Decline of the Starting Pitcher
SoxPatsFan
Posts: 216 ✭✭✭✭
I'll start with some numbers. Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer & Clayton Kershaw are active pitchers with 200+ wins.
Zack Greinke, CC Sabathia & Jon Lester are the most recently retired members of the 200 win club.
As for other active pitchers, only Gerrit Cole - with 153 wins - seems to have a reasonable shot at 200.
It's hard for me to believe how quickly starting pitching has been de-valued over the past 15 years. Around 2008, we saw THREE 300 game winners retire (Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson).
I know we'll never see another 300 game winner, but is it possible that, after Cole, we may never see another 200 game winner?
1
Comments
Or another complete game no hitter?
No-hitters will probably still occur with roughly the same regularity.
If a pitcher has a no-no going after 90+ pitches, most teams will let them exceed their pitch count as a one time exception to go after the accomplishment.
I agree. I really miss the workhorse ace starter. If you had one, you had a very good shot of winning a 7 game series. if you had 2, you were most likely winning.
can also add Tom Glavine in as a 300 game winner in the 00's. Mussina got to either 270 or 280 and probably would have gotten there had he not retired. I believe he won 20 his last season.
I loved those games in the 01 series with Clemens, johnson, schilling, moose, pettite all starting multiple games.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
"Rise of the Middle Reliever"
and the "opener"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I actually think the opener is a solid move.
200 is possible but its the new 300. With all the injuries from teams promoting max effort velocity guys, MLB taking away grip on the balls causing more stress on the forearm and elbow, teams wanting guys to just keep ripping sliders over and over, pitch clock to short etc, its going to be tough to stay healthy long enough
Some teams just flat out will not let starters face a lineup the 3rd time either which may or may not pull them out before theyre eligible for a win. I never really understood that stupid rule, a starter has to go 5 innings or more for a win but a reliever can throw one pitch to end an inning and get the win.
The other thing though is now with college a lot of guys are going to college instead of out of the draft in HS and theyre staying in college the extra year if they arent a top pick which just means American players will generally be older when they reach the league if the team doesnt promote them quickly.
I wouldnt really say that starters have been devalued given the contracts the best ones get, but whats expected/asked of them certainly has
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Dumbest thing of all time from someone with a computer that probably never played. All that does is tell your starter we think you suck and arent good enough to get the top of the lineup out that you will have to face anyway unless we pull you before the 3rd/4rd inning
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
It doesn’t really say that. You seem to want to ignore data science at all costs. But it’s only a study of the empirical. I haven’t heard the reason being related to ‘not face the top of the lineup ever’.
Anyways. This isn’t a discussion about the rational behind opening with a reliever.
Starting Pitchers are now sprinters, not marathon runners.
I will say that this is the predominate reason stated for the opener strategy. Rather than start the game with your 6th or 7th best MLB starter or your best triple A/AAAA starter with options that you're shuttling back and forth on the MLB roster, you throw a live arm bullpen guy out there to get 3, 4, or 5 outs against the other team's best hitters to start the game, then put your bum arm in to pitch from there, starting with the lower part of the order. Hopefully, you get a lead or keep the game close so your bum arm guy can go 4 innings or so, then turn it over to the rest of the bullpen guys to try to get the last 12 outs or so, and hopefully you've done enough for your offense to win the game for you.
Crazy for someone to say they havent heard the reason not being facing the top of the lineup which is the hardest part of the lineup. Theres literally no other reason to do it
Its literally the entire reason they do it like you said that messes up the starters routine and burns a bullpen arm
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I didn’t say that. You’re poorly translating my statement.
Yes you did You had apparently never heard the reason for it being to not face the top of the line up.
"I haven’t heard the reason being related to ‘not face the top of the lineup ever’." Your words
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
There were two a week apart this year. And a third earlier in the year.
Correct. But you only quoted me. You didn’t understand what I said. When you leave out the word “ever” you change the meaning. Enjoy your ha ha though you silly boy.
So I only quoted you about what you said that at best just means you dont know what youre talking about? Was I supposed to quote someone else about your own post?
