Future of Baseball?

Never gonna happen. Teams now have 12-13 pitchers on staff (5 starters and the rest relievers). If they were so concerned, they wouldn't let their pitchers go deep into a game or complete games, which is a huge statistic in the game. They keep pushing more and more for longer and longer outings.  For the young guys that they pay or paid mega bucks in bonus, they watch their pitch counts closely, some even adding on a 6th starter later in the season if it looks like they may make a post season.

There are plenty of guys waiting in the wings, and teams are drafting and signing more and more latins, who last longer then their American college teammates.

I would like to know what happened to Nolan Ryan's theory that you get better by throwing MORE?  How many Ranger pitchers have been on the DL verses other teams?

Interesting article Young_Baller.  Change is a difficult concept in most organizations, and even more so in MLB and its ancient methodologies.   Until some GM/Owner has the "courage" to try the type of rotation suggested (and it is successful) will other MLB teams try to duplicate it.  But it would have to be a wholesale change throughout all levels of the organization due to call ups and 15 day DL issues.  

MLB is full of innovations that eventually get adopted by all the teams.  Maybe this is the next big change?  If the teams see a way to pay the players less  $$  (no more aces making $$$$) , and keep them healthy and productive.....I see it as a possibility.  Maybe O'Dowd or someone like him is innovative enough to do it and succeed.  We'll see.

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.

I believe the opposite is going to happen, actually. I believe that pitch counts are nonsensical, actually. The issue is not number of pitches or whatever. It's mechanics, and Tom House doesn't know much about them.

Statistical and medical evidence disagrees with you. Pitchers that pitch less per appearance perform better and get hurt less.

Can you throw fewer innings more frequently...and as a result work with the same sized roster?  Or does it take a larger roster with more pitchers?  The union wouldn't go along with pay per inning math.  If more pitchers are required, the union would support roster expansion but the owners are not going to be supportive of gross payroll increases.

Tx-Husker- Your first question is the biggest issue with the proposed theory and something that would have to be addressed on a case by case basis. There are certain attributes that every pitcher has (or lacks) that work into the grand scheme of things. It would certainly be difficult to fully enact this theory in some situations.

The pay scale under this theory would not be affected due to the fact that statistically, pitchers would perform better per inning than in another situation. If a pitcher provides the team the same output level in less innings, the team will pay the player based on the output level and not the innings (which, in theory, would be the same as if the pitcher was used in a "traditional" sense). Roster expansion would be a whole different animal; but I do agree- I don't think that would ever be something to be included in the CBA.

When son joined the cardinals they had what is known as the piggyback system in lower milb.  Start, rest, bullpen, rest, relieve, repeat.  3-4 innings with pitch count. Same amount of pitchers and same roster size.  They abandoned that a while ago, most of the pitchers who worked under this system either had serious injuries, or never developed either way. Not to mention they hated it and most felt like their arm was going to fall off.   I think the Astros are doing this, as I read somewhere.

So it has been done and it didn't work, if it did, everyone would be doing it.

Another consideration with shortening innings by starters in the national league is more quality at bats by the DH.  Countless times I have seen a starting pitcher up to bat in the sixth or seventh inning with runners in scoring position and get an out.

If this system results in the current SP throwing roughly similar number of innings over more appearances, it might be viable.  If the guys who would otherwise be throwing 180-220 innings end up throwing 150, you're going to have to get those missing innings somewhere, and they're very likely to come from players who aren't as good as the guys who'd have pitched them in a traditional setup.  That, more than anything, would be the real problem.

Also, first Strasburg-like guy who ends up getting TJ surgery after pitching every third day is going to be a huge test for the system.  MLB managers/GMs play by the book, because you don't get blamed when things go wrong if you don't do it differently than everyone else.

I've tried to ask about this thought before, but haven't found good verbiage to express it, but I'll try again here. I don't really know if this is true - it has just been rattling around in my brain - so please, someone tell me if I am barking up the right tree;

The relief pitchers, who are generally not as good as the "starters" are less worse than the starters than they used to be. 50 Years ago, for the fresh, less skilled arm out of the bullpen to be a better option than the fatigued, more-skilled arm of the starter that starter had to be pretty gassed...because the bullpen guy was that much worse of a pitcher. Today, the baseline ability difference between the starters and the relievers is a lot less, and the starter doesn't have to be nearly as fatigued for the reliever to be a better option.

In other words, I think, ALL your pitchers are closer to each other in ability level than they used to be - so you can get away with spreading your innings out more evenly than having 5 starters handling the bulk of the work.

I could be totally wrong about this, though...but I am interested in hearing what the experts here have to say about it. 

I don't think this is really true, it may just have seemed that way due to various usage patterns.  To the extent relievers appear to be better relative to starters these days, I think you're seeing two primary factors.  One is that since starters aren't expected to do as much, they don't get credit for doing as much as past starters did, and thus look "weaker" relative to the competition.  The second factor is that there are basically no long relievers these days, so almost every "good" reliever only has to air things out for 20-30 pitches at a time, and almost never sees a hitter more than once in a game, increasing the odds that those pitchers can get by with just one or two good pitches.

jacjacatk- Exactly. Part of the reason that relief length has decreased is because of the level of success that it has translated to. My question would be: if it's proven that pitchers perform better when a hitter sees them less, why not let hitters see them less?

Have a link to this study?

No but I have a PDF version I'd be glad to send via email.

In a vacuum, that's a good plan.  The problem is when the quality of relief pitcher declines because you're offloading a couple hundred innings of the SP workload on existing bullpens.  I'm not convinced that even if you could expand the rosters there would be a large enough pool of effective relievers to make this really work.

jacjacatk:  I'll acknowledge I may have missed the point, but I don't think the goal is to lower the total number of innnings for the starters, but to minimize the number of innings - the number of pitches - for any one outting.  If an Ace were to be limited to 3 innings, could he pitch every 3 days or even every other day?  If this is the case, the current distribution of the workload (between 'starters' and 'pen') may remain the same.

I imagine one of the biggest hurdles would be to follow-through on sitting down a hot pitcher after only 3 innings.  What if 'starter' has no-hitter after nine-batters?  My perception (I'd be interested in more knowledgeable persons feedback here) is that pitchers are not automatic.  They can be hot or cold.  Plus it seems that today, starters can have great games after shaky first inning.

Over the last 15 years (since the last expansion), teams have averaged 3 relievers a season who had at least 60 appearances.  The max number of innings pitched by any of those guys is just 123 (minimum is just 31).

That's not conclusive, but it's at least some evidence that 60 game 180ish IP workloads may not be sustainable for anyone, much less the average pitcher.

Watching the braves tonight playing the Mets.  Top of the 6th the starting pitcher for the braves bats for third out with runner in scoring position.  Bottom of the sixth, braves pitcher gets 4 hits against him with no outs for two runs before being pulled.  What a waste!!!!  The braves pinch hitter is 7 for 8.