"Start highest rested" - Dead in real life?

[lynchjm24]

All you need to do is check the lineups. You can't pitch today like you did 40 years ago. There aren't 4-5 holes in most lineups where teams selected defense over bats. It's not that the pitchers are softer, it's that pitching became harder.

[phillosopherp]

I think that money has a lot to do with it, and not just the teams. I could see contracts with the major SPs being negotiated on the fact of at least 5 days rest needed for their players. What agent in his right mind is going to allow his guy to get tore up before the agent has made 15% on high dollars for at least 8 to 10 seasons.

I also think the addition of the QS stat has something to do with it too. I hate that stat, but with so many looking at making it at least 6 with the less the 3, you want guys to be more on their game. I don't know just my two cents.

[ejbucs]

There's 2 things that people tend to forget when discussing the workloads of pitchers in the 3 and 4 man rotation eras and modern day pitchers.

1. The gap between the best and worst offensive players is smaller now than it was in that era.

2. Pitchers don't have the luxury to "coast" in games as they used to in that era.

A friend of mine wrote this once and I think it helps explain the difference better than anything I could ever say

If you read Christy Mathewson's book "Pitching in a Pinch", one thing
that strikes you is the emphasis Christy gives on being able to "coast",
saving energy for those key situations when the pitcher is facing a good
hitter. If you read baseball literature, up through about 1950, you'll
see references to pitchers "bearing down" in key situations - with the
implication being that they were able to expend less energy earlier.
Today's pitchers don't have that luxury, IMHO; they have to "bear down"
from hitter 1 through hitter 9, because there ARE no "weak links". That
change, more than anything else, mitigates against the kinds of
workloads we've seen in the past.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by ejbucs

There's 2 things that people tend to forget when discussing the workloads of pitchers in the 3 and 4 man rotation eras and modern day pitchers.

1. The gap between the best and worst offensive players is smaller now than it was in that era.

2. Pitchers don't have the luxury to "coast" in games as they used to in that era.

A friend of mine wrote this once and I think it helps explain the difference better than anything I could ever say

What he said. Along with the fact that the powers that be have allowed offense to grow over the last 15-25 years through rules and the environment the game is played in. Everything from strike zones to balls and bats and gloves and stadia have been tailored to more and more runs, and thus more and more pitches per game.

When you tally it all up you have wall-to-wall sluggers with tiny strikezones swinging ultra-light bats at juiced balls in parks with 365 ft alleys. It's a wonder any starter can ever get through seven innings. Palmer and Spahn and Drysdale would probably shake their heads and go play in Japan or something.

[matches malone]

Just wanted to note that I just finished my first season, including the WS, and while the AI didn't automatically use the highest-rested starter, it did juggle the rotation as the series continued, opting to skip the Game 2 starter who got shellacked even though he was ready to go again, and using Chien Ming-Wang in games 1, 4 and 7.

[JoseRijo]

Regardless of whether a pitcher can to coast or not, they will not coast in todays game, because they get big payouts for stats, and getting a K on the #8 hitter 20x in the season might mean hundreds of thousands of extra dollars on his next contract or more! Ground outs just dont pay as much.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Did pitchers really throw on three days' rest all year?

RchW pretty well covered this, but the standard from 1946-1970 was a strict four man rotation. If there was an off day they would get four days of rest instead of three, and if there was a doubleheader a spot starter would be inserted somewhere to make sure there were at least three days off.

ejbucs' quote from a friend was very appropo, and I've believed this for years. I was surprised this year while listening to Mets' broadcasts to hear both Ron Darling and Tom Seaver on seperate occaisions refer to reversing that strategy. They claimed that they 'bore down' on the 7-8-9 hitters because 'you don't want those guys to beat you'.

Tom said that he always picked out the one guy in the opposing lineup who he found hardest to get out, and for that guy he'd 'ease up', since 'he's going to get his hits anyway' so just try to ensure that when those hits come they don't hurt you.

Ron didn't say anything like that last bit, but he made a point out of how embarrassing it was to give up a hit to a guy at the bottom of the lineup, so it was to be avoided at all costs.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Curtis

RchW pretty well covered this, but the standard from 1946-1970 was a strict four man rotation. If there was an off day they would get four days of rest instead of three, and if there was a doubleheader a spot starter would be inserted somewhere to make sure there were at least three days off.

A little back-of-the-envelope math:

Currently, MLB seasons run 182 days. Subtract the three days for the All-Star Break, that leaves 179 days. Divide that by five (for a five-man rotation) and you get 35.8, which means a starter in a five-man rotation should get about 36 starts in a season.