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I'll add this ...
2024 - 28
2023 - 35
2022 - 36
2021 - 50
2020 - 29
2019 - 45
2018 - 42
2017 - 59
2016 - 83
2015 - 104
That's the number of complete games thrown in all of Major League Baseball in each year.
And in relatively recent years ...
1986 - Fernando Valenzuela - 20
1985 - Bert Blyleven - 24
1983 - Ron Guidry - 21
1980 - Rick Langford - 28
In 1980, Rick Langford had the same number of complete games as all of Major League Baseball in 2024.
I said that you left off the word “ever”, the prevailing concept behind the opener isn’t to have your starter never face the top of the lineup. I said that I haven’t heard that. I’ve heard this.
What I have heard is that it’s designed to combat the “times through the order” penalty. By allowing your opener to come in and pitch 1-2 innings at maximum velocity you reduce some of the burden on your starter. Teams generally put their best hitters at the top of the lineup. The opener allows the starter to come in after 1-2 innings and get through his 5-6 innings without having to face the top of the order the dreaded 3rd time. This is the prevailing rational as I understand it. There are some other reasons that are also discussed that are more situational. Here’s a few I can think of.
So this is what I’ve been told about it. I have not heard that the predominate reason was to not have a pitcher ever face the top of the lineup. I’m not hopeful you can see past what you think I meant so I expect you to argue that in saying the same thing as I said before. That you do it so artfully is what keeps me coming back for more.
Glad you did some research
The entire premise of the opener which is very very stupid is to keep a starter from facing the top of the lineup in inning 1. As I already said they will have to anyways unless they only pitch an inning or two at most. Its a dumb concept that just tells your starter that we dont think youre good enough to be pitching and messes up their pregame routine.
Its a very very stupid idea that the Rays were trying to be too cute about and theres a reason why teams dont do it anymore. Bullpen games are different than an opener. Those have their own flaws but different ones
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
You’re really starting to lash out frequently. Everything ok?
Recent years
Back in 1983 were people saying 1942 was a recent year? 41 years difference is 41 years difference
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Says the person that spends their time trying to argue everything I post lol.
Everyone in baseball knows the opener is a stupid idea. Thats why only a couple teams actually did it and almost every team that experimented with it stopped doing it or at best do it once in a blue moon
Theres countless hours of podcasts, shows, articles, interviews etc that have discussed it
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Whether or not everyone in baseball knows it’s a very very stupid idea or not. I have serious doubts that is true for the record. Assuming that is true the data supporting using a reliever to start a game is quite compelling. I could see it becoming popular in MLB. To your point that it’s not used anymore or only once in a blue moon. On average there is one blue moon per year which would be about 1 blue moon every two MLB seasons. The opener, which is different than a bullpen game as you say, was used much more often in 2024 than the occurrence of blue moons. I don’t know why you mentioned bullpen games and that they’re different than usage of an opener.
Mr bb21. If you were to carefully review my comments I think you would fine that the majority are just me correcting your misrepresentation of a statement I’ve made. I’m not here to debate anything with you. You have been lashing out both directly and indirectly to my comments. I find it quite endearing.
Theres no data that an opener is better. It doesnt matter if the starter faces the top 3 in the first inning or 3rd. Just like it doesnt matter if a reliever is used in the 1st inning or the 5/6th. Its all the same. Baseball people know that and know that messing up the starters routine is worse.
Again a hand full of teams tried it, the majority of them came from the Rays and Giants. Other teams knew it was stupid and a couple gave it a shot here and there
You must be looking in the mirror for that one. I barely respond to you and it generally just ends up with you coming at me whenever I do and youre wrong which is very often
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
There’s no data that an opener is better? How about the fact the opener innings produce a lower ERA by half a run?
With the difficulty to field 5 quality starters for an entire season that teams face I think it’s only a matter of time before teams employ strategies to effect advantage for their pitching staffs.
In any event. You’re just being insulting and asserting I’m wrong about everything. You don’t have to respond to anything I say. We can be like ships passing in the night. Be a ship.
The decline of things such as complete games and Innings Pitched, has been on a downward trajectory since the beginning of the game.
