Options
An MLB pitching staff of only relievers.
MGLICKER
Posts: 7,995 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Been thinking about this for many years. I would like to see a mediocre National League team use a staff of only 1 inning hurlers. A fresh arm for every 3 outs. Trade or convert your starters and staff 9 or 10 relievers instead.
As a National League team, you would be able to insert pinch hitters at will. Only real problem would be extra inning games.
As a National League team, you would be able to insert pinch hitters at will. Only real problem would be extra inning games.
0
Comments
<< <i>I'm not sure if you watch much baseball or just have a difficult time with simple math but the numbers don't work at all. You'd need close to 20 relievers to do what you propose as they can't be out there pitching EVERY day. >>
15 pitches every day does not seem like too much of a burden. Hell, Cy Young occasionally pitched double headers.
35 warm ups plus 15 game pitches egual 8100 throws a season. I will defer to the experts but I suspect that the warmups are much easier on the shoulder and arm than realtime throws. I stand by my hypothesis.
Have a pleasant Thanksgiving all. I am off to Dinner.
Aside from the rest problem that was pointed out, why would you pitch your best pitcher the same amount of innings as your worst pitcher? Wouldn't you want your best pitcher out there more?
Unless the plan is to have a team of Mariano Rivera's, Chapman's, and Kimbrel's...yeah, I am sure everyone would like a staff like that, until it comes time to pay them. In that case, why not just sign the best four starters in baseball, and the best two relievers, lol.
<< <i>I'm not sure if you watch much baseball or just have a difficult time with simple math but the numbers don't work at all. You'd need close to 20 relievers to do what you propose as they can't be out there pitching EVERY day. >>
Something similar could be done with 10 pitchers: 17 starts, 31 relief appearances, 162 innings
<< <i>Looking at your idea and the way you laid it out...you basically have nine guys pitching every game.
Aside from the rest problem that was pointed out, why would you pitch your best pitcher the same amount of innings as your worst pitcher? Wouldn't you want your best pitcher out there more?
Unless the plan is to have a team of Mariano Rivera's, Chapman's, and Kimbrel's...yeah, I am sure everyone would like a staff like that, until it comes time to pay them. In that case, why not just sign the best four starters in baseball, and the best two relievers, lol. >>
I mentioned in the first thread that I would try this with a mediocre team. A team that was probably not going anywhere anyway. National league would be an obvious plus as you would never have to send a pitcher to the plate.
At the least it would sure cause a buzz in the otherwise sleepy game of baseball.
<< <i>
<< <i>Looking at your idea and the way you laid it out...you basically have nine guys pitching every game.
Aside from the rest problem that was pointed out, why would you pitch your best pitcher the same amount of innings as your worst pitcher? Wouldn't you want your best pitcher out there more?
Unless the plan is to have a team of Mariano Rivera's, Chapman's, and Kimbrel's...yeah, I am sure everyone would like a staff like that, until it comes time to pay them. In that case, why not just sign the best four starters in baseball, and the best two relievers, lol. >>
I mentioned in the first thread that I would try this with a mediocre team. A team that was probably not going anywhere anyway. National league would be an obvious plus as you would never have to send a pitcher to the plate.
At the least it would sure cause a buzz in the otherwise sleepy game of baseball. >>
I'm all for trying to find ways to leverage your chance to win. It is a novel approach, but in the end, it is highly doubtful it would create more wins if he team just did it the way they normally do.
The reality is that guys can't pitch every single game, even if only for an inning. They could, but their effectiveness would drop drastically.
<< <i>First off, that isn't at all what the OP proposed so I'm not exactly sure what your point is. >>
10 pitchers like that would be a staff of all relievers
<< <i>51 appearances is a FAR CRY from 162. We already know that there are MANY ways to configure a 10 member pitching staff to get through a season. >>
Yet teams now almost never use pitchers in a swingman role of both starting and relieving
<< <i>But IMO, your suggestion falls into the same problem that skin2 already pointed out and would probably be counter productive to the maximum number of wins that a team could garner with any given set of 10 pitchers. >>
You mean it would be hard to put together the perfect staff with seven All-Star pitchers on it? That's exactly why it should be used more often. Obviously not with nine guys each starting 18 games. But finding one or two of them would be a good way for most teams to give more innings and more important innings to their better pitchers
<< <i>
<< <i>LOL, I am glad I am not currently involved in a debate with Baseball...those take a lot out of you! Dude is relentless!
You and I agree on issues A LOT more than not. >>
I agree
<< <i>That you want to go off an argue a point of you're own making is weird. >>
I never wanted an argument
<< <i> It's one thing if you want to propose that as a tangential idea and see what others think >>
That's exactly what I did