Article: Future Hall-Of-Famer Cards: Sure Thing Hitters

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I don't disagree...in particular, I find slow working pitchers painful.

The reduced workload of starting pitchers along with the recent trend of de-emphasizing closers (no 40 save seasons in 2021) and I wonder how we'll define a hall of fame pitcher in 20 years.

I was stunned to see how many times during the playoffs all star and even Hall of Fame caliber starting pitchers who looked pretty strong still were yanked early in the game in favor of a cast of journeymen. Dave Roberts seems especially prone to this, but by no means was he the only one. I really did not get it, and more often than not it seemed to backfire. To me, a first principle of baseball has always been that by definition your starters are better pitchers than your relievers (POSSIBLE exception of superstar quality closer but even then not necessarily) and therefore if a starting pitcher is in command you leave him alone.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I was stunned to see how many times during the playoffs all star and even Hall of Fame caliber starting pitchers who looked pretty strong still were yanked early in the game in favor of a cast of journeymen. Dave Roberts seems especially prone to this, but by no means was he the only one. I really did not get it, and more often than not it seemed to backfire. To me, a first principle of baseball has always been that by definition your starters are better pitchers than your relievers (POSSIBLE exception of superstar quality closer but even then not necessarily) and therefore if a starting pitcher is in command you leave him alone.

I must be getting old, because when I was a kid in the 80's, looking at pitching lines from prior decades made them seem so....unreal. I mean even stuff from the 60's with 300 IP were crazy, but looking at the early pre-war stuff was even more nuts.

A kid today watching today's game would think the same about the baseball I grew up...200-275 IP seasons? 20 game winners? Jack Morris (and John Smoltz!) in Game 7 in 1991. It must seem like a different age!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I just don't get the thinking. You have the likely #1 or 2 guy for NL Cy Young and lock HOFer in Scherzer, who's pitching a reasonably good game and has good stuff, and you yank him in the 4th or 5th inning for some fungible guy who's pitched undistinguished middle relief for 5 teams in 8 years or whatever. I mean what is that?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I just don't get the thinking. You have the likely #1 or 2 guy for NL Cy Young and lock HOFer in Scherzer, who's pitching a reasonably good game and has good stuff, and you yank him in the 4th or 5th inning for some fungible guy who's pitched undistinguished middle relief for 5 teams in 8 years or whatever. I mean what is that?

The thinking is that the third time through a lineup, a starting pitcher gives up significantly higher OPS than the first two.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the thinking...especially if you have an ace pitcher who's dealing. An ace pitcher doing worse, even significantly worse, than his normal self, still could be better than a mediocre reliever.

Of course, back in the day, middle relievers were mediocre. Now they all throw 100 mph for 20 pitches, then fall apart.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

The thinking is that the third time through a lineup, a starting pitcher gives up significantly higher OPS than the first two.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the thinking...especially if you have an ace pitcher who's dealing. An ace pitcher doing worse, even significantly worse, than his normal self, still could be better than a mediocre reliever.

Of course, back in the day, middle relievers were mediocre. Now they all throw 100 mph for 20 pitches, then fall apart.

Only anecdotal but it didn't work out so well for Roberts against Atlanta, did it? I'm a traditionalist and for as long as I've watched the game, 3rd time around not as effective or not, the wisdom has been leave in a starter with good command.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Only anecdotal but it didn't work out so well for Roberts against Atlanta, did it? I'm a traditionalist and for as long as I've watched the game, 3rd time around not as effective or not, the wisdom has been leave in a starter with good command.

Well, those are data points...maybe if it happens often enough, the conventional wisdom will change! It's like science!

[TheAck]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Only anecdotal but it didn't work out so well for Roberts against Atlanta, did it? I'm a traditionalist and for as long as I've watched the game, 3rd time around not as effective or not, the wisdom has been leave in a starter with good command.

I think it's less about the effectiveness in any one game as an organization trying to protect an asset over the long term. They all seem to think that an arm has an exact number of pitches in it and if you keep the count down to 80-90 a game you'll get 5 more years out of a guy. Which is insane BS. I don't consider myself a traditionalist, but I must be... I hate pitch counts, quality starts, the runner on second in extra innings, the shift, and starting by committee. I blame Joe Maddon.

-Ben

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by TheAck

I don't consider myself a traditionalist, but I must be... I hate pitch counts, quality starts, the runner on second in extra innings, the shift, and starting by committee. I blame Joe Maddon.

-Ben

Quality starts is a funny one…not that long ago, people used to rail about 6 IP / 3 ER not being “quality” enough.

The game has passed that right by…in the postseason this year 6 IP / 3 ER was an epic performance, not simply “quality”.