The people who are complaining about it now, when they were young, the older people were complaining about the same things about the current generation of pitchers who didn't throw as many complete games or innings as the previous generation.
Nothing new.
not necessarily. I will leave out 19th century baseball. from about 1900-the deadball era, innings were generally consistent. there was a drop off in innings pitched starting around 1920 or so (start of the live ball) that was fairly gradual until about the early 1960s. then there actually was a significant increase in innings pitched by starters for nearly 20 years until the early 80s. early 80s until present has seen a significant decline. biggest decline in the last 20 years.
there was a big bump in IP during the 2 decades of the 60s and 70s which saw numerous 300+ IP seasons.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
From 1950 until 1980 the average number of innings per start was 6.5. It was very consistent during that period. Dropping to 6.1 for the period of 1980 until 2010.
I assume you’re right about the number of 300 inning seasons - I don’t know. The 50s, 60s, and 70s had some unique outliers.
Drysdale
Sutton
Koufax
Gibson
Marichal
Perry
Carlton
Niekro
Probably forgetting a few. The 1960s saw an increase in number of games played but that doesn’t explain the increase in starts per season which is correlated to these innings totals. Teams were still primarily using the 4 man rotation - even through the 80s and 90s more than not. It’s not obvious why there was an increase in 300 inning seasons. Perhaps it was simply some amazing athletes. I know one person here who has the answers.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/9KQuQe7UnJd0Xc12cp9DYJP947w=/0x0:783x426/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:783x426):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13734102/Starter_IP.png
disregard the 19th century part of the graph. there is an unquestionable jump in IP from the early 1960s until the end of the 70s
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I agree with you. I don’t understand the reason. Is that from John Rickert’s data on this subject? He has a ton of great data published in SABR.
@bgr and @Basebal21 I enjoy both of your posts. BGR brings a highly scientific method to his contributions, and I am impressed by basebal21's working knowledge about a wide variety of sports and topics.
I think the contrast and banter between you guys would make for a good podcast. I find myself reading both of your posts even if I am not commenting.
True.
We do have to keep in mind that in the 1970's that Niekro and Wilbur Wood were knuckleballers and the 300 IP is tied very highly to that aspect. Even Gaylord Perry was a ball marking junk specialist too.
I should say that the trajectory does ebb and flow a little and isn't a pure straight line in terms of innings pitched but it does go down over time(I was including all pre war too though).
Although, complete games is pretty much a straight downward trajectory with only very minor blips falling off of it since 1950... and of course from the pre war eras.
As per 300 IP, @bgr you already stated that the schedule added eight extra games in 1961. That is basically two starts extra per workhorse and depending on the schedule it could be three. DoubleHeaders starting in the late 50's and early 60's had really begun to dwindle so that could have a minor affect in getting another start out of your aces.
There were also more teams added compared to pre 1960 so there were more chances for X amount of pitchers to accumulate 300 innings going forward(until the full advent of the relief pitcher completely took that away...about the time they started winning Cy Young awards and then even more going forward).
From 1950-1979 the highest innings per start were in the early 50's:
1950 at 6.7
1951 at 6.7
1952 at 6.8
1953 at 6.5
1954 at 6.6
1955 at 6.3
1956 at 6.4
1957 6.4
1958 6.4
1960 6.4
1961 6.4
1962 6.4
1963 6.5
1964 6.3
1965 6.3
1966 6.3
1967 6.4
1968 6.6
1969 6.4
1970 6.4
1971 6.6
1972 6.7
1973 6.6
1974 6.5
1975 6.5
1976 6.5
1977 6.3
1978 6.5.
When you look at it like that, it was the first three years of the 1950's that did have the highest three year stretch of IP per start.
There could only be 16 Aces/workhorses in 1952. There were 26 Aces in 1977. There were 24 Aces from 1969-1976. Etc... When I am saying Aces I am simply referring to the teams number one starter that is going to get the most innings.
So if you compare the early 50's to the 70's, there isn't going to be as many 300 Innings pitchers for two primary reasons...there were eight more games per team(two or three more starts) and more Aces in the league for circumstances to make a 300 IP pitchers occur.
