OnlyBucs

Today's starters are sprinters.  They're not marathoners.  They go full blast for shorter distances.   



It's full blast- on both sides of the plate.  Heat vs. heat.  Like it or not, it's the way it is.

585A404650350 wrote: Before you base too much on how many innings starters went last year, keep in mind teams were being very cautious because so few innings were pitched the year before. A concerted effort was being made to protect pitchers' arms. Even before the COVID year, it did seem starters were going fewer innings.
That's true but the Pirates took it to an extreme. So much so that they will now face the same problem next season with protecting their pitchers' arms because they didn't throw many innings in 2021 because they hadn't thrown many innings in 2020.



Tyler Anderson would no doubt have led them but he was traded after 103 innings. He pitched an additional 64 for Seattle. Brubaker led the staff with 124 IP. That was the lowest amount for a staff leader in MLB. 89 other pitchers had more innings. Crowe at 116 innings (ranked 103rd in MLB) and Keller at 100 (ranked 128th) were the only other Pirates with 100+ IP. There were 55 MLB pitchers with 150+ innings and even 5 with 200+.



Even if we assume Anderson would have ended up with the same number of innings (167) as a Pirate had he not split those innings between the Bucs and Mariners, the total innings for the Pirates top 2 for innings (Anderson and Brubaker) would have been the lowest total for a team's top 2 pitchers in the NL. And only the Rays, Orioles and Angels in the A.L. had a lower total for their top 2 pitchers in innings.



it made sense to go slow with pitchers in 2021 after the reduced innings in 2020. But there was no attempt to build them up for more innings as the season progressed. So now they will enter the next season again compensating for a reduced workload from the previous 2 seasons.

one thing about 2020 Pirate pitchers is that they couldn't have pitched many more innings. The starters weren't able to get batters out to get more innings.



Certainly some pitchers were taken out when they were pitching well and probably could have pitched another inning or two. But most (I am thinking of Ponce, Crowe, Brubaker, Keller mostly) were just going to get hammered if they pitched longer.

I sure do hope that the new development staff and the way they do things with pitchers concentrating on their individual strengths rather than on system-wide one-way development of the pitchers ala Uncle Ray. I would think that doing that will give the pitchers more confidence and allow them to adjust how they pitch on the 3rd time through the lineup.

52737B527971160 wrote: I sure do hope that the new development staff and the way they do things with pitchers concentrating on their individual strengths rather than on system-wide one-way development of the pitchers ala Uncle Ray.  I would think that doing that will give the pitchers more confidence and allow them to adjust how they pitch on the 3rd time through the lineup.
Too often they aren't even given that opportunity. I think these strategies based on analytics can be counterproductive. It is now customary for teams to carry 13-14 pitchers because starters go so few innings. And there are not 13-14 good pitchers per team. Starters are replaced "before they can get into trouble." And the relievers who replace them are often not as effective. The result is too many relievers, too few bench players and starting pitchers not gaining the confidence they would get from pitching deeper into games and carrying that confidence over into the first inning of their next start. Instead, they are taught that they need to be removed before they face a lineup a 3rd time, which is based on the assumption that they will fail. Starters are rarely given the chance to disprove that assumption and go into their next start just hoping they can make it through 5 innings.

7B565B4A4D5C4B0B08390 wrote: I sure do hope that the new development staff and the way they do things with pitchers concentrating on their individual strengths rather than on system-wide one-way development of the pitchers ala Uncle Ray.  I would think that doing that will give the pitchers more confidence and allow them to adjust how they pitch on the 3rd time through the lineup.
Too often they aren't even given that opportunity. I think these strategies based on analytics can be counterproductive. It is now customary for teams to carry 13-14 pitchers because starters go so few innings. And there are not 13-14 good pitchers per team. Starters are replaced "before they can get into trouble." And the relievers who replace them are often not as effective. The result is too many relievers, too few bench players and starting pitchers not gaining the confidence they would get from pitching deeper into games and carrying that confidence over into the first inning of their next start. Instead, they are taught that they need to be removed before they face a lineup a 3rd time, which is based on the assumption that they will fail. Starters are rarely given the chance to disprove that assumption and go into their next start just hoping they can make it through 5 innings.   