From 1946-1958, MLB seasons ran 168 days. Subtract the All-Star Break and that leaves 165 days. Divide by four (for a four-man rotation) and you get 41.25, which means a starter in a four-man rotation should get about 41 starts in a season. During that same time period, how common was it for a starter to have more than 35 starts? My quick spot-check of several seasons suggests it was relatively rare.

In other words, what I'm saying is that it seems a rigidly followed four-man rotation was not as common as you suggested.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

A little back-of-the-envelope math:

My math works out a little differently. What you calculated seems to be the 'use highest rested starter' formula. Using what I suggested above would yield something like:

Dividing the number of scheduled games by four would leave 38.5 average starts per pitcher before expansion and 40.5 per game after ('strict' rotation). Before dividing you should take out about ten games to account for doubleheaders, though in at least one of those seasons the Mets played twenty. (I believe a couple of years ago you posted something about the average number of scheduled and unscheduled doubleheaders per team per season in various eras.) That would leave 36 per starter before expansion and 38 after. From that you could take out scratches due to day-to-day injuries, time spent on the disabled list and the occaissional minor adjustment to match a particular pitcher up against a particular team, or to cause him to avoid a particular team.

I believe you'll find the numbers to be pretty reasonable.

[Cork55]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

A little back-of-the-envelope math:

Currently, MLB seasons run 182 days. Subtract the three days for the All-Star Break, that leaves 179 days. Divide that by five (for a five-man rotation) and you get 35.8, which means a starter in a five-man rotation should get about 36 starts in a season.

From 1946-1958, MLB seasons ran 168 days. Subtract the All-Star Break and that leaves 165 days. Divide by four (for a four-man rotation) and you get 41.25, which means a starter in a four-man rotation should get about 41 starts in a season. During that same time period, how common was it for a starter to have more than 35 starts? My quick spot-check of several seasons suggests it was relatively rare.

In other words, what I'm saying is that it seems a rigidly followed four-man rotation was not as common as you suggested.

Wouldn't a strict 5-man rotation equal 33 starts for the #1 and #2 pitchers and 32 for #3, #4 and #5 pitchers? (33*2)+(32*3) = 162 games.

-Cork55

[Sharpstyx]

A global command to fix strict rotations would be more realistic. I worked for a few years for the vaunted Montgomery (Alabama) Biscuits and I can tell you that nobody uses "start highest rated starter" rotations at any level of professional baseball.

[bailey]

misunderstood

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

There are a lot of baseball men though who think that the 4 man rotation will return in the near future,all it's going to take is one team to take the plunge....

The agents will never allow it.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Did pitchers really throw on three days' rest all year? (A trip to Retrosheet should confirm or refute the claim.) Were injuries really less common then? (Hard to determine because the data doesn't really exist.)

A couple of things to note about the 1960s:

1) The schedule length was shorter, with teams playing 162 games in 25 weeks as compared to 26 weeks currently. There were also quite a few scheduled doubleheaders back then. This would tend to work against much use of a strict 4-man rotation.

2) The regular Disabled List operated completely different back then. It was limited to just two players being on it at any given time, and for most of the decade the required stay was either 21 or 30 days.

Maybe. But, I have a lot of my dad's Street&Smith's from the 60s/70s. And you had a lot of pitchers pitching 40, 41 starts. Nearly every team seemed to have at least one get at least close to that.

Right now, I am looking at the 1976 one. And in 1975, Catfish Hunter made 39 starts (30 CGs, though I think that was his last truly effective season if I recall.) Course, the rest of the roster didnt have a pitcher with more than 32 starts (ed Figueroa who had pitched with California that previous year and had 16 CGs)


Lets see for some of the rest.

Boston had Fergie Jenkins (1975 with Texas) 37 starts with 22 CGs. The big 3 for them the previous year. Wise and Tiant 35 each. And Bill Lee 34 starts (plus 7 relief appearances)

Baltimore Palmer 38 starts, Cuellar, Torrez 36.

Oakland Blue and Holtzman had 38 (though after Hunter fled the previous winter they were the only 2 pitchers left reliable (excepting Fingers and Paul Lidnblad in the pen.

The Rangers had Gaylord Perry 37 starts between Cleveland and Texas and he turned 37 during the 1975 season.

White Sox knuckleballer Wilbur Wood made 43 starts and fellow White Sox pitcher from 1975 Jim Kaat (who went to Philly before the 1976 season) made 41 too.

Course this is the 1970s (1976 was the only Street & Smith handy right now). And this was the approx time 5-man started being considered. But, you can imagine what the 1960s might have been.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Curtis

RchW pretty well covered this, but the standard from 1946-1970 was a strict four man rotation. If there was an off day they would get four days of rest instead of three, and if there was a doubleheader a spot starter would be inserted somewhere to make sure there were at least three days off.

ejbucs' quote from a friend was very appropo, and I've believed this for years. I was surprised this year while listening to Mets' broadcasts to hear both Ron Darling and Tom Seaver on seperate occaisions refer to reversing that strategy. They claimed that they 'bore down' on the 7-8-9 hitters because 'you don't want those guys to beat you'.

