Ken Rosenthal's stupid idea

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,181
View: https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/1454425605118771200?s=20


So, the big mantra now is that baseball desperately needs starting pitchers, that starters are a dying breed, and that baseball is sacrificing its "stars" to "efficiency."

It's "nerds are ruining the game" all over again, of course, this time triggered by the Braves pulling their starter after five innings of no-hit ball. Ho hum. Dumb people are going to dumb.

But Rosenthal is out here with a "win-win" idea to fix the game and return starters to prominence:

1. Limit the number of pitchers on the roster to 11
2. Take away a team's DH when the starter leaves the game
3. MAGIC
4. Starters are famous again

The logic seems flawed on lots of levels, and I don't want to even acknowledge there's a problem with so-called "faceless" relievers (hey, Ken, it's sorta your job to put a face to a name there), but this seems pretty asinine on its face and I think it deserves ridicule.

• EdRod shits the bed and JD's done for the day?
• How long do we leave our starter in, hoping he doesn't blow out his arm, because JD's up third next inning?
• Who's hitting in the big spot in the ninth when we've already blown through two pinch hitters filling that spot? Can't wait to see Danny Santana trying to drive in Xander!
• Will teams now bat DHs lower in the order?
• Uh-oh, it's a bullpen day because of injuries/doubleheader/whatever - guess we just don't get a DH today!

Not to mention all of the pitching arm injuries in the transition he outlines.

Rotations are fucked up, no one threw innings because of covid last year, the whole world is in a global pandemic, etc., and these guys want to say 2021 is the product we should be focusing on in terms of figuring out how to fix it? Nah.

(Edited to fix typos)
 
Last edited:

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
I think limiting the # of pitchers in a roster is a good idea, and if you do that, you don’t have to deal with any of the other nonsense ideas he has here. If a team has a limited # of pitchers, it will use them more conservatively. Everything else is a gimmick here.
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
7,870
Right Here
I look at this like its a current trend like the shift. My theory is that the trend is due to two things (if not more).

Starting pitching is expensive. When you have an ace like Justin Verlander go down, it's tough to recover from due to the financial commitment. As such, some of the mid-tier teams needed to adapt via cheaper means. I think the days when NY could trot out four aces are over simply due to the cost. At some point though, some of the more effective and experienced bullpen arms employed for opener games are going to start to get pricey too.

I'm also thinking that due greatly reduced playing schedule for the minors last year impacted the supply of new, fully stretched out starting pitchers to be added to the major league rosters.

I could be wrong. I've been of the mind that simply teaching the big bashers how to bunt the opposite way would kill the shift, so take my theory for what it's worth.
 

jtn46

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
9,757
Norwalk, CT
The Dodgers had on their payroll in 2021: Kershaw, Bauer, Buehler, Urias, Price, Scherzer, Duffy, Hamels, May, and Cleavinger and in the postseason only 3 of those pitchers were healthy and effective as SP. A 10 deep rotation churned to 3. By the NLCS it was really down to 2 because Scherzer was having arm soreness. Should they have traded away 10 more prospects and spent another $25 million to ensure they had 4?

Perhaps 2020 threw off a lot of SP in baseball such that so many burned out by October, perhaps the max effort, 2 times through approach with SP is a factor too, probably even removing non-waiver trades after July 31st because teams now have to project playoff rotations in July, but teams seem to be trying very hard to use starters, but there just aren’t enough to use this deep into a season. Players seem not to be built for this right now as a data point. Maybe next year things will look better, a universal DH may keep a few pitchers more healthy, but otherwise rules changes right now like Ken suggests seem hasty.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
I think a key factor being overlooked in all this is that we now have pitch counts for people growing up playing baseball. That changes a number of things, from the way the arm is built, to the expectation pitchers have growing up and moving forward. There are no more "workhorses" being developed because the rules do not allow for it. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, just pointing it out.

Personally, I enjoy watching starters stay in longer, but teams need to do what's best for them to win games.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,181
I think a key factor being overlooked in all this is that we now have pitch counts for people growing up playing baseball. That changes a number of things, from the way the arm is built, to the expectation pitchers have growing up and moving forward. There are no more "workhorses" being developed because the rules do not allow for it. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, just pointing it out.

Personally, I enjoy watching starters stay in longer, but teams need to do what's best for them to win games.
I think this is exactly right. If you asked Ken, I'm sure he'd say that leaving a pitcher in past 110 pitches is basically abuse at this point. It is very common to see national media lamenting the pitch counts in college.

How exactly in the course of a couple of years does Ken think pitchers are going to suddenly be able to go 150 pitches deep again?

They probably say, "Pitch to contact! Be like Roy Halliday!" or some shit. But it's basically the case now where if you throw strikes the hitters smoke it all over the ballpark and you're out of baseball in a week. Every pitcher has to live on the margins and that means five-pitch at-bats and that means five innings equals 100 pitches for almost everyone at this point.

That does't go away just because you limited the roster to 11 pitchers. The shuttle to Worcester will need an oil change every two weeks.

For better or worse, there are lots of high school pitchers like me from the 1990s who regularly threw 100 pitches on Wednesday and were ready to go another 100 on Saturday and it wasn't a problem. As the bottom of the run pitcher on my team, I sometimes threw 200 pitches of BP one day and then an inning in a blow out the next day. NBD. I loved it!

But that doesn't happen anymore basically anywhere. Little League pitch counts are now dogma and I've got 14 and 15 year olds pitching like champs that I have to pull at 85 pitches and then rest for five days.

When basically every good pitching prospect now gets Tommy John surgery at some point, I just don't see how this method of coaching kids is helping pitchers stay healthy, but I'm sure there's research that says it's better. That's obviously a topic for another thread, but it's the "MAGIC" at heart of Ken's nonsense idea.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
Are pitchers being pulled early because of lack of endurance, or because of the third time through the order thing, which was hardly a thing a few years ago? It seems like starters are pulled quickly because teams have a ton of hard throwing relievers they can deploy. If they weren’t allowed as many of those guys, I think it would lead to a better, more watchable but reasonable minds can disagree on this one - doing nothing could be the best move, the pendulum can swing quickly and if the Rays start doing something different, I’m sure everyone else will follow.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
When basically every good pitching prospect now gets Tommy John surgery at some point, I just don't see how this method of coaching kids is helping pitchers stay healthy, but I'm sure there's research that says it's better. That's obviously a topic for another thread, but it's the "MAGIC" at heart of Ken's nonsense idea.
It's not a topic for another thread. It's very much at the heart of this topic. Limiting pitch counts and expanding rosters to include more pitchers were introduced to try to protect pitchers' health. Instead teams have used it to have pitchers throw as hard as possible for shorter outings and injuries are just as common as ever. Maybe even more common if the Dodgers' losing 7 of their 10 starters is more than an aberration.

The end result is a product that just isn't very good. Last night's game was 2-0 and had 8 total hits, but still went 3 and a half hours. Winning baseball isn't necessarily entertaining baseball. Since the purpose of the sport is to entertain, they really need to bring the two into alignment.

Rosenthal's idea about the DH is dumb, but limiting pitchers is not. If teams had fewer options, they'd need to use the ones they have for longer. It doesn't require "magic" to have starters throw over 100 pitches again, it just requires them to not throw every single pitch with max effort. A pitch clock will help with that, too. If you can't rest for 30 seconds between every pitch, you can't throw or swing as hard as possible every time. If you limited teams to 11 or 12 pitchers on the active roster and 20 seconds per pitch, I'd think you'd have pitchers going longer, more balls in play, and a much more watchable product.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,490
The easiest way to have starters pitch more innings and not endanger their health is to move to 3 balls and 2 strikes. It would also speed up the game a lot.

Otherwise, anything that artificially forces pitchers to throw more pitches is a threat to health. If staffs are limited to 11 pitchers, we'll see a lot more position players pitch.

