Switch Pitchers : Good Idea or Crazy Nonsense?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Logan

One of the problems with this is that you wouldn't have to deal with the primary hurdle in assembling such a rotation -- finding players that will sign with you knowing that this is what they'll be getting into. But definitely interesting from a strictly statistical perspective.

This is very true. I think if I do it, it'll be with a crappy team in an existing dynasty that doesn't have a lot of depth and I'll use retread vets or minor leaguers, that way it simulates what that would be like, rather than top tier talent.

[Poli]

One week's worth of Larussa doing it? No wonder I couldn't remember it.

Chuck Tanner, the Braves manager I believe the article featured, actually used a 3 man rotation in 1972 for most of the year...though his pitchers went longer than 3 innings.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I think the main problem with the 3/3/3 rotation would of course be pitcher-ego IRL. Who's going to sign there knowing they wouldn't get a chance to get as many wins as a guy on another team when wins are such an important factor in determining future salary (although we all know how much BS that is, i don't foresee a day where a guy with a 5-5 record and a sub-1.0 WHIP makes less than a guy who is 10-0 with a 3.0 WHIP).

Can't you solve part of that problem by rotating which pitcher starts? Or by structuring a contract with incentives based off ERA/WHIP/team wins?

I have the same problem with how teams use their bullpens. I can understand that some closers prefer coming on only in the 9th and knowing their role, but if it's the 8th, you're up 1 and the other teams 3/4/5 is coming up, isn't that a better time to put your closer in than waiting until the next inning?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Can't you solve part of that problem by rotating which pitcher starts? Or by structuring a contract with incentives based off ERA/WHIP/team wins?

I have the same problem with how teams use their bullpens. I can understand that some closers prefer coming on only in the 9th and knowing their role, but if it's the 8th, you're up 1 and the other teams 3/4/5 is coming up, isn't that a better time to put your closer in than waiting until the next inning?

the answer to your question is "yes" of course. It's just it'd be such a departure from the normal that I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an agent who would let a client sign that type of contract.

as a statistical experiment though, it'd certainly be interesting.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Can't you solve part of that problem by rotating which pitcher starts? Or by structuring a contract with incentives based off ERA/WHIP/team wins?

ERA (though it's virtually a guarantee that none of your pitchers could win the ERA title) and WHIP would be interesting incentives, but I doubt you'd find many players taking a "team win" incentive. Other incentives are going to be very hard to come by...strikeouts, All-Star appearances, things of that nature.

While rotating the start between the three pitchers might actually shake up the save opportunities (which the last pitcher would technically qualify for at times) wins and losses, you're just as likely to have most of your "regular" pitchers unhappy if they end up with 9 or less wins on the year.

[dawgfan]

Regarding the switch-pitcher idea, in theory it's a great idea. In practice, it's extremely unlikely that a guy could be good enough at switch-pitching to be more effective doing that than just concentrating on pitching with one arm side. It's hard enough to be an effective pitcher, especially at the major-league level. But add in having to worry about developing, perfecting and maintaining mechanics for both arm sides is just too much for any guy to hope for.

That said, it will be interesting to see how this kid from Creighton does in the minors (assuming he gets drafted or signs with an independent league) if he is allowed to switch-pitch. I'm betting the odds are very high against him succeeding from both arm-sides.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

One week's worth of Larussa doing it? No wonder I couldn't remember it.

Chuck Tanner, the Braves manager I believe the article featured, actually used a 3 man rotation in 1972 for most of the year...though his pitchers went longer than 3 innings.

Actually, Tanner was the Chicago White Sox manager at the time, and it wasn't quite a 3-man rotation. But he did start Wilbur Wood on close to a 3-day rotation (Wood got 49 starts in both 1972 and 1973), and went 24-17 in 1972, 24-20 in 1973, and 20-19 in 1974. But Wood was going a lot more than 3 innings, and in addition, he was a knuckleballer.

[clintl]

Here's the bottom line for me. If you've Johan Santana, you can put him out on the mound for 33 starts a year, and get 7 strong innings out of him almost all the time. That's 231 innings. Or you can start him 54 times on the 3/3/3 schedule and get 162 innings from him. How in the world does the latter idea make any sense?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by clintl

Here's the bottom line for me. If you've Johan Santana, you can put him out on the mound for 33 starts a year, and get 7 strong innings out of him almost all the time. That's 231 innings. Or you can start him 54 times on the 3/3/3 schedule and get 162 innings from him. How in the world does the latter idea make any sense?

that's great if you can afford to pay him

[korme]

Because for anyone to actually entertain this idea, they don't have Johan Santana on the roster.

