Comments on: Consecutive Starts of 100 Pitches http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/12670 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Charles http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/12670/comment-page-1#comment-127566 Sat, 09 Jul 2011 17:40:25 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=12670#comment-127566 An article in Baseball Digest in 1971 said Sam McDowell averaged 196 pitches/game. He also piched in a 4 man rotation. His last year piching 162 innings was when he was 29.

]]>
By: Mustachioed Repetition http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/12670/comment-page-1#comment-127368 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:39:44 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=12670#comment-127368 The logical follow-up question is: Do they get more win value from carrying 7 relievers (sometimes 8) and having a very limited bench? I have my doubts; in particular, I wonder if the now-common role of a "lefty specialist" really provides as much value as an extra bench player would. Some of those lefty specialists aren't all that good.

It's hard to say. I prefer the bigger bench and smaller pen, because I think it's a more interesting game. I enjoy seeing a manager put together a team of imperfect players who skills complement each other, using pinch hitters, pinch runners, defensive replacements. But I think teams decided that they gain more from the platoon advantage through the pitching side rather than the hitting side, and since there is evidence that most hitters do not perform as well when pinch hitting, they may be right.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/12670/comment-page-1#comment-127318 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:47:14 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=12670#comment-127318 Hmm -- something happened to my comment; I guess something I typed was interpreted as HTML. Well, it's too late now.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/12670/comment-page-1#comment-127317 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:45:24 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=12670#comment-127317 @16, Dan -- I think M.R. nailed the question of why there aren't more complete games: they've got all these relievers on the roster, and a fresh reliever is usually more effective than a starter in the late innings, so ... might as well use 'em.

The logical follow-up question is: Do they get more win value from carrying 7 relievers (sometimes 8) and having a very limited bench? I have my doubts; in particular, I wonder if the now-common role of a "lefty specialist" really provides as much value as an extra bench player would. Some of those lefty specialists aren't all that good.

As to why every team uses a 5-man rotation, a simple answer is: That's the status quo, and baseball management (like most management) abhors innovation. The pitchers obviously aren't going to push for it; they won't make any more money, in general, by logging more innings.

I don't think it's been proven by any kind of rigorous study that a 5-man rotation is more effective, either at run prevention or at maintaining health.

]]>
By: Mustachioed Repetition http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/12670/comment-page-1#comment-127236 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 04:39:26 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=12670#comment-127236 Remove yourself from the abstract. When you watch a game, how many times do you think to yourself, "Why are they taking out Pitcher X? I really think he could go another 3-4 innings"?

It may not be so much a question of "Why can't they," but "Why should they?" Most of the time, the reliever is more effective than the starter facing the same batters for the 4th time.

]]>
By: Dan http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/12670/comment-page-1#comment-127192 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 01:56:31 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=12670#comment-127192 In response to #6 and 10, you touched on the question I'd like to ask. Why is it that pitchers can't go as long in games and why can't they pitch in a 4 man rotation? Some of the standard answers are that stats show that effectiveness diminishes after 100 pitches, batters are stronger and more patient, there's more specialization etc.

But it seems impossible now for a pitcher to start 35 to 40 games. And the thought of throwing 150+ pitches (or even close to 200) is unconscionable.

I would like to hear your theories on this. Halladay's a horse, but not as much as the guys in the 70's and earlier. What gives?

]]>
By: Hartvig http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/12670/comment-page-1#comment-127167 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:43:47 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=12670#comment-127167 "Yeah, guys like Andy Messersmith and Jon Matlack and Frank Tanana wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame had they not pitched so many innings."

But of course, we know better than that now so no such thing could ever happen to a valuable commodity like Stephen Strasburg because he never threw as many as 100 pitches or more than 7 innings in any outing or with less than 4 days rest...

]]>
By: Ebessan http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/12670/comment-page-1#comment-127147 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 21:26:27 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=12670#comment-127147 "I'm pretty sure that in racking up 15 to 25 complete games and 275 to 325 innings (or more) they were throwing more than 100 pitches just about every outing. Too bad their managers overworked them like that, otherwise they might have turned out to be pretty good pitchers."

Yeah, guys like Andy Messersmith and Jon Matlack and Frank Tanana wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame had they not pitched so many innings.

]]>
By: Mustachioed Repetition http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/12670/comment-page-1#comment-127104 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:56:40 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=12670#comment-127104 Oh, BTW the Dodgers team statistician kept actual pitch counts in the 50's and through 1964 and neither Koufax nor Drysdale ever came close to 30 in a row over 100 pitches. Just for fun I eyeballed both Koufax's and Drysdale's 1965-1966 using the pitch count estimator as well and they almost certainly never came close to 30 in a row in those years either.

Yeah, there is much more consistency in pitch counts start by start now. As best we can tell, the average pitches per start has not changed that much over the last few decades. But the 150+ pitch outings have been eliminated, and so that have those under 50. Starters don't get pulled after giving up a few runs in the first inning anymore, they have to get absolutely shelled.

]]>
By: Richard Chester http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/12670/comment-page-1#comment-127097 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:14:26 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=12670#comment-127097 @ 10

Baseballlibrary.com states that on Aug. 22, 1951 Tommy Byrne, then of the Browns, threw 248 pitches in a stint of 12 2/3 IP. With 63 BF, 5 K and 16 BB (tied for ML record) your formula calculates 251 pitches, mighty close.

]]>