I agree dumb ideas.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,015
Oregon
Starting pitching is expensive. ... At some point though, some of the more effective and experienced bullpen arms employed for opener games are going to start to get pricey too.
I think the first part of this is on point. It's no surprise that the multi-reliever approach began in places like Tampa Bay and Oakland. One of the side benefits of analytics is that while it leads to efficient run prevention, that efficiency has reduced reliance on budget-eating starting pitchers.
But I don't think the second part holds water. There might be a handful of openers or key relievers who get big contracts, relievers are often fungible. One season they're lights out; the next they're mediocre. This will hold down contract costs, at least "down" compared to what, say, third starters command.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,588
NY
Maybe we can stop adding these artificial and stupid rules to a game that was already pretty damn good beforehand. The three batter minimum, the runner on second in extra innings, the second wild card, and now this are all really stupid.

What should really happen is they shorten the season so we're not playing the WS in shitty weather in November. But that would mean a little less revenue. All of these changes basically serve to shorten the games and lengthen the season. I didn't think anything was broken before. I'd rather watch a game that's a little longer but less annoying, not have any rat tail games after a six month season, and crown a champion around Columbus Day.

The one thing MLB could do to improve the product is automate balls and strikes, but they won't do that. Instead they've been obsessed with making games 15 minutes shorter and making artificial changes that don't add any value. The best way to speed up games? Shorten the warmup between innings and have fewer commercials. These ideas to restrict roster construction and in-game strategy really suck.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
Other than nostalgia, I’m not sure why I’m supposed to care that starting pitchers are being used less.

Yes, it means starters will be relatively less likely to be “stars.” But how is that different from, say, the NFL (and college football, for that matter), where RB usage is such that there are many fewer “star” RB and even the ones that are “stars” tend to burn out quickly? Rosenthal’s idea is no different to the NFL requiring that teams only carry, say, 3 WR on their roster at any given time - which is to say, a very dumb, artificial idea.

There are two very simple rule changes that would make the game exponentially better - pitch clocks and automatic balls/strikes. I get that the latter needs some time to potentially work out the kinks but there is zero reason not to institute the former immediately. Everything else is nibbling around the margins at best and actively making the game less enjoyable at worst.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
If the data shows that 3rd time through is (generally) the tipping point for starter's performance, AND maximizing the probability for winning the game remains a manager's goal, we will have openers and not starters, and we'll adjust to it. Until the next major analytical discovery is made, and then we'll complain about that.

I will admit I felt a little nostalgic for the good old days of Koufax and Gibson and Ford, when Anderson was pulled last night. Its an uncomfortable evolution at times.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I think limiting the # of pitchers in a roster is a good idea, and if you do that, you don’t have to deal with any of the other nonsense ideas he has here. If a team has a limited # of pitchers, it will use them more conservatively. Everything else is a gimmick here.
If everything else is a gimmick, how is an arbitrary pitcher limit not one?

Only way I think a limit on the pitchers rostered works is if you can shift them on an off the roster with no penalty. No more players must spend 10 days in the minors if they're optioned. No more DFA to get an optionless pitcher off the active roster. Let teams park yesterday's starter or a reliever who's pitched 2-3 straight days on a taxi squad (cap the squad at 3 or 4 spots) for a couple days since he's not going to be available to throw anyway. That will allow the team to not overuse and abuse arms while still limiting their options in any given game. Either that or let them carry as many pitchers as they want on the 26-man roster but only allow eight or nine active pitchers for any one game.

But really, none of this is necessary. The game is fine the way it is. The point of the game is to get outs. Let teams do it however they wish with the general roster limitations that exist.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
Can't believe Alex Cora found a new job already.

And apparently Ken Rosenthal doesn't watch much baseball anymore if he thinks anything was demonstrated anew last night.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
If everything else is a gimmick, how is an arbitrary pitcher limit not one?

