Another Tom House-Related Piece

So, basically Tom House's suggestion is to limit pitchers to 3-4 innings and 45-50 pitches.  Wow, that's creative. 

I don't know if he's suggesting it so much as predicting that it will happen eventually.  Hard to tell the way the article is written.   Frankly, this method of managing pitchers is similar (but not identical) to what Mississippi State did this year, and they had a heck of a season.

I've studied this very theory for nearly a year now. The statistical evidence supporting the change is overwhelming, both economically and medically. I wrote my Master's thesis on this very inefficiency, in fact. If anyone has any questions don't hesitate to ask, I have extensive research that pretty much says Tom House is spot on.

So, if we move away from starters and relievers to just pitchers on a rotation shouldn't we also look at building teams with bench players who can pitch (or pitchers who can play positions and hit)?  It would give the manager a lot of choices.

sowilson- In an ideal world, that would be outstanding. However, it is rare to find someone that is so inclined to be that talented in both respects.

It happens at the younger levels and sometimes at MLB in extra innings games.  I have seen SS and utility players pitch effectively in extra innings games.  Just a thought, less specialization might ulitmately be better for baseball.

JH,

In your thesis, do you also address the competitive aspect?  The big problem is, of course, every team has one or two "best" pitchers.  Pitching quality has such a big influence on the outcome of the game.  If you are not using your best pitchers the majority of the time, you are putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage, aren't you?  Does it pencil out somehow where you can still have your ace/s throw the bulk of the innings?

Baseball is a business. Ace match ups, sell tickets. That's a very big part of the game not who will relieve after the guy leaves in 3-4. 

 

No pitcher wants to give up his possible win to someone else and rules say you must pitch 5 to get the win. Think of all the changes that would have to be made to play the game this way. No way will it ever fly.

 

Who wants to pay big bucks to watch a utility guy throw (they can't pitch) an inning.

 

This is NOT the younger levels and this is NOT college.

 

The whole key is using your young starters correctly, and many teams have been doing that more recently.

 

We've got two threads going on the same article.  Should we consolidate?  Let me know if I should kill mine.

Originally Posted by TPM:

Baseball is a business. Ace match ups, sell tickets. That's a very big part of the game not who will relieve after the guy leaves in 3-4. 

 

No pitcher wants to give up his possible win to someone else and rules say you must pitch 5 to get the win. Think of all the changes that would have to be made to play the game this way. No way will it ever fly.

 

First off consolidating the threads could be an option if you could, just to make it easier.

 

There are obvious outliers to the equation. Justin Verlander was better in 2011 than anyone else on his team in any inning of his outings. But, for the most part, it pencils out fairly consistently.

 

Take this extremely simplified example: Pitcher A threw 180 innings last year with an output level of 8 units. Pitcher B threw 90 innings with an output level of 5 units. Pitcher 3 threw 50 innings with an output level of 3 units.

 

That equates to a cumulative output level of 16 units over the course of 320 innings pitched, or an average of 1 unit of output level for every 20 innings pitched.

 

Let's say the formula is re-worked...

 

Pitcher A: 140 innings- output of 6.5

Pitcher B: 100 innings- output of 5

Pitcher C: 80 innings- output of 5

 

320 IP, 16.5 units of output.

 

While the above hypothetical is not accurate numerically, the resulting increase in success is fairly consistent with my findings. If a pitcher throws less, he will be more successful per inning.

 

The main examples I used in my piece were Clayton Kershaw and Dennis Eckersley.

 

I'd be more than happy to share the paper with whoever would like to see it.

 

With respect to personal stats such as wins- I think hope that we are FINALLY getting to a point in time in which the majority of knowledgeable baseball people recognize that the pitcher win is an absolutely meaningless and utterly ridiculous statistic that should never even be taken into consider in any aspect of the game at all.

 

The basics of the theory come down to this:

• Pitchers are more successful when facing batters less times.

• Pitchers will be hurt less by throwing less.

• Teams will win more games because the pitchers are better (not only on an outing-by-outing basis, but also based on the fact that less injuries = more quality innings).

• Teams will make more money because they are winning more games.

• Players will be paid the same or more for their performance because it is equal or better than it was previously, and the team is winning.
• Less injury, more success, more money all around. Everyone is happy.

 

As I said I'd be happy to share the paper with whoever would like to read it. Just shoot me a PM with your email address and I'll send you a PDF version. It's somewhat difficult to contextualize without the data support.

Not to be a stickler, but this can't happen for all teams.  There are a finite number of games in a season.  If some teams win more games, other teams will HAVE to lose more games. 

 

 

bballman- valid point. The theory was written under the assumption that this philosophy would be applied by one team. Certainly would have to reevaluate/look into the results if it were to be league wide

In terms of winning, things will even out if everyone does the same thing.  The difference between who will win and who will lose will be determined more by the quality of the depth of the staff rather than the quality of the starters. 

 

Since all teams will migrate to this method, things overall will remain similar.  The deciding factor would be longevity and injuries.  Would this method help keep pitchers off the DL.  I'm thinking maybe, maybe not.  It certainly could help the existing starters as they would certainly be throwing fewer pitches.  Maybe not for the bullpen guys.  Many of them would be throwing more innings and more pitches.  Many more.  Bullpen guys are more tuned into throwing say 15-30 pitches at a time.  They would need to alter, not only their training routines to throw more pitches more often, but also their mentality.  What do I mean by that?  A closer, say like Kimbrel, comes into the game knowing he's going to throw for one inning - and that's it.  Consequently, he's throwing as hard as he can because he knows he's only going to throw 15 pitches or so.  If now, all of a sudden, he needs to go in and throw 3 innings, he needs to pace himself differently.  If he goes into the game with the one inning mentality, he will surely injure himself eventually.  Starters have the opposite, and perhaps better situation.  They are used to pacing themselves.  If they throw at the same pace level as they are used to while starting, surely this philosophy will help them.  Same effort for fewer pitches.  However, if they come into the game thinking - I'm only going to throw for 3 innings, so I'm gonna step it up - then they also may be at more risk for injury.

 

This is all speculation of course.  But I think it demonstrates that there is more that goes into moving into the 3-3-3 type direction.