Each Starter Paired With A Reliever?

[plask_stirlac]

Most teams carry 11 or 12 pitchers.

Why not pair each starter (5) with a certain reliever, assigning 6-7 to the starter and the last 2-3 to the reliever? Then have one or two long men, or relievers who are on their throwing day, etc.

The reliever could have a very low 64 IP (.4 per game if it's 2 every 5 games) in 32 games, so that's actually underutilizing probably. Stretch from there to 80 or more IP, not counting long men.

There could still be room for lefty/righty matchups late.

For injuries, just call up the next starter from AAA... not much different.

Okay, maybe the better question is why not TRY it if the team isn't messing with a good rhythm? Has any team tried this?

[weskelton]

Okay, maybe the better question is why not TRY it if the team isn't messing with a good rhythm?

Maybe even a better question is WHY try it? What do you see as the strategic advantage in this setup vs a more conventional approach?

[SABR Matt]

that would badly underleverage a team's best relievers (no team is going to have 5 guys who are equally good...let alone 7)...the goal of reliever usage is to get your best relievers into the innings that matter the most to the outcome of games.

[Tango Tiger]

I agree. It doesn't make any sense to "pair" the pitchers, especially in the NL. What advantage do you get here with "pairing"? Imagine pairing Mariano Rivera with Wang, and Wang has a 5-run lead.

[plask_stirlac]

I don't know, it might psychologically help and closers would get regular work, and reduce warmups.

Plus relievers could move to starting more or vice versa.

If a team is complaining about not being able to reach 1458 innings, why not try it?

And with a "closer" or two they could go more than with just the ace.

[SABR Matt]

What would you do if your starter got creamed and was gone after 1 inning? You've got maybe two guys who aren't paired with anyone to try to take up the slack...that's a bad strategy.

[pizzacutter]

I think that the A's actually tried something like this during the Tony LaRussa years for about a week or two. Then, sanity won out.

[SABR Matt]

Tony LaRussa...he always was a bit a dingbat.

[weskelton]

I had a recollection of the LaRussa experiment. Here's a blurb I found at http://www.livewild.org/bb/pitchingstaff/index.html on the evolution of the pitching staff.

A's 1993 "pitching-groups" experiment

What we are trending towards is something like what LaRussa tried with the A's July 19-24 1993. His recently successful team was getting hit hard and losing. He announced an experiment: a 3-group rotation: Groups were: Val Poppel/Darling/Campbell Mohler/Witt/Briscoe Welch/Downs/Gossage Each pitcher is limited to around 50 pitches, any might start (tho it was really a Van Popppel/Mohler/Downs 3-man rotation) and there were other pitchers with normal relief roles (e.g. Eckersley). I suspect that ones prejudices against this sort of thing are overcome (e.g. starters must go 5 for a win) it would be a better system.
The A's lost 5 of the 6 games, with ERA around 4.6, similar to how they'd been doing otherwise, and the experiment ended.

If I recall correctly, there was actually resistance to the idea from the players and/or agents as starters were not qualifying for wins.

[skyking162]

Larussa's plan makes a lot more sense in the NL, when you can pinch hit for the pitcher every time his spot comes up.

[weskelton]

Larussa's plan makes a lot more sense in the NL, when you can pinch hit for the pitcher every time his spot comes up.

Actually, I would suggest that just the opposite is true. In the AL I have the luxury of changing the pitcher as many times as I want, without having to burn a PH in non-crucial situations.

[digglahhh]

This is like deciding how much I am going to bet at each opportunity before looking at any cards...

From a purely conceptual point of view, I fail to see how a predetermined strategy would be superior to one that allows he who enacts it the flexibility to adapt to particular situation.

The single most important change to bullpen use patterns that needs to happen is using your best reliever (in most cases, your closer) at the highest leverage point of the game, whether it is the ninth inning or not. 1st and 2nd, 1 out in the eighth as opposed to clean slate in the ninth... Of course, a big reason why this is discussion is reticent is because managers fear the repercussions of the media if their closer comes in in the 8th and an inferior reliever blows it in the ninth. Degree of difficulty be damned...

[skyking162]

Actually, I would suggest that just the opposite is true. In the AL I have the luxury of changing the pitcher as many times as I want, without having to burn a PH in non-crucial situations.

I think you're underestimating the importance of not batting the pitcher 2-3 extra times per game. I don't have The Book in front of me, but I think this strategy would add a couple tenths of a run per game -- that's on the order of a few wins per season, all for "burning" PHs. (How awesome do the Cubs and Diamondbacks have it -- they've got two starters who are legitimate PHs in any game they don't pinch, Zambrano and Owings.)

[digglahhh]

I think you're underestimating the importance of not batting the pitcher 2-3 extra times per game. I don't have The Book in front of me, but I think this strategy would add a couple tenths of a run per game -- that's on the order of a few wins per season, all for "burning" PHs. (How awesome do the Cubs and Diamondbacks have it -- they've got two starters who are legitimate PHs in any game they don't pinch, Zambrano and Owings.)

With teams carrying 11-12 pitchers and the concern of not being left without an emergency C on the bench, it becomes a balancing act of when, and how frequently one can pinch hit. There's both the relative quality of the PH and the pitcher and the leverage of the situation to consider. With a limited amount of resources (PHs), picking your spots is important. Lower tier hitters become candidates to be PH for later in games on the basis of handedness platoons too. PHing for your pitcher over and over is probably not the best use of limited PHing resources.

I'd like to nominate the Mets, and Johan Santana as having a PH caliber P on their roster. Dude can rake!

[Tango Tiger]

This is like deciding how much I am going to bet at each opportunity before looking at any cards...

Love the analogy, and that should end the discussion right there.