Only way I think a limit on the pitchers rostered works is if you can shift them on an off the roster with no penalty. No more players must spend 10 days in the minors if they're optioned. No more DFA to get an optionless pitcher off the active roster. Let teams park yesterday's starter or a reliever who's pitched 2-3 straight days on a taxi squad (cap the squad at 3 or 4 spots) for a couple days since he's not going to be available to throw anyway. That will allow the team to not overuse and abuse arms while still limiting their options in any given game. Either that or let them carry as many pitchers as they want on the 26-man roster but only allow eight or nine active pitchers for any one game.
That entirely defeats the purpose of the rule. And you're assuming having more pitchers available makes injuries less likely. There's no evidence of that so far and if anything evidence to the contrary. If teams have more pitchers available, they have them throw harder for shorter outings. And they get injured as often or more than ever.
But really, none of this is necessary. The game is fine the way it is. The point of the game is to get outs. Let teams do it however they wish with the general roster limitations that exist.
The point of the game is to entertain the fans. If people don't find the aesthetics of the current game pleasing, then rules should be adjusted to make it more like it was for the first 130 years rather than the last 5.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,181
It's not a topic for another thread. It's very much at the heart of this topic. Limiting pitch counts and expanding rosters to include more pitchers were introduced to try to protect pitchers' health. Instead teams have used it to have pitchers throw as hard as possible for shorter outings and injuries are just as common as ever. Maybe even more common if the Dodgers' losing 7 of their 10 starters is more than an aberration.

The end result is a product that just isn't very good. Last night's game was 2-0 and had 8 total hits, but still went 3 and a half hours. Winning baseball isn't necessarily entertaining baseball. Since the purpose of the sport is to entertain, they really need to bring the two into alignment.

Rosenthal's idea about the DH is dumb, but limiting pitchers is not. If teams had fewer options, they'd need to use the ones they have for longer. It doesn't require "magic" to have starters throw over 100 pitches again, it just requires them to not throw every single pitch with max effort. A pitch clock will help with that, too. If you can't rest for 30 seconds between every pitch, you can't throw or swing as hard as possible every time. If you limited teams to 11 or 12 pitchers on the active roster and 20 seconds per pitch, I'd think you'd have pitchers going longer, more balls in play, and a much more watchable product.
I 100 percent agree on the pitch clock - Sea Dogs games move so much faster and the enjoyability factor is high because of the constant action. But it goes away with runners on base, which is where MLB mostly slows down anyway.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Let's say that Anderson was left in for the sixth, how much deeper was he going to go anyway? Even if he keeps mowing guys down, is he really going to throw 110+ pitches chasing a no-no (his pace was 136 for 9 innings)? The guy has two 100+ pitch games in his major league career. I understand it sucks that he wasn't given a little more rope to see how far he could go, but in a 1-0 World Series game you can't afford to fuck around just for history's sake. Snitker 100% made the right call and dubs like Rosenthal are crying about nothing.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,430
Pitchers are not pitching to contact as much as they used to. Too many strikeouts and walks by good pitchers. Maybe some of that is fear that # 8 hitters will hit home runs.
The current top pitchers have really high k rates. You don’t seem to have guys like Maddux and Glavine any more.
In Maddux’s 4 CY seasons he averaged about 7 so/9. In Scherzer’s 3 CY seasons he averaged about 11.
It’s a different game
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
I don’t think a pitcher limit is a gimmick in that it doesn’t impact the actual game by adding new rules to affect play (like Losing the DH, extra inning rule, etc). It’s somewhat similar to the NFL having a max on QB’s an active roster.

The argument that the game is fine the way it is isn’t shared by all. The playoff games move at a glacial pace with an endless parade of pitchers. Now, whether that really matters or is even here to stay is pretty subjective.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
Oops I guess it isn’t anymore?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_quarterback_rule

Ultimately, I think a limit on pitchers would be good for the game but also think teams should be able to do whatever the hell they want. Reacting to things that happen for a few seasons may not be a great idea, as this may just be a phase.

I do wonder if the union has a position on this, given that relievers historically make far less than starters .
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
The only rule that would really restore the prominence of starting pitchers - and solve the problem of four hour games - is reducing the innings from nine to seven. That seems unlikely to happen anytime soon and seems unlikely to be embraced by the MLBPA. These little gimmicks are gimmicks.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
5,959
Starting pitchers are being asked to throw the ball as hard as relievers. 20-25 years ago, you'd have a handful of guys like Randy, Clemens and Pedro mid-high 90s but be surprised at many other starters throwing consistently approaching even the mid 90s. Now you have guys like Eovaldi hitting 100 multiple times in a start.

