations once injuries caught up to the staff).

[ QUOTE ]
When starters throw between starts, they're not throwing game-quality stuff.



[/ QUOTE ]

That is true. Strike that from the board.

Bottom line: It should lead to more runs, but at what expense? Is it possible to configure a staff properly to suit those demands?

Upon further thought, the only thing this would accomplish if it went into wide practice would be to force the DL into the NL. This idea is unneccessary in the AL, and many fans would find it objectionable as it disrupts the continuity and tradition of the game, as well as being aesthetically unpleasant.

I still don't see how it can't work if implemented correctly.

[ThaSaltCracka]

did you read the link I provided?

[Oski]

Yeah, thanks a lot.

[ThaSaltCracka]

It was sort of weird, you were talking about the exact same thing that the article was talking about. Its a pretty radical idea, but it also seems logical. Did you notice that guy also has some different ideas about the way the batting lineup should be?

[kerssens]

Unfortunately politics would get in the way of executing that idea...there would be a mess of egos that would be pouting at the idea of not starting.......someone earlier on here said that the DH adds more strategy??? I don't see it, most of the time its the catcher hitting in the nine spot, or at least it would be the slow ass catcher sitting on first which makes it very difficult to bunt along.....ABOLISH THE DH!!

[andyfox]

You're right that politics would get in the way. It wouldn't go over too well to start some journeyman reliever and have the guy making eighteen million dollars coming in in relief.

It would be interesting if an expansion team, which had no chance of winning, or a team hopelessly out of the race, say, the Diamondbacks this year, would try some of these things. After all, Buck Showalter intentionallyi walked Barry Bonds with the bases loaded in Arizona's first year when whether they won or lost the game really didn't matter.

[ThaSaltCracka]

maybe the M's should give it a try.... to bad they are in the AL where their is a DH!!!!

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is most teams don't have enough quality relievers to give them two or three solid innings. If they were that good, they'd be starting anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

exactly..2-3 innings of solid pitching is too much to sacrifice for one at bat imo. Especially considering the average pinch hitter only will get a hit about 3/20 times more than the average pitcher