Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do starting pitchers who suck find jobs year after year?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dominik
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    We should draft a plan and submit it to MLB. I suggest getting rid of the entire AL and the NL Central. That leaves us only two teams to get rid of. I'm thinking Colorado and Arizona.
    on the other hand that might drain the talent pool a little since quite a few good HS athletes might switch to other sports if the chance to make the majors is almost zero.

    the reason why there are so many mediocre pitchers is that you have to fill a lot of innings. a season is about 1450 IP. for 30 teams this is over 43000 IP. that is a lot. also consider that those pitchers are only bad in getting MLB batters out (and still they make a lot more outs than hits). those pitchers still throw 90 and have 3 pitches. those are very good pitchers just not elite.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Grimm
    replied
    Originally posted by TonyK View Post
    Why? Because you can never have too much pitching.
    As much as some people may take that lightheartedly, it seems to always stand true.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Grimm
    replied
    I'd have to think most owners would love to get a value of something like wins per dollar spent.

    I'm not sure of what expectations are when a certain starter goes over the span of the season, but I'm sure it's taken into consideration when he is signed as a FA or given an extended contract.

    If there are three starting pitchers on the open market, what would the expectated wins be for each start assuming each will go 34 starts for the year

    Player A's cost is $20M per season and he's a lifetime 3.00 ERA
    Player B's cost is $12M per season and he's a lifetime 3.50 ERA
    Player C's cost is $8M per season and he's a lifetime 4.00 ERA

    Without digging through everything, I'd have to expect (as a team) that Pitcher A would give my team a chance to win 75% of his games (not saying he'll get the decision - simply that I should win), with Pitcher B being about 60% and Pitcher B being in the 45% range.

    If I'm a budgeted team (small market) I can still possibly afford up to 4 of the Pitcher C types - maybe 3 of the Pitcher B types and 1 or two of Pitcher A type.

    Now I can have an expectation level of 45% wins (61 wins expected from 1-4 in staff) with 4 starters for the first team with a wild card in the 5-spot. I've got 60% win chance with 3 starters for the second team (61 wins), but now I have an extra wild card. With the final team, I can expect 75% wins from my gunners (52 wins), but what do I have after that?

    Cost-wise:

    Team A spent $32M with 61 win expectancy and one open slot
    Team B spent $36M with 61 win expectancy and two open slots
    Team C spent $40M with 52 win expectancy and three open slots

    It comes down to those open slots. Some teams have more ready than others. Other teams (like the Phillies this year) had nobody near ready heading into 2012 and felt the need to go ultra-heavy with proven commodities. And how's that worked out so far?

    These pitchers (the Trachsel's, Morgan's etc) are also used to take the place of an unknown as well. Entering a season, you want - as an owner - your fanbase to feel as comfortable as possible. It helps sell season tickets much more than question marks up and down the rotation. Casual fans will feel much more comfortable in general seeing a familiar name as opposed to a questionable prospect to start the season.

    I think I babbled on long enough on this to maybe confuse my initial point, and I apologize for that. But in all, I think there are many teams who can have a multitude of issues that lead to marginal pitchers maintaining long careers.

    Leave a comment:


  • TonyK
    replied
    Why? Because you can never have too much pitching.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tyrus4189Cobb
    replied
    There's always someone who has to be below 100 OPS+, otherwise the metric wouldn't make sense. A lot of poor pitchers aren't necessarily worse than contemporaries in terms of skill. They can throw just as hard with as many pitch types as the next guy. However, they simply just don't do as well as others. Could be their catcher, obliging to coaching adjustments, or their mentality. Whether you have 16 or 30 teams, this will never change.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Grimm
    replied
    These pitchers are often very affordable to even the most cost-conscious teams. Aside from innings, they can also lend their experience to the younger pitchers on a given staff.

    I think that as long as a pitcher's demands aren't high (and they shouldn't be when mentioning guys like Trachsel), he can have a long career simply because he's still cost-effective. Same as some of these 10+ year players who simply play a utility role in the field.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by ian2813 View Post
    And then a lot of the guys we consider good starting pitchers now would become the new Suppans.
    Correct - the baseline keeps changing.

    Leave a comment:


  • ian2813
    replied
    Originally posted by Matthew C. View Post
    Yes, that would get rid of Suppan, etc.
    And then a lot of the guys we consider good starting pitchers now would become the new Suppans.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    We should draft a plan and submit it to MLB. I suggest getting rid of the entire AL and the NL Central. That leaves us only two teams to get rid of. I'm thinking Colorado and Arizona.
    I am thinking they would get rid of teams with little relative success over their histories - like the Mets for example.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    We should draft a plan and submit it to MLB. I suggest getting rid of the entire AL and the NL Central. That leaves us only two teams to get rid of. I'm thinking Colorado and Arizona.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    Time to go drastic. It needs to be an eight team league.
    Yes, that would get rid of Suppan, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    Time to go drastic. It needs to be an eight team league.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    Well, clearly the answer is the league has to contract to 20 teams so as to ensure guys like Trachsel can't continue to find work.
    If the league contacted to 20 teams - there would still need/have to be a lot of (what are now considered) average players in the league. They would just be the newer replacement level players. Trachsel and Suppan would still have jobs in a 20-team league...they would just be the worst players. It would be the 5th staters, wost bullpen pitchers, and worst bench players that would get the axe. Not guys with 100 ERA+ and 200 IP per season in their primes.
    Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 09-03-2012, 06:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    Well, clearly the answer is the league has to contract to 20 teams so as to ensure guys like Trachsel can't continue to find work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tyrus4189Cobb
    replied
    I think a lot of scouting and coaching subjectivity has to do with it, too. Team management officials may see something in a pitcher they believe can be fixed if they get enough playing time. There have been some real doozies over the years, including the constant call-ups of Chan Ho Park and Dontrelle Willis.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X