This is just an extension of moneyball. Why go through the 7th inning with your starter giving 90% effort and down 4-2 when going to your pen, as opposed to going through 5 at max effort and being up 2-0. Relievers are still WAY cheaper than even only average to above average starters, so good ones can be had for any team's budget.

The cat's out of the bag and a generation of pitchers has been brought up to go "full tilt full time" (apologies to Brazier). Much like you can't just say now 'Hey Mike Trout, how about you start expanding your strike zone and stop trying to get on base so damn much?' MLB hasn't expanded the strike zone to change these habits, so why is there a problem in this case, exactly?

Nevermind that there is something nice about a TEAM pitching win. In 2004 when starters were still the rage but the Sox' bullpen was such a necessity due to extra innings and all the nibbling to the Yankees hitters, it felt satisfying that guys like Timlin, Lowe, etc. were such big parts of the team success. It wasn't like previous eras where teams were of the thought that their ace was pitching games 1, 4 and 7 and just one other win needs to be scrapped together.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,053
Alamogordo
The only rule that would really restore the prominence of starting pitchers - and solve the problem of four hour games - is reducing the innings from nine to seven. That seems unlikely to happen anytime soon and seems unlikely to be embraced by the MLBPA. These little gimmicks are gimmicks.
Even then, you would just have starters going 3 innings instead of 5. There really isn't any turning back from what the game is now.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,015
Oregon
In 1973, MLB brought in the DH .... the most radical gimmicky reaction to a lack of run-scoring. Since then, AL teams in particular have evolved the game toward finding ways to minimize the impact of increased offense. Bill James self-published his first Abstract in 1977 and since then, teams began a slow evolution toward where we are today in terms of understanding how to keep the opponent from scoring --- whether it be thru shifts or bullpen usage.

That these tracks ultimately dovetailed with budgetary efficiency shouldn't surprise anyone ... and the traditional role of the "starting pitcher," along with their contracts, are the current market correction. Like @OurF'ingCity pointed out, as the game changes the value -- both in contract and importance -- of certain high-profile positions (running backs, starting pitchers) change with it.

The unanswered question, to me at least, is whether pitching staffs built upon these lines ultimately lose their efficiency once their teams get into seven-game series -- particularly against an opponent from the other league. Seeing the same relievers repeatedly in such a short time span should benefit the offense as the series progresses ... negating or at least lessening the bullpen's impact on an individual game.

This is where a team with a "horse" in the rotation can still have the edge. The "go as hard as you can for a long as you can ... then we'll bring in the relievers" mantra works over the course of a 162-game season. But in a seven-game series -- when there isn't another one to follow -- you're not playing the long-game strategy of a season.
 

jtn46

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
9,757
Norwalk, CT
Starting pitchers are being asked to throw the ball as hard as relievers. 20-25 years ago, you'd have a handful of guys like Randy, Clemens and Pedro mid-high 90s but be surprised at many other starters throwing consistently approaching even the mid 90s. Now you have guys like Eovaldi hitting 100 multiple times in a start.

This is just an extension of moneyball. Why go through the 7th inning with your starter giving 90% effort and down 4-2 when going to your pen, as opposed to going through 5 at max effort and being up 2-0. Relievers are still WAY cheaper than even only average to above average starters, so good ones can be had for any team's budget.

The cat's out of the bag and a generation of pitchers has been brought up to go "full tilt full time" (apologies to Brazier). Much like you can't just say now 'Hey Mike Trout, how about you start expanding your strike zone and stop trying to get on base so damn much?' MLB hasn't expanded the strike zone to change these habits, so why is there a problem in this case, exactly?

Nevermind that there is something nice about a TEAM pitching win. In 2004 when starters were still the rage but the Sox' bullpen was such a necessity due to extra innings and all the nibbling to the Yankees hitters, it felt satisfying that guys like Timlin, Lowe, etc. were such big parts of the team success. It wasn't like previous eras where teams were of the thought that their ace was pitching games 1, 4 and 7 and just one other win needs to be scrapped together.
I agree pitchers go all out but the sabermetric influence was on batters, the Juan Pierres of the world are not valued in baseball anymore, guys that get on base and hit for power are valued, strikeouts are fine, low averages are fine. So pitchers need to be max effort because the way to get batters out is to strike them out. 92-mph sinkers in the fat part of the plate get golfed 400 feet.