Tom said that he always picked out the one guy in the opposing lineup who he found hardest to get out, and for that guy he'd 'ease up', since 'he's going to get his hits anyway' so just try to ensure that when those hits come they don't hurt you.

Ron didn't say anything like that last bit, but he made a point out of how embarrassing it was to give up a hit to a guy at the bottom of the lineup, so it was to be avoided at all costs.

Yeah, Seaver might be making some sense there. The Giants all these years. Why even pitch to Bonds? (at times most didnt). In a lot of situations, I would have told my catcher to stand up take a couple steps away from Bonds and then just lobbed 4 pitches out of the K zone and let him have first base, especially when his knees went, and Kent left. I'd believe I'd have a good shot at Ray Durham if I was a MLB pitcher. If he beats me fine.

Course, another time in the past that I thought similar was looking at the Senators in the 60s. Frank Howard would mash about 40 a year. But, why pitch to him when the rest of the team combined would only hit that many?

[thbroman]

Does anyone think the reason for 5-man rotations has to do with the possibility that the way pitchers pitch has changed? This is sort of playing off deadringer's comment from near the top of the thread. I agree that the calculation of risk and reward militates against using your $20M/yr starter too often (although, considering the amount you put in him . . . . ) but I also wonder whether pitchers today might not be over-trained, so that, like thoroughbreds, they "break" more often. There's a similar concern about having middle-school and high-school kids train only for one sport. Some doctors are saying that isn't good for their overall physical well-being.

[Eumel]

For OOTP10, what about adding the option for how often to skip the fifth guy? The possibility to specify a percentage on the pitching staff screen if "start highest rested" is selected? This could even be tied to era settings.

And besides, if I choose "start highest rested" I want just that, and not just "start highest rested sometimes". So I could just set it to 100% in that case

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Did pitchers really throw on three days' rest all year? (A trip to Retrosheet should confirm or refute the claim.) Were injuries really less common then?

Not ALL pitchers, but certainly the top 2 or 3 pitchers would pitch on 3 days rest plus throw 300+ innings and average 7, and in some cases, 8 IP or more per start.

Today's pitchers are treated so gingerly that it leads to more injuries. A "good" pitcher today is 5 - 6 IP per start?

Relievers are used way too much. I was shocked at how many relievers average less than 1 IP per game. One guy I saw pitched in 75 games or so and had 39 IP. It's a joke.

Train starters to pitch longer into games and get rid of this ridiculous usage of relievers. If starters are trained to last deeper into games they will be able to do so without any more risk of injury than they have now. They probably would be less at risk.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Yeah, Seaver might be making some sense there. The Giants all these years. Why even pitch to Bonds? (at times most didnt). In a lot of situations, I would have told my catcher to stand up take a couple steps away from Bonds and then just lobbed 4 pitches out of the K zone and let him have first base, especially when his knees went, and Kent left. I'd believe I'd have a good shot at Ray Durham if I was a MLB pitcher. If he beats me fine.

Course, another time in the past that I thought similar was looking at the Senators in the 60s. Frank Howard would mash about 40 a year. But, why pitch to him when the rest of the team combined would only hit that many?

Being a Senators fan as a kid and Howard being my "hero", he did have Mike Epstein and Ken McMullen behind him in 1969, but I do remember being at games and watching teams intentionally walk Howard to load the bases for Epstein. Epstein's big year was 1969 when he hit 30 HR's which, if prorated out to the number of AB's Howard had, would have resulted in 44 HR's.

In 1968 and 1970, his other 40 HR years, Howard did have his share of IBB's but normally the Senator's were so far behind in games that Howard wasn't going to cost a pitcher a win by pitching to him.

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Not ALL pitchers, but certainly the top 2 or 3 pitchers would pitch on 3 days rest plus throw 300+ innings and average 7, and in some cases, 8 IP or more per start.

Today's pitchers are treated so gingerly that it leads to more injuries. A "good" pitcher today is 5 - 6 IP per start?

Relievers are used way too much. I was shocked at how many relievers average less than 1 IP per game. One guy I saw pitched in 75 games or so and had 39 IP. It's a joke.

Train starters to pitch longer into games and get rid of this ridiculous usage of relievers. If starters are trained to last deeper into games they will be able to do so without any more risk of injury than they have now. They probably would be less at risk.

As you state the situation, it DOES appear ridiculous, yet surely it cen't be so obviously the case, or someone would have tried extending their top starters in the way you describe. So there must be some powerful reason that keeps them from doing so. I just wish I knew what it was.