.

Strickly sabermetrics here.  Let's wander strip mall / food court that surrounds the baseball diamond at Safeco, and stop in for something exotic.  Like an Ichiroll.

In James' latest article - still only $3 per month - he reasons that baseball could have (and probably should have) taken a 1980's turn into an Alternate Universe.  Three SP's rather than five.

.

DESCRIPTION

You've got:

• Three (really good!) starters going 80-90 pitches.  Times 50-54 starts.
• Limit this super carefully.  You hit your 80-pitch limit with 4.2 IP gone and a 9-0 lead, tough luck Sally.  Shoulda thrown strikes.
• Pitchers come to love this, because they can win 20 games ... sometimes even 30.
• It's healthier to bench 250 lbs. every third day, then strrrraaaaain to max out once a week.  SP's stay healthier.
• Pitching staffs return to 10-11 men, so you have more bench hitters.

We'll spare you the details, but the bottom line is this:  if the Seattle Mariners were to DO this next season, it would give them a huge competitive advantage.  (If you want to debate it in the comments, be our guest; it's your funeral.)

Oh yeah:

• Lots of SP's would go 16-17, 18-19, 20-17.  W/L records would go back to how they looked in the 1970's.  Cool!
• GOOD pitchers would go 22-14, 20-13, 21-11, and their baseball cards would look like Warren Spahn's. More cool!
• GREAT pitchers on a GREAT team might go like 35-10.  You too young to remember Bob Welch winning 27?

A "final advantage" is that an SP will be highly motivated to get through 5 IP in 80 pitches.  This will improve the watchability of the game, as we watch SP's attack hitters rather than burp and fiddle-dee-doo-dah his way through the first inning.  ::coughTaijuancough::

.

FIVE SP'S IS A CHIMERA?

James explains that the ONLY reason, absolutely the ONLY reason, that teams switched from 4 SP's to 5 SP's was the belief that it would reduce injuries.  It just didn't do that.  "There was no reason at all to make that switch" but nowadays, you'd have to have the political clout of a Lou Piniella / Pat Gillick MGR and GM team to even attempt it.

Bill sez

.

And. . .what about the improvements in sports medicine and training that we hear so much about?   If sports medicine and training have improved so much, and pitchers are being handled so much more carefully than they were back in the bad old days of Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan, why then have starting pitcher injuries not decreased?  Doesn’t it seem obvious that they should have?

            Pitcher injuries have not decreased because we’re pursuing a chimera, a shibboleth, a mirage.    The way we use starting pitchers now is NOT, in fact, an effective way to keep them healthy and in rotation.    That is what I believe.

.

Tom Tango followed on with the idea that --- > you could use a 2-IP reliever to make sure the SP had a better shot at the win.  (Lou Piniella famously said, "I like my starters to get wins and my closers to get saves."

Great idea, and it goes back to the "Ted Power" idea of crossing up the opponent when they don't know who's going to be pitching the first inning. And/or flipping the platoon advantage on them after they set their lineup. You stack the lineup with righties against David Price, boom, the first six batters go down relatively easily to the surprise sidearm RH slider guy. 

20-30 years ago Bill pointed this out in some Abstract ("Is this legit, to flip the platoon on lineups, or is it kind of chickenfeathers?" and IIRC he couldn't come up with a reason not to do it other than "it would even out and it would increase the workload for everybody." IIRC. 

If it were politically feasible I'd use James'/ Tango's idea in a heartbeat.

.

GRATUITUOUS STAT

Chris Archer led the majors in games started last year.  34 starts.  Nobody was tied with him.  (34x5 = 170, not 162.)  And he's young!  Told you the Rays were ahead of the curve.

Felix, and Price, and half-a-dozen others, had 34 starts the year before.

Going back through the Almanac to 2010 or so ... yep, 34 starts always leads.  It's packed with guys like Kershaw, Greinke, Cueto, Felix, Price.  And it seems like Greg Maddux used to get 35-37 starts?  Yep, here's his card.  Shame he only lasted 5,008 innings doing that.  He had 21 seasons' worth of 35-start "grinds" in him.

Let's check Earl ... yeah, took over the Orioles in 1969, started McNally 40 times and Cuellar 39.  That team won 109 games.   Next year, those two and a rookie Jim Palmer all started 39-40 and they won 108.   Good way to entrench yourself in MLB's managerial circles, winning 200 out of 300 as your way of saying hello.  All those pitchers wound up throwing 3000-4000 innings, too.

.

GRATUITOUS MARINERS APPLICATION

Other than the fact that Nate Karns has a very Mad-Dog sweet motion?  And that you might put a thumb on the scale towards Iwakuma's durability, given his grace and balance?

...

The Mariners, last year, skipped their #5 starter a couple of times on off days.  Good or bad?

Until they change the rules on relievers ... the more often your team skips a young starter, the happier you should be.  Earl put it, back in his day, "The fifth starter takes games away from four pitchers who are better than him."  Wouldn't matter if it were James Paxton, even; Felix Hernandez is better than him.  But especially if it's Roenis Elias or Mike Montgomery.  Root for Felix to get 34, 35, maybe 36 starts.  THEN we will know that Scott Servais is The Man :- )

The only caveat:  Felix, Iwakuma, and their ilk have to go with a strict 99-pitch limit in the starts before and after.  But that's why we say "until they change the rules on relievers."  Until the game wakes up, the individual teams are better off just to use more and more relievers.

Anybody got a Jerry DiPoto quote on this?  Did the Angels skip #5 starters?

Cheers,

Dr D