In 2021 there are not 150 pitchers in MLB systems that can at 80% effort get a lineup out 3 times 25 times a year, it isn’t because baseball teams are cheap, it’s because the players that could do this don’t exist in this volume. Money could help in the long run if the Kyler Murrays of the world choose baseball over football but paying say, Garrett Richards $20 million instead of $10 million doesn’t make him a more effective pitcher.
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
12,958
The Paris of the 80s
Other than nostalgia, I’m not sure why I’m supposed to care that starting pitchers are being used less.
It just strikes me as pointless yearning for the past. Rosenthal may be entering his old man unhappy the world changed territory. The biggest problem with the game today (after the excruciating slow pace of play which could easily be helped with a pitch clock) is three true outcomes baseball mostly stinks to watch. An endless parade of walks and strikeouts with an occasional dinger thrown in.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I think a key factor being overlooked in all this is that we now have pitch counts for people growing up playing baseball. That changes a number of things, from the way the arm is built, to the expectation pitchers have growing up and moving forward. There are no more "workhorses" being developed because the rules do not allow for it. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, just pointing it out.

Personally, I enjoy watching starters stay in longer, but teams need to do what's best for them to win games.
In his new book, Posnanski points out something similar when talking about Ferguson Jenkins. Guys like Fergie and Nolan Ryan and El Tiante threw a lot of complete games because that’s what they were told to do. Along the way, a lot of talented guys got burned out (Mark Fidrych, for one, but more recently look at Mark Prior) and out of the game because they didn’t have whatever physical gift allows guys to throw for 9 innings every 5 days for a dozen years. If managers still expected pitchers to go 8-9 innings, who we consider “stars” will simply shift to guys who aren’t necessarily better pitchers, but who can last that long. Jack Morrises instead of Chris Sales.

How is it “better” for baseball to cull talented pitchers by basically forcing them to break down? As a general rule, isn’t maximizing talent on the field, in the end, the best way to make baseball “better”? Forcing pitchers to stay past their expiration in a given game just seems like an artificial restraint that only makes the game worse.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
In his new book, Posnanski points out something similar when talking about Ferguson Jenkins. Guys like Fergie and Nolan Ryan and El Tiante threw a lot of complete games because that’s what they were told to do. Along the way, a lot of talented guys got burned out (Mark Fidrych, for one, but more recently look at Mark Prior) and out of the game because they didn’t have whatever physical gift allows guys to throw for 9 innings every 5 days for a dozen years. If managers still expected pitchers to go 8-9 innings, who we consider “stars” will simply shift to guys who aren’t necessarily better pitchers, but who can last that long. Jack Morrises instead of Chris Sales.

How is it “better” for baseball to cull talented pitchers by basically forcing them to break down? As a general rule, isn’t maximizing talent on the field, in the end, the best way to make baseball “better”? Forcing pitchers to stay past their expiration in a given game just seems like an artificial restraint that only makes the game worse.
That sounds reasonable, but the problem is it doesn't actually work that way. Those pitchers are still getting injured because they're throwing harder than ever. This Chris Sale you mentioned literally just missed a year and a half with Tommy John surgery. How many prospects have already gotten TJ surgery in their late teens and early 20s? It's way more than previous decades. Having more games pitched by Jack Morrises in the 80s rather than Mark Fydriches was more a result of sports medicine rather than the way they were brought to the majors.

Take a look at the ERA leaders from 2017. If we're doing such an awesome job of keeping the best pitchers healthy, then those guys should be still mowing them down just four years later.

1. Corey Kluber. Missed most of the last 3 years with injuries. Couldn't stay healthy in his comeback year with the Yankees.

2. Clayon Kershaw. Pitched about half the year and ended it on the IL. Likely heading for TJ surgery.

3. Max Scherzer. Still pitching well. Never really treated with kid gloves by any of his teams.

4. Stephen Strasburg. Pitched 20 innings this year.

5. Robbie Ray. Had a great year. Still healthy.

6. Chris Sale. Made it back from TJ surgery to pitch 40 innings.

7. Gio Gonzales. Released by the Marlins in Spring Training and didn't pitch in 2021.

8. Luis Severino. Came back from injury to throw 6 innings in 2021.

9. Marcus Stroman. Had a good year for the Mets, for whatever that's worth.

10. Zack Greinke. Broke down at the end of the season, but threw 170 innings. Might just be getting to the end of the road.

