One of the perverse things about baseball is that certain "intelligence" is so embedded into the game that no manager has the balls to challenge it.
One example is the basic structure of the batting order. "Everyone knows" that the "best" batting order has a set profile for every hitter from leadoff through number 9, and both managers and general managers spend their lives trying to optimize the lineup by filling those slots with appropriate hitters having the skills described by that classic batting order. My beloved Pirates have spent the past 20 years searching for the "perfect #4 hitter," and blame a lot of their failure on the inability to get or develop one.
Statistically, however, this is all baloney. Statistically, the best batting order places the hitter with the highest on-base percentage in the first position, the hitter with the second highest on-base percentage second, and so forth. First through ninth, according to on-base percentage. The only manipulation would be to view the on-base percentage according to the opposing pitcher, rather than using gross numbers. This batting order maximizes run production. Statistically, there is simply no question about it.
Pitching management is similarly retarded. We take the "horses" - the pitchers who are strongest and most durable - and start them every fifth game. They pitch until they (a) fuck up, (b) get visibly tired, or (c) reach some set number of pitches (often 100), then replace them with a specialized reliever who takes the game through the next phase. It ends, ideally, with a "closer," who pitches one inning - no more, no less - to seal the deal.
But does this make any sense? Is it logical to employ a strategy that concludes with the starting pitcher NORMALLY working his way to the point of ineffectiveness?
Consider the following alternative scenario:
Staff the team with four "starters," whose role is to pitch either three innings or one time through the batting order, without giving up any runs. The pitchers who are now the "starters" - whom I've referred to as the "Horses" above - come in next. Ideally, if the starter is right-handed, the Horse will be left-handed, and vice versa. The Horse will try to finish the game. If he tires or becomes ineffective, he is replaced by a short reliever.
The advantages of this system are as follows:
Opposing managers will not be able to stack the batting order with right or left-handed hitters to face a given starter.
Hitters will see a different pitcher on their second time up, and will probably not see any pitcher more than twice in a game.
The PLAN will be to have a fresh pitcher through the entire nine innings.
The Horses will have a regular schedule, and will have a good probability of finishing games.
The starters will have a predictable schedule, and can plan on throwing three innings every fourth day, which is an ideal workload.
There are only two downsides, and they are pretty minor. First, the Horses will not know exactly when they will come into the game (time-wise), as they do now. They might come in as early as 20 minutes after the start of a game, or it might be close to an hour. Second, the starters will essentially never get the opportunity to get credit for a Win - but they could easily end up with a Loss. One might imagine a "good" starter ending the season with a record of 1-4, or something like that. Their only ammunition at contract time will be ERA and other arcane statistical measures. The Horses, on the other hand, could accumulate more wins than they do now, for obvious reasons.
But it is still a superior pitching management paradigm.
One example is the basic structure of the batting order. "Everyone knows" that the "best" batting order has a set profile for every hitter from leadoff through number 9, and both managers and general managers spend their lives trying to optimize the lineup by filling those slots with appropriate hitters having the skills described by that classic batting order. My beloved Pirates have spent the past 20 years searching for the "perfect #4 hitter," and blame a lot of their failure on the inability to get or develop one.
Statistically, however, this is all baloney. Statistically, the best batting order places the hitter with the highest on-base percentage in the first position, the hitter with the second highest on-base percentage second, and so forth. First through ninth, according to on-base percentage. The only manipulation would be to view the on-base percentage according to the opposing pitcher, rather than using gross numbers. This batting order maximizes run production. Statistically, there is simply no question about it.
Pitching management is similarly retarded. We take the "horses" - the pitchers who are strongest and most durable - and start them every fifth game. They pitch until they (a) fuck up, (b) get visibly tired, or (c) reach some set number of pitches (often 100), then replace them with a specialized reliever who takes the game through the next phase. It ends, ideally, with a "closer," who pitches one inning - no more, no less - to seal the deal.
But does this make any sense? Is it logical to employ a strategy that concludes with the starting pitcher NORMALLY working his way to the point of ineffectiveness?
Consider the following alternative scenario:
Staff the team with four "starters," whose role is to pitch either three innings or one time through the batting order, without giving up any runs. The pitchers who are now the "starters" - whom I've referred to as the "Horses" above - come in next. Ideally, if the starter is right-handed, the Horse will be left-handed, and vice versa. The Horse will try to finish the game. If he tires or becomes ineffective, he is replaced by a short reliever.
The advantages of this system are as follows:
Opposing managers will not be able to stack the batting order with right or left-handed hitters to face a given starter.
Hitters will see a different pitcher on their second time up, and will probably not see any pitcher more than twice in a game.
The PLAN will be to have a fresh pitcher through the entire nine innings.
The Horses will have a regular schedule, and will have a good probability of finishing games.
The starters will have a predictable schedule, and can plan on throwing three innings every fourth day, which is an ideal workload.
There are only two downsides, and they are pretty minor. First, the Horses will not know exactly when they will come into the game (time-wise), as they do now. They might come in as early as 20 minutes after the start of a game, or it might be close to an hour. Second, the starters will essentially never get the opportunity to get credit for a Win - but they could easily end up with a Loss. One might imagine a "good" starter ending the season with a record of 1-4, or something like that. Their only ammunition at contract time will be ERA and other arcane statistical measures. The Horses, on the other hand, could accumulate more wins than they do now, for obvious reasons.
But it is still a superior pitching management paradigm.
Last edited:
