How a pitching staff is managed thoroughly intrigues me. 100 years ago pitchers threw 9 innings a game and did so every 2-3 games. For the most part pitchers had short careers but some of them were able to sustain that pace for 20 seasons. I don't know what happened to them after they retired, perhaps their arms literally fell off, or were so damaged that they could not brush their own teeth - but you don't hear those stories. Just that they would throw over 300 innings a year - every year.
Then came the advent of the relief pitcher. Why have your starter roll through the lineup 4 times when you could bring in a fresh pitcher with a different 'look' to baffle the opposing hitters? Starting pitchers' conditioning changed as they were not needed to throw complete games every time out.
Then the rotations began to lengthen. Three-men rotations became four-men rotations, which became five-men rotations. It was a mix of conditioning changes, specialists entering the game and agents protecting the valuable asset of their pitcher (their arm).
Here in 2015 there is even talk of six-man rotations. This on top of every team trying to mimic what the Kansas City Royals were able to do in 2014 by "shortening the game" when they only expected 5-6 innings from their starter then they had a 7th inning guy, an 8th inning guy and a 9th inning guy. Bullpens are often as crowded as the dugouts. With many teams carrying 13 pitchers (on a 25 man roster) there are often times when you have eight guys in the bullpen, nine on the field and the other eight in the dugout. Pitching is the valuable asset on the team, and rosters and salaries are aligned to that value.
Don't even get me started on the LOOGY (or Lefty One-Out GuY)!
But what has happened in 2015 is an over reliance on one-inning specialists and one batter specialists (LOOGY) and less reliance on watching the pitcher's "stuff" and knowing when he is having an on-day or an off-day.
This year is a magical year so far for the local team, the St. Louis Cardinals. As I write this they are 39 games above .500 with a little over a month still to go. The team ERA is the lowest in MLB since the early 1970s and the bullpen ERA is hovering around 2.30. All amazing numbers. But I am not one to only look for opportunities when there are bad times. I look for trends or opportunities even when things are going well - how can they be even better?
What I have seen this year (and over Matheny's tenure) is his loyalty to his pitchers in certain situations. He relies more on a pre-established formula as opposed to how the pitcher is throwing on that particular day. I have a few numbers to back this up. First, look at games played. The Cardinals have the three leaders in games played by pitchers. Siegrist, Maness and Rosenthal all top the league leaders. Usually when you see one of them, you see all three. Maness is responsible to pitch the 7th or to get them out of a jam with runners on with his double play tendency. Siegrist has become the 8th inning set up guy and Rosenthal is etched in stone for the 9th.
This is a formula that works well when they are all throwing well - and for the most part that has been all season. Only recently has Maness' ERA risen above 3.00 and just last night Siegrist's ERA rose above the 2.00 mark. However it also invites trouble. When you consistently employ four pitchers or more in a game, the likelihood of one of them not being at their best is higher than a lower number of pitchers. Each time you bring in a new hurler, you welcome the unknown of a pitcher perhaps not able to find the strike zone or has no bite on his breaking ball.
As a fan of the Cardinals, I love to see it when the opposing manager keeps bringing in new pitchers, because I know that one of them might be off that night. And you know what, it is quite often the case.
I'd much rather see Matheny ride out a hot hand on the mound for a few more outs each game and give them a day or so to recuperate than to say "this set of three outs is yours. Go get 'em."
That approach also allows the manager to employ a hook quicker when his pitcher is struggling. The other night Cishek could not find the strike zone and was allowed to throw enough errant pitches to walk the bases loaded. Matheny had it in his mind that it was Cishek's inning. That was that. Until Cishek finally went too far. It worked out. Maness came in and saved the day with two strikeouts and retiring the final out with a weak swing...but it was undue pressure.
Again, the approach has worked so far, but it seems to rely too much on predetermined roles and natural breaks in the structure of the game than it does reading the effectiveness of a pitcher that particular day. I'd like to see less opportunities for that off-pitcher on a given day by running a reliever out for a second inning.
I guess in some ways today is like it was 100 years ago. Pitchers expected to pitch every day, or every other day. However today they may be called upon to throw 10-20 pitches where they were throwing 150+ in the early 1900's. I'd like to see the evolution in reading the pitcher's effectiveness and body language.
No comments:
Post a Comment