So 4 of the 10 were reasonably healthy. 2 pitched almost half a year. 4 failed to pitch 50 innings. You can do this exercise for pretty much any year and you'll get basically the same results. The best pitchers have a 50/50 shot of being healthy enough to pitch half the season four years later. Whatever teams are doing today is not making the game any safer for pitchers. And it's making it worse to watch as a fan.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
That sounds reasonable, but the problem is it doesn't actually work that way. Those pitchers are still getting injured because they're throwing harder than ever. This Chris Sale you mentioned literally just missed a year and a half with Tommy John surgery. How many prospects have already gotten TJ surgery in their late teens and early 20s? It's way more than previous decades. Having more games pitched by Jack Morrises in the 80s rather than Mark Fydriches was more a result of sports medicine rather than the way they were brought to the majors.

Take a look at the ERA leaders from 2017. If we're doing such an awesome job of keeping the best pitchers healthy, then those guys should be still mowing them down just four years later.

1. Corey Kluber. Missed most of the last 3 years with injuries. Couldn't stay healthy in his comeback year with the Yankees.

2. Clayon Kershaw. Pitched about half the year and ended it on the IL. Likely heading for TJ surgery.

3. Max Scherzer. Still pitching well. Never really treated with kid gloves by any of his teams.

4. Stephen Strasburg. Pitched 20 innings this year.

5. Robbie Ray. Had a great year. Still healthy.

6. Chris Sale. Made it back from TJ surgery to pitch 40 innings.

7. Gio Gonzales. Released by the Marlins in Spring Training and didn't pitch in 2021.

8. Luis Severino. Came back from injury to throw 6 innings in 2021.

9. Marcus Stroman. Had a good year for the Mets, for whatever that's worth.

10. Zack Greinke. Broke down at the end of the season, but threw 170 innings. Might just be getting to the end of the road.

So 4 of the 10 were reasonably healthy. 2 pitched almost half a year. 4 failed to pitch 50 innings. You can do this exercise for pretty much any year and you'll get basically the same results. The best pitchers have a 50/50 shot of being healthy enough to pitch half the season four years later. Whatever teams are doing today is not making the game any safer for pitchers. And it's making it worse to watch as a fan.
Interesting counter point! So this ties indirectly into the strikeout heaviness of the era, then (which is another issue that some argue makes baseball worse)?
 

Kramerica Industries

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,031
nh
I don’t totally agree with Rosenthal but I definitely agree with the premise that baseball is better with good starting pitching going deep into the game. I’m not against openers or the “nerds” but I don’t like how this is how every team seems to be going.

The game was better (more entertaining to me) (especially playoffs), imo, when we watched Schilling or Beckett or Lester going 7 or 8 or even 9. When I got tickets for games the first thing I did was project out the rotation and hope I got Pedro. It’s why “Sale day” was marketed so heavily a few years ago. Those games were more entertaining to watch Sale dominate for 7 innings. That’s not a thing anymore at all…especially in the playoffs. As a baseball fan I miss it.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
I think that’s a good point, what’s annoying about the recent trend with the third time through the order thing and all the relievers is that it seems like every team simultaneously started doing the same thing.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,181
I think there’s also way more analysis of pitchers in real time by guys getting video of their at bats on their ipads. I would be fine with banning tech from the dugout.
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,147
Arvada, Co
So is the general premise that adding 2 or 3 pitching changes is making playoff games 4.5 hours? It's not the added commercials between innings? It's not the hitters taking forever to get in the box?

Personally, I loved the way Eovaldi was used in 2018 and think Cora's playoff bullpen usage is way more interesting than forcing someone like Brad Richards to throw 80 pitches over 3 innings while giving up 7 runs in a playoff game. It doesn't really seem like that will speed up the games.

