The biggest thing this shows to me is just how much of an all-star team an $80 million league really is. The fact that the average for a sub-1.00 WHIP pitcher (starter or reliever) is only a handful a season FOR THE WHOLE LEAGUE shows how crazy good an $80 million team really is since most of them have 8+ of said pitchers.

I know that this analysis took a ton of work good prof, but it would also be interesting to do the analysis on the hitting side using OPS. I'm not sure what the number would be (.900 seems good, that's a .400 OBP and .500 SLG and those are typically high thresholds) and see how many of those guys exist in history and then see how rare those type of hitters are as well.

I agree that looking at the stat breakdown of BA against through the lineup has really changed the way I think about the usage of starting pitchers. You just can't argue with the fact that they shut down lineups in round 1, lose ground in round 2 and by round 3 are substantially giving up more hits (and likely walks) to the same hitters. Once the TV broadcasts started showing those stats for the starting pitchers during real life games, it surely makes it hard to say that it is better to still throw the SP (who by the 3rd time through the lineup has an OBA of .260) versus bringing in a RP who has an OBA of .215. Sometimes it is just hard to argue with stats.

But the whole 7 RP in a game drives me nuts (and is killing the UTIL bench role)...those same RPs could easily go over an IP and still be on time 1 through the lineup, so to me it doesn't make sense to yank them after 1 batter (even if their L/R splits are way different). I think the best way to counter this might be for managers to just bite the bullet and literally just start stacking their lineups L/R/L/R/L/R/L/R/L. The opposing team just can't use 3 pitchers an inning for 3 innings...there still is a 25-man roster.

Maybe changing the rules about the way pitchers are used in game is the wrong approach uncleal...maybe the approach should focus on the 25-man roster itself. If they just changed the roster rules that the most pitchers you could carry on your 25-man roster was 11 or 12, that really only leaves you 6 or 7 RP total for a game...with 1 of those being your "Closer" (because we all know everyone needs a Closer and he won't be seen until the 9th), that really takes away the ability to have so many 1 or 2 batter specialists simply because of the number of pitchers you have to choose from...especially over the grind of a 162 game season and that fact that you have to rest them. Thoughts?

Frazzman80 I could not agree more - the main problems really are 1) constant pitching changes which make baseball seem like the last 10 minutes of a basketball game;  2) killing the bench and therefore team depth; and 3) taking away from fans the interest that comes with the historical average I have essentially uncovered here that at least one person gets on base per half inning (probably the average is around 3 point something overall per inning for both teams combined) because, as you point out, managers, by doing the "right thing" by their teams, going with relievers instead of subjecting their starters to round 3, are in using 3 pitchers in an inning. 

I think the solution you suggest of limiting the number of pitchers (I would go with 11 frankly, teams can always send someone down and bring someone up, plus in any case they go to 40-man rosters in September) is a good one, though while uncleal, I think your idea needs some tweaking, let's remember that rules about roster moves in mid-inning are not foreign to baseball - a player that is pinch-hit for or substituted for by a pinch-runner or defensive sub is out of the game for example, so some rule change is not unimaginable. 

Probably Bill James is right and 9-inning games by starters are gone for good, but his idea of having three-man rotations with pitchers pitching the first five is his way of dealing with it, because he wants 20-game winners again, which missing takes away a key category of baseball continuity and historical comparison. 

But his approach means four whole innings of constant change and even bigger bullpen staffs. (I posted his article in the forum a couple of weeks or so ago). 

Anyway, as far as batters, yes, I will try to get to it. Maybe even soon - but to get this one done I put aside finishing the translation into English of an article by a colleague about pedagogical theory and neoliberalism, so let me get that done first and then back to important things like how many great hitters there have been. 

To tell the truth, one thing I would love to do is see how great hitters - say Babe Ruth, did against great pitchers, say Walter Johnson lifetime, by going through the box scores on baseball-reference, but boy would that be a big job to do. I have not found a website that gives this historical info for batter-pitcher matchups, but it is probably part of what the SABR people are keeping under wraps. 

If you want to limit the roster to 11 pitchers, or any number of pitchers, consider the following exercise:

A manager wants to hide an extra pitcher on his roster. How do you define pitcher in such a way that it prevents managers from doing this without punishing teams that throw non-pitchers in blowouts or ultra-long games to preserve the staff? (Something likely even more common if the bullpen is limited)

You have a point. How to define "pitcher" is tricky, since technically any player can play any position at a given moment in a game. But I bet it could be dealt with somehow. Still, tricky.


As to how common though, since historically teams tended to carry around 8 pitchers (1930s through 1940s), 9 pitchers (1950s) or 10 pitchers (11960s through a few years ago), I don't know if blowouts would be more common than they were historically - maybe two-three times a season at most a team would have some infielder throw knuckleballs to get through a one-sided game. But to make a rule around that rare occurrence?  

In any case, the idea that there are now 16 relief pitchers per season that have WHIPs under 1.00, that is that pitch  with the quality of Koufax, Joss, Rivera, Pedro or Maddux etc.  - meaning half the teams in each league, and that this number has been growing exponentially means we risk a new deadball era sooner or later at this rate, and the weaker benches means fewer fresh pinch-hitters as well. 

Posted by crazystengel on 1/9/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):
The biggest thing this shows to me is just how much of an all-star team an $80 million league really is.

Yes, you can draft pretty much the greatest pitching seasons in history for your Open League team, and still have enough left over for an okay offense.  I've always thought pitching was underpriced.

Agreed. I do expect that dynamic pricing will solve much of the issue though.

psh

Posted by italyprof on 1/9/2016 12:00:00 PM (view original):
You have a point. How to define "pitcher" is tricky, since technically any player can play any position at a given moment in a game. But I bet it could be dealt with somehow. Still, tricky.


As to how common though, since historically teams tended to carry around 8 pitchers (1930s through 1940s), 9 pitchers (1950s) or 10 pitchers (11960s through a few years ago), I don't know if blowouts would be more common than they were historically - maybe two-three times a season at most a team would have some infielder throw knuckleballs to get through a one-sided game. But to make a rule around that rare occurrence?  

In any case, the idea that there are now 16 relief pitchers per season that have WHIPs under 1.00, that is that pitch  with the quality of Koufax, Joss, Rivera, Pedro or Maddux etc.  - meaning half the teams in each league, and that this number has been growing exponentially means we risk a new deadball era sooner or later at this rate, and the weaker benches means fewer fresh pinch-hitters as well. 

Well, I simply meant that the event would be more common than now -- in that managers would define more situations as warranting a position player, only having 6 options in his bullpen rather than 7 or 8 -- so while some "7th option" and "8th option" calls would go to the 6th option or others, some would also go to position players.

If we don't define anyone that pitches as a pitcher, then it's open to that exploit -- but a team that can't protect its own pen by throwing a position player in a blowout or long game (the equivalent of when a SIM manager throws a 200K 0% mop-up) is not going to be happy with this.

One option might be to engage international rules for blowouts as well as for long games (ie. 15/10 run rules, as well as 13th inning and beyond free runners) -- but comebacks *do* happen in MLB, even if they're rare, so I'm not sure this is wise. (ie: By doing this, we pretty much eliminate situations in which it would make sense to bring in a position player, as we'd simply end the game before that.)

Yes, the fact that the league batting average is well below the historical average shows us offense is down. Of course, more direct changes can be made to the game to increase the offense while accepting the pitcher quality increase. Mound could be lowered, strike zone could be narrowed (though this could be more frustrating than it's worth), or more extreme options such as adopting composite/aluminum bats could be considered.