Comments on: Innings histogram for 2009 (Part 1) http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4115 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4115/comment-page-1#comment-10671 Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:34:57 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4115#comment-10671 I just graphed #3, i.e. non-save situation relief appearances of exactly 1 inning, and the results are absolutely shocking. I will post it on Monday, but here's a tease. In the 1950s and 1960s, about 22-23% of all non-save relief appearances were 1 inning. In the 1970s and 1980s, it fell to about 20-21%. Starting in the mid 1980s it has steadily risen linearly and is now at...wait for it....FORTY-FIVE PERCENT.

]]>
By: statboy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4115/comment-page-1#comment-10670 Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:13:23 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4115#comment-10670 No one has pitched more than 9 innings in a game since 2007.

]]>
By: DoubleDiamond http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4115/comment-page-1#comment-10668 Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:03:30 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4115#comment-10668 Were there any starters who pitched into extra innings in 2009? The graph ends with 9.

]]>
By: JohnnyTwisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4115/comment-page-1#comment-10667 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:34:56 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4115#comment-10667 I don't think you mentioned it, but I'm certain a big reason for the big jump in completing 5 innings as opposed to 4 is to give the pitcher a chance for a win.

It would be interesting to track the development of relievers (not just closers) being used for exactly one inning. Some things I looked up a while back made it appear that Cito Gaston may have helped push this ahead with the early '90s Blue Jays, but I've never done any rigorous study (nor am I aware of one).

]]>
By: JohnnyTwisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4115/comment-page-1#comment-10666 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:30:01 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4115#comment-10666 And the pitchers who take over for them are high-salaried as well. Let's not make this into some macho thing. There are a lot of conditions which work against starters being able to pitch as long as they used to, and their managers have collectively decided this usage is most effective. Even in 1968, starters lasted all of 6.6 IP/start, and I'm sure people who grew up in the deadball era were lamenting that generation of pampered pansies.

]]>
By: apreziosi http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4115/comment-page-1#comment-10657 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:03:00 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4115#comment-10657 Interesting stuff. Especially the even-number innings numbers. Although you cite that "there isn't much difference in the odds that a starter gets taken out with 1 vs. 2 outs in the inning" I'd submit that those numbers are at least partially the responsibility of the bullpen. The runners left on would be charged to the starter if the reliever let them in, so the even-numberd innings are your most valid numbers for evaluating the starter.
It's kind of depressing (and telling of the current state of the game) that starters are barely lasting 6 innings. For the money they make you'd think they'd pitch further into games. High-salaried starters are giving over control of a game to 2 or possibly 3 pitchers.

]]>