Pitch clocks and going 60 inning breaks will speed up the game. Everything else is doing something for the sake of doing something.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I think that’s a good point, what’s annoying about the recent trend with the third time through the order thing and all the relievers is that it seems like every team simultaneously started doing the same thing.
Most of the pitching changes, though, come in between innings, which don't slow the game down at all (unless you're Houston bringing in a guy for an "injured" starter). I bet there are actually fewer in-inning pitching changes then there used to be.
 

Traut

lost his degree
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
12,750
My Desk
The worst thing baseball can be is boring. There is a lot of boring in baseball. What is not boring is great hitters being challenged by great pitchers. It wasn't this way even 20 years ago - but now every hitter 1-9 on every team is capable of launching home runs. Pitchers even in Double A hit 100 mph on the radar guns. Hitters and pitchers have massive amounts of data on each other's tendencies.

The game has and should evolve. So much shitty baseball over the years has been in the 6th inning of a game guys like Luis Rivera facing Matt Young. No one wants to see that.

Give me openers, give me defensive shifts, and give me hitters capable of launching a ball 450 feet on a mistake. I love it all.
 

Heating up in the bullpen

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2007
1,082
Pittsboro NC

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
So is the general premise that adding 2 or 3 pitching changes is making playoff games 4.5 hours? It's not the added commercials between innings? It's not the hitters taking forever to get in the box?
Is there much evidence now for this as a big factor? I think the delays tie more to the pitchers. You have guys like David Price trying to strategically extend the time between pitches to give themselves a bit more recovery time before delivering the next pitch.
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
12,958
The Paris of the 80s
Is there much evidence now for this as a big factor? I think the delays tie more to the pitchers. You have guys like David Price trying to strategically extend the time between pitches to give themselves a bit more recovery time before delivering the next pitch.
I was thinking it's more pitchers taking their sweet time than batters stepping out, and not close. There are a lot of pitchers who take forever to get the ball to the plate.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Is there much evidence now for this as a big factor? I think the delays tie more to the pitchers. You have guys like David Price trying to strategically extend the time between pitches to give themselves a bit more recovery time before delivering the next pitch.
It's probably an equal amount of both. Plenty of pitchers who take a walk around the mound after every pitch and plenty of hitters who step out of the box after every pitch as well. It's probably a "chicken or egg" kind of thing to determine which one induced the other. A pitch clock solves both.
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,147
Arvada, Co
It's probably an equal amount of both. Plenty of pitchers who take a walk around the mound after every pitch and plenty of hitters who step out of the box after every pitch as well. It's probably a "chicken or egg" kind of thing to determine which one induced the other. A pitch clock solves both.
Either way, the point was that it's not starters only going 5 or having 14 pitchers in your 25 that's causing playoff games to be 4.5 hours. It's the expanded commercial breaks, the time between pitches and the general nature of the 3 true outcome game today. Limiting the number of pitchers on your roster is dumb and will cause games to be even longer as tired pitchers slow down to rest and innings eaters take beatings for multiple innings to save guys for future games.
 

Haunted

The Man in the Box
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
6,196
The worst thing baseball can be is boring. There is a lot of boring in baseball. What is not boring is great hitters being challenged by great pitchers. It wasn't this way even 20 years ago - but now every hitter 1-9 on every team is capable of launching home runs. Pitchers even in Double A hit 100 mph on the radar guns. Hitters and pitchers have massive amounts of data on each other's tendencies.

The game has and should evolve. So much shitty baseball over the years has been in the 6th inning of a game guys like Luis Rivera facing Matt Young. No one wants to see that.

Give me openers, give me defensive shifts, and give me hitters capable of launching a ball 450 feet on a mistake. I love it all.
I feel like "we" (you know, everyone) has discussed this at length, but I keep coming back to the fact that the way the game is played has and will always change. We've made rule changes in the past to address some of them. To me, the game is rather boring right now and it isn't because of the strikeouts, it's due to the agonizingly long dead times between plays.

I'll take all the three true outcomes in the world if they'd just hurry the hell up and pitch the ball.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
Football has more dead time between plays, I can fast forward through a football game and watch all the action much faster than I can a baseball game, especially college football.