Think more like 11 Brett Tomko's.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by clintl

Actually, Tanner was the Chicago White Sox manager at the time, and it wasn't quite a 3-man rotation. But he did start Wilbur Wood on close to a 3-day rotation (Wood got 49 starts in both 1972 and 1973), and went 24-17 in 1972, 24-20 in 1973, and 20-19 in 1974. But Wood was going a lot more than 3 innings, and in addition, he was a knuckleballer.

I realize I wasn't clear on it, but I did know Tanner was the White Sox manager at the time, he ended his career with the Braves...of course.

What I was trying to say was it was Tanner was the former Brave manager who was quoted in the article...which was written shortly after his tenure with the Braves.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

Because for anyone to actually entertain this idea, they don't have Johan Santana on the roster.

Think more like 11 Brett Tomko's.

Or Kip Wells, Anthony Reyes, Todd Wellemeyer, Mike Maroth, Brad Thompson, and Braden Looper.

[clintl]

This 3-man rotation thing has strangely reminded me of what Dick Williams did one year as manager of the A's when he had a bunch of infielders who were hitting around .200 or worse. In September, when the rosters expanded, he loaded up on these light hitting infielders and some veteran pinch-hitters. He played the infielders at 2B, and every time the 2B spot in the lineup came up, he would send up a pinch hitter. He would go through 4-5 second basemen a game.

[st.cronin]

The thing that would worry me about the 3 man rotation is that you are willingly putting 3 mediocre pitchers out there. You're vulnerable to one of them having a bad day. It just seems likely to be a disaster.

I'd prefer a return to the 4 man rotation, myself.

[korme]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

Or Kip Wells, Anthony Reyes, Todd Wellemeyer, Mike Maroth, Brad Thompson, and Braden Looper.

Or Matt Belisle, Todd Coffey, Kirk Saarloos, Victor Santos, and Elizardo Ramirez.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'd prefer a return to the 4 man rotation, myself.

Me, too. The 4-man rotation was a very good strategy for a very long time, and I'm still baffled about why it was abandoned.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by clintl

This 3-man rotation thing has strangely reminded me of what Dick Williams did one year as manager of the A's when he had a bunch of infielders who were hitting around .200 or worse. In September, when the rosters expanded, he loaded up on these light hitting infielders and some veteran pinch-hitters. He played the infielders at 2B, and every time the 2B spot in the lineup came up, he would send up a pinch hitter. He would go through 4-5 second basemen a game.

Reminds me a bit of my last year of high school baseball, sadly...I was the guy being pinch hit for.

Tanner, from what I understand, is also for the return of the 4 man rotation.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

Or Kip Wells, Anthony Reyes, Todd Wellemeyer, Mike Maroth, Brad Thompson, and Braden Looper.

I'm pretty sure a couple of those guys in the Cards rotation aren't making #5 money unless we're counting $8M per a #5 starter salary.

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

Or Matt Belisle, Todd Coffey, Kirk Saarloos, Victor Santos, and Elizardo Ramirez.

That's maybe a better example...

SI

[IMetTrentGreen]

I'm going to start an ootp team with 12 relievers and no starters.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm pretty sure a couple of those guys in the Cards rotation aren't making #5 money unless we're counting $8M per a #5 starter salary.



That's maybe a better example...

SI

I wasn't looking at salaries in my example, but I can see why you might. I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for as a 5th starter money, though. Eleven Tomkos cost just over 44 million.

FTR:

Wells 4 mil
Reyes 392,500
Wellemeyer 635,000
Maroth 2.95 mil
Thompson 400,000
Looper 4.5 mil
Wainwright 410,000

[lighthousekeeper]

Sure the guy might be an effective switch pitcher, but he still looks like he throws like a girl from the left side.

[Young Drachma]

I'm gonna try it with a MLB team that does a firesale, brings up a bunch of guys who are Quadruple-A quality and see what they can do using that system.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I'm gonna try it with a MLB team that does a firesale, brings up a bunch of guys who are Quadruple-A quality and see what they can do using that system.

you own an MLB team!? which one? can you hire me as 'Head Statistician' or 'Shortstop' or something like that?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

you own an MLB team!? which one? can you hire me as 'Head Statistician' or 'Shortstop' or something like that?

Someday maybe.

Anyway...I've run it for a week so far with an OOTP team, using the 3/3/3 setup and I find that it's not just inefficient, but with bad pitchers, they get lit up so often that keeping them in 3 innings was problematic at best.

I think that the logic employed on this thread about it, pretty much proves it DOA. I think if you deliberately went out and got a host of good relievers and did it, it might work better. But they'd essentially have to get paid to do more work than they normally do. And again, you open yourself up to getting just torched.

So I stopped.

[Fidatelo]

I think a switch-pitcher would be cool from a longevity/injury standpoint. If used as a regular pitcher his arms would have half the wear, which should reduce fatigue, increase effectiveness, and decrease the chance of injury. Furthermore, if he does injure one arm, perhaps he can still pitch with the other during the healing process?