Of course there are also individual team philosophies that alter everything.
I noticed one interesting thing when looking at this.
The average age of pitchers was almost a full year lower across MLB during the 60s and 70s. The last 2 decades have seen the highest average age of pitchers in MLB since the 30s & 40s. I know 1 year doesn't sound very significant, but it kind of is. Perhaps this is related to the next point, but it's a bit of a reach.
Your theory might be right regarding the expanded opportunity when more teams in the league. It probably didn't hurt that expansion would have muted the average talent in the league somewhat for a few years.
When I looked at the IP totals for 50s pitchers, I had about 16-18 pitching seasons which could have benefited from extra starts to reach 300 IP. That's not nothing considering there were only 10 300+ IP pitching seasons in the 50s. Splitting the difference a f(x) of 2.7 is significant.
60 (0)
61 (0)
62 (1) Drysdale
63 (3) Drysdale, Marichal, Koufax
64 (1) Drysdale
65 (2) Drysdale, Koufax
66 (4) Koufax, Bunning, Marichal, Kaat
67 (1) Bunning
68 (4) Marichal, Jenkins, McLain, Gibson
69 (9) Perry, McLain, Osteen, Singer, Gibson, Jenkins, Dierker, Stottlemyre, Hands
So just looking at the 60s alone, which had 25 300+ IP pitching seasons, we might expect to have seen only 9-10 300+ IP pitching seasons without the additional games. This is a very coarse function and wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. It's only useful as a "finger in the air".
Amazingly, of note, is that Bob Gibson averages 9.0 IP per start in 1969. Had I not looked at this I wouldn't have learned that... which, frankly, kind of blew my mind.
Respect. He also did it in '68.
I wanted to take this time also to highlight a player who does not get enough recognition for his pitching ability. He gets mentioned all the time about his fastball, but I think his career gets lost a little.
Bob Feller.
Kind of what I mean about being held to the standard of the previous generation. Comparing apples to apples (fireballer vs fireballer...no knucklballers junking it up), look at what Feller did:
IN a 154 game schedule for Feller:
In 1939 he threw 296 innings with 24 complete games
In 1940 he threw 320 innings with 31 complete games
In 1941 he threw 343 innings with 28 complete games
Then he went to WW2 and missed three full seasons plus another he missed 90% of that season. Basically four years missed.
In 1946 he threw a whopping 371 innings with 36 complete games
In 1947 he threw 299 innings with 20 complete games.
We hear about Ted Williams missing the war years but rarely about Feller. Feller missed his aged 23-26 years right in his prime.
Compared to Ryan who was the fireballing workhorse of his era, Ryan had career highs of 332 innings and 326 innings and complete games high of 26 twice and three in the low 20's in a 162 game season.
Feller did it more often and higher, and in less games and in less years.
@bgr Innings pitched isn't just a stat of skill it is a stat of will. Any team can choose to allocate X innings to their best pitcher(even if that best pitcher is only the 30th best in the league he is still the best on that team and will get the lion share of the IP in that era). Every team will pitch the same amount of innings, so those extra teams in the league certainly make it easier for the league to have more 300 IP pitchers just by virtue of those circumstances that create a 300 IP pitcher.
Look at the 1950 Boston Braves:
Bickford 311 IP
Spahn 293 IP
Sain 278 IP
Sain is their number three guy, In a league with more teams(and a bigger player pool due to population growth and international players to accommodate expansion) a guy like Sain(or someone similar in skill set) would end up on another team as their ace. With two or three extra starts due to the schedule increasing, and another two extra starts being the Ace and workhorse...plus more extra innings for being the workhorse and the best pitcher on the team to rely on 'he' is a lock for 300+ innings.
In the 1970's those 300 IP seasons are skewed with Niekro and Wood and even Perry. Wood did it four times. Niekro did it four times. Those are novelty events in terms of IP. Perry did it SIX times. Now he actually did throw a fastball but he morphed into a junker too, and when he was throwing 300+ innings he wasn't gassing it up.