Lest we both forget that there is also the pitch count of what has become the standard of being tired of 100 pitches. Often a guy pitching a good game is yanked at 100 pitches or even fewer pitches. To me, the entire game is being screwed up by these two things.

0B2A220B20284F0 wrote: I sure do hope that the new development staff and the way they do things with pitchers concentrating on their individual strengths rather than on system-wide one-way development of the pitchers ala Uncle Ray.  I would think that doing that will give the pitchers more confidence and allow them to adjust how they pitch on the 3rd time through the lineup.
Too often they aren't even given that opportunity. I think these strategies based on analytics can be counterproductive. It is now customary for teams to carry 13-14 pitchers because starters go so few innings. And there are not 13-14 good pitchers per team. Starters are replaced "before they can get into trouble." And the relievers who replace them are often not as effective. The result is too many relievers, too few bench players and starting pitchers not gaining the confidence they would get from pitching deeper into games and carrying that confidence over into the first inning of their next start. Instead, they are taught that they need to be removed before they face a lineup a 3rd time, which is based on the assumption that they will fail. Starters are rarely given the chance to disprove that assumption and go into their next start just hoping they can make it through 5 innings.   


Lest we both forget that there is also the pitch count of what has become the standard of being tired of 100 pitches.  Often a guy pitching a good game is yanked at 100 pitches or even fewer pitches.  To me, the entire game is being screwed up by these two things.


Very true. >:(

66474F664D45220 wrote: I sure do hope that the new development staff and the way they do things with pitchers concentrating on their individual strengths rather than on system-wide one-way development of the pitchers ala Uncle Ray.  I would think that doing that will give the pitchers more confidence and allow them to adjust how they pitch on the 3rd time through the lineup.
Too often they aren't even given that opportunity. I think these strategies based on analytics can be counterproductive. It is now customary for teams to carry 13-14 pitchers because starters go so few innings. And there are not 13-14 good pitchers per team. Starters are replaced "before they can get into trouble." And the relievers who replace them are often not as effective. The result is too many relievers, too few bench players and starting pitchers not gaining the confidence they would get from pitching deeper into games and carrying that confidence over into the first inning of their next start. Instead, they are taught that they need to be removed before they face a lineup a 3rd time, which is based on the assumption that they will fail. Starters are rarely given the chance to disprove that assumption and go into their next start just hoping they can make it through 5 innings.   


Lest we both forget that there is also the pitch count of what has become the standard of being tired of 100 pitches.  Often a guy pitching a good game is yanked at 100 pitches or even fewer pitches.  To me, the entire game is being screwed up by these two things.




I think at least some of this change with pitchers going fewer innings is the result of the many times baseball has expanded. The game is tremendously hard to play at the major league level and there simply aren't enough players good enough to field 30 quality teams. Imagine if today's talent was spread among the original 16 teams. The competition would be incredible.



I feel there are many more good players today than there were 50 years ago, but not enough for the current number of teams. Combine that with the investments franchises make in their pitchers and it's easy to see why GMs and managers limit the number of pitches thrown.

The world's population has grown enough over time that the "talent-to-team ratio" is probably close to what it was in earlier times, particularly when considering that some segments were excluded in the past that aren't today.



There may be twice as many teams, but there's twice as many in the baseball talent pool.



I think the major reason that pitchers don't go as deep into games has to do with analytics. They all know what happens when starters go beyond two times through the opposing lineups. Then, we have the secondary reasons, like protecting arms and things like that.

1C293E3E350C3E3E35323E5B0 wrote: The world's population has grown enough over time that the "talent-to-team ratio" is probably close to what it was in earlier times, particularly when considering that some segments were excluded in the past that aren't today. 



There may be twice as many teams, but there's twice as many in the baseball talent pool.



I think the major reason that pitchers don't go as deep into games has to do with analytics.  They all know what happens when starters go beyond two times through the opposing lineups.  Then, we have the secondary reasons, like protecting arms and things like that.


Well said GW! [smiley=beer.gif]