Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, it's the first year for the new playoff format, and regardless of what you think about the new rules it has certainly increased the playoff aspirations for a few teams.
Something that's been popping up around the internets lately centers on the playoff roster rules. Currently, teams are allowed to make changes to their roster between playoff series. The Wild Card Play In game is, technically, a playoff series. This means that teams can change their roster both before and after the game. Since it's a one-game series, there is little need to have more than one starting pitcher on the roster for the series.
More than a few people have proposed that the best strategy for the play in game would be to eschew a starting pitcher all together, instead using relievers for the entire game. Relievers tend to be more effective on a per inning basis than starters and the platoon advantage (left vs left) could be taken advantage of more frequently. That's a perfectly logical argument. In 2012: The average starter has an ERA of 4.22, strikes out 19% of hitters and walks 7.5% of hitters The average reliever has a 3.64 ERA, strikes out 22% of hitters and walks 9% of hitters
With off days, teams could empty their bullpens for the play in game and still use their number one starters should they make it to the next round.
I doubt any team will have the balls to try it, but it's a sound strategy.
It does seem like an interesting plan, but I just can't see a team doing it. I still predict that all 4 teams will use their most effective starting pitcher (whether it's their Ace or just someone that's on a roll at the time like Kris Medlen) and will play the game like a normal game.
I really can't stand this play-in WC game. It's ridiculous that a team like the Braves could be eliminated based on 1 game when they have the WC basically locked up and are just stuck in a division with a team with a better record.
If your stats about relief pitchers are accurate, why would any team ever start a starting pitcher, in any games? Just use this strategy in all games, and assign all pitchers to bullpen use as needed?
Or conversely, the simpler expedient of keeping the one needed starter on the roster for the single wildcard game, use him normally, and replace the other four starters with position player depth in order to platoon?
All just another example of the commissioners office coming up with a cockamamie idea without thinking it through, with the attitude of "Let's try this once, and see how it works". Like the DH in one league, and then not being able to think themselves out of the muddle for a half a century, so just letting it go on and on..
By the way, could the relievers stats be influence by the fact that they usually have one or two double-switched defensive replacements in the batting order by the time they get into the game? Is there a significant difference in the discrepancy in the NL against the AL, where this would be less of a factor?
If your stats about relief pitchers are accurate, why would any team ever start a starting pitcher, in any games? Just use this strategy in all games, and assign all pitchers to bullpen use as needed?
Not enough roster spots. Very few pitchers can pitch anywhere close to 162 games a year.
Quote:
Or conversely, the simpler expedient of keeping the one needed starter on the roster for the single wildcard game, and replace the other four starters with position player depth in order to platoon?
That's also a possibility.
Quote:
All just another example of the commissioners office coming up with a cockamamie idea without thinking it through, with the attitude of "Let's try this once, and see how it works". Like the DH in one league, and then not being able to think themselves out of the muddle for a half a century, so just letting it go on and on..
I doubt any team will have the balls to try it, but it's a sound strategy.
It would require incredible balls to try this.
There would be the media dynamic where anytime anyone does try something new, and it fails, the experimenter gets crucified in the press for "obvious stupidity."
This would be magnified by the particular situation....a game where the entire season is on the line, win or go home. "...and for some reason Blasters manager Sam Soandso decided that the most critical game of the year would be a good time to start conducting experiments with his pitching staff, seating ace Frank Flashball who won 18 games for the Blasters in favor of pitchers like.....etc"
It would be the sort of move where if it failed, it might cost the manager his job.
By the way, could the relievers stats be influence by the fact that they usually have one or two double-switched defensive replacements in the batting order by the time they get into the game? Is there a significant difference in the discrepancy in the NL against the AL, where this would be less of a factor?
Using 2012 stats
PITCHER GROUP, K%, BB%, ERA, FIP, xFIP, SIERA
AL RELIEF, 21.7, 8.6, 3.48, 3.79, 3.95, 3.52
AL START, 18.2, 7.5, 4.40, 4.32, 4.17, 4.14
AL relievers strike out 19% more hitters than AL starters (21.7/18.2), walk 15% more hitters, have an ERA 21% below, have a FIP 12% below, have an xFIP 5% below and a SIERA 15% below.
AL relievers strike out 16% more hitters than NL starters, walk 28% more hitters, have an ERA 7% below, have a FIP 5% below, have an xFIP 2% below and have a SIERA 5% above.
THere appears to be less descrepency between NL relievers and NL starters than there is between AL relievers and AL starters.
Not enough roster spots. Very few pitchers can pitch anywhere close to 162 games a year.
I did not suggest that every pitcher rigidly pitch exactly two outs every day, and if I did, I misspoke. If each pitcher pitched through the batting order once, that would use most pitchers every four days, pitching three innings per appearance. Presumably, most MLB managers would be able to figure out a way to budget a 12-man staff with pitchers rarely pitching more than about 3 innings, and nobody ever pitching on back-to-back days.
You'd need to get about 60 innings a week out of 12 pitchers, which is 5 innings a week per pitcher, with most of them pitching several innings per appearance. If you have a couple of pitchers who are exceptionally good, you could probably squeeze 8 or even ten innings a week out of them, depending on the characteristics of the individual pitcher, who have a natural tendency to vary. I don't understand how you can be having so much trouble with this simple arithmetic concept without leaping to an absurdly extreme scenario and attributing it to my suggestion. The above explanation should not be necessary, but apparently in this case, it is.
I don't understand how you can be having so much trouble with this simple arithmetic concept without leaping to an absurdly extreme scenario.
Well, perhaps because in your original post you didn't mention anything about pitching through the batting order once.
In my original post, and the article that I link to, using pitchers to take advantage of platoon splits was one of the main ideas. That could not happen if pitchers pitched through the entire batting order.
That's probably why I had trouble understanding you - you didn't inform me that you were talking about something different than what I was talking about.
There would be the media dynamic where anytime anyone does try something new, and it fails, the experimenter gets crucified in the press for "obvious stupidity."
This would be magnified by the particular situation....a game where the entire season is on the line, win or go home. "...and for some reason Blasters manager Sam Soandso decided that the most critical game of the year would be a good time to start conducting experiments with his pitching staff, seating ace Frank Flashball who won 18 games for the Blasters in favor of pitchers like.....etc"
It would be the sort of move where if it failed, it might cost the manager his job.
If any team were to try something like this, it'd likely be the Tampa Rays. Joe Madden is anything but conservative in his managing and the front office is quite creative in its thinking.
One thing holding them back from doing this might be the fact that they have 2 ace pitchers (James Shields and David Price). They could start 1 in the play-in game and one in the first game of the next playoff round.
Dave Cameron's article that I linked to, suggest that the Braves may employ such a strategy - based upon the fact that they have an amazing bullpen anchored by the insanely dominant Craig Kimbrel.
In my original post, and the article that I link to, using pitchers to take advantage of platoon splits was one of the main ideas. That could not happen if pitchers pitched through the entire batting order.
And it could also not happen changing pitchers with every R/L batter change, because that would use up 12 pitchers a game, and you have already pointed out that very few pitchers can pitch 162 games. But civilization has learned how to find middle ground, without being locked into one extreme or the other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
