7 inning pitchers rule

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

They can, but they don't because they cost so much money, are the riskiest for injury and have such good relief specialization . (well, when used properly which most managers still screw up)

Teams have figured out more and more how to optimize production. It's been shown that that even having a starter might be a bad idea for team wins relative to using a group of relievers who never face a lineup more than once per game. In 30 years, the starting pitcher may be as dead as the spitballer and the slap hitter

I know it's anecdotal but it seems I have seen innumerable games where the starter is on cruise control, gets yanked because of the pitch count, and the pen immediately gets shelled. Now I guess the comeback to that is yeah but the starter isn't nearly as effective past a point and might have been shelled anyhow.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I know it's anecdotal but it seems I have seen innumerable games where the starter is on cruise control, gets yanked because of the pitch count, and the pen immediately gets shelled. Now I guess the comeback to that is yeah but the starter isn't nearly as effective past a point and might have been shelled anyhow.

You can just look at the long sample size of what a lineup does against the same pitcher in a given game on their 2nd 3rd and 4th time up and you will see a long term trend of batting average going up and up.

Heck its usually pretty hard for a pitcher to face the same lineup in back to back starts

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

You can just look at the long sample size of what a lineup does against the same pitcher in a given game on their 2nd 3rd and 4th time up and you will see a long term trend of batting average going up and up.

Heck its usually pretty hard for a pitcher to face the same lineup in back to back starts

Perhaps, but isn't that offset by the fact that your starters are better pitchers than your relievers, for the most part? There's a reason, presumably, you want more innings out of those top 4 guys than the rest of the staff.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Farrell is nowhere near the class of Billy Martin was in the early 80s in regards to the disregard of pitch counts. Now it becomes more apparent why teams have improved bull-pens as many batters work to stretch counts during each plate appearance.

I read this article a few years ago about Martin:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul...chers-20110719

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Farrell is nowhere near the class of Billy Martin was in the early 80s in regards to the disregard of pitch counts. Now it becomes more apparent why teams have improved bull-pens as many batters work to stretch counts during each plate appearance.

I read this article a few years ago about Martin:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul...chers-20110719

The repeated fouling off of pitches can create some drama in a really intense matchup (in late innings of a playoff game for example), but otherwise is IMO a significant part of why games go on too long.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The repeated fouling off of pitches can create some drama in a really intense matchup (in late innings of a playoff game for example), but otherwise is IMO a significant part of why games go on too long.

Not to mention the dilution of the game-used ball market.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Must your foul sense of humor pervade every thread?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps, but isn't that offset by the fact that your starters are better pitchers than your relievers, for the most part? There's a reason, presumably, you want more innings out of those top 4 guys than the rest of the staff.

this is starting to be not true! so many relievers have become specialized on doing one thing (get leftys out for example) that it is probably easier to win if you threw 4 relievers at a lineup every game.

much less fun to watch tho

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

this is starting to be not true! so many relievers have become specialized on doing one thing (get leftys out for example) that it is probably easier to win if you threw 4 relievers at a lineup every game.

much less fun to watch tho

I am sure you are right. I liked watching games, though, much more when the presumption was that your starter was going as deep as he could, when there weren't long delays between every pitch, when batters weren't intentionally trying to jack the pitch count, when there weren't 10 pitching changes a game, etc. Without looking it up I am guessing games are a half hour longer than they were in the 70s on average, if not longer.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am sure you are right. I liked watching games, though, much more when the presumption was that your starter was going as deep as he could, when there weren't long delays between every pitch, when batters weren't intentionally trying to jack the pitch count, when there weren't 10 pitching changes a game, etc.

Amen, brother.

Perhaps they could just keep playing during the commercial breaks and then just show the actual pitches after the ad, like they do in golf. A pitcher walking around the mound, a batter adjusting his batting glove after every pitch and a golfer walking 200 yards between shots are all equally exciting, almost as exciting as 8 hours of coverage for the two minute Kentucky Derby.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am sure you are right. I liked watching games, though, much more when the presumption was that your starter was going as deep as he could, when there weren't long delays between every pitch, when batters weren't intentionally trying to jack the pitch count, when there weren't 10 pitching changes a game, etc. Without looking it up I am guessing games are a half hour longer than they were in the 70s on average, if not longer.

Oh, I am by no means in favor of watching this happen. But it's probably optimal for winning.

IMO, they need the pitch clock like in the minors to help speed things up.(and ditch replay with the exception of plays at the plate and calls involving borders, like homers and fouls...etc)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Oh, I am by no means in favor of watching this happen. But it's probably optimal for winning.

IMO, they need the pitch clock like in the minors to help speed things up.(and ditch replay with the exception of plays at the plate and calls involving borders, like homers and fouls...etc)

I think I would also be in favor of a maximum number of fouls until it counts as a K.