Crazy Idea - All Relievers?

[Aristotelian]

O's bullpen is a full one run better in ERA vs starters. The difference was less drastic last year but still significant. 2013 it was a full one run differential again. For MLB, bullpen ERA is about half a run better than SP ERA.

Given how hard it is to develop starters, could you imagine constructing a pitching roster of almost entirely "bullpen" arms, expected to pitch no more than a couple of innings a game, with no "starter"? If you have a bunch of guys with options you could make it work, just send guys down when they are tired and constantly rotate in fresh arms.

Maybe you have three starters that pitch every fifth day, let's say Ubaldo, Chen, and Gonzo. Then mix and match guys the two days that the starters have off. Carry 9 (maybe 10) relievers at any one time but if a bunch of them had options you could effectively have say 15 or 16 "relievers".

Last year our guys totaled 1460 innings. Let's say the three starters pitch 525 innings, you would need 935 from the rest. Our regular relievers averaged about 60 innings each, with Zach pitching a high of 76. If you had 15 guys pitching an average of 62 innings, you could make this work.

Advantages:

-Play matchups throughout the game

-Overall, relievers

-Much cheaper. You would only need a couple of guys making SP money, and by necessity you would need a bunch of young guys with options

-Never have to use your #4 or #5 starter except in mop-up duty

-More fun for the manager and GM

-Guys like Wright, Britton, etc., may perform better in the bullpen

Tell me why I am wrong.

[notyourbuddy]

Good luck finding 9-16 quality relievers to make your plan work.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Not that crazy. I've seen similar concepts discussed. Seems like it might not be that hard to develop statistical modeling but probably too far out of the box right now.

[mdbdotcom]

Didn't Sparky Anderson suggest that we could do away with starters and just have guys who go through the batting order once?

I sometimes wonder why a team wouldn't have a late inning guy start the game, face the first 6 guys, and then replace him with the starter. The idea would be to open the game with two strong innings and let the "starter" follow with 6 or 7. If you have a good mix of lefties and righties, you could turn lineups around in the 3rd inning. Example: Hunter starts and is followed by Chen; or, McFarland starts and is followed by Tillman.

[Can_of_corn]

O's bullpen is a full one run better in ERA vs starters. The difference was less drastic last year but still significant. 2013 it was a full one run differential again. For MLB, bullpen ERA is about half a run better than SP ERA.

Given how hard it is to develop starters, could you imagine constructing a pitching roster of almost entirely "bullpen" arms, expected to pitch no more than a couple of innings a game, with no "starter"? If you have a bunch of guys with options you could make it work, just send guys down when they are tired and constantly rotate in fresh arms.

Maybe you have three starters that pitch every fifth day, let's say Ubaldo, Chen, and Gonzo. Then mix and match guys the two days that the starters have off. Carry 9 (maybe 10) relievers at any one time but if a bunch of them had options you could effectively have say 15 or 16 "relievers".

Last year our guys totaled 1460 innings. Let's say the three starters pitch 525 innings, you would need 935 from the rest. Our regular relievers averaged about 60 innings each, with Zach pitching a high of 76. If you had 15 guys pitching an average of 62 innings, you could make this work.

Advantages:

-Play matchups throughout the game

-Overall, relievers

-Much cheaper. You would only need a couple of guys making SP money, and by necessity you would need a bunch of young guys with options

-Never have to use your #4 or #5 starter except in mop-up duty

-More fun for the manager and GM

-Guys like Wright, Britton, etc., may perform better in the bullpen

Tell me why I am wrong.

I had a similer idea a couple years ago. Turns out even if you keep the shuttle to Norfolk running nonstop you won't be able to cover all the innings.

[MdSooner]

What in goodness name are you people trying to do with America's past time?

Leave the game alone!

[InsideCoroner]

I had a similer idea a couple years ago. Turns out even if you keep the shuttle to Norfolk running nonstop you won't be able to cover all the innings.

The idea is very intriguing until you do all the math. Even if you had five starters that went only five fixed innings, the wheels would fall off the bullpen very quickly. Even with Jose Oquendo as a one-man bench .

[Can_of_corn]

The idea is very intriguing until you do all the math. Even if you had five starters that went only five fixed innings, the wheels would fall off the bullpen very quickly. Even with Jose Oquendo as a one-man bench .

My idea was predicated upon all of the pitchers in question being able to get through a lineup one time. Nine and out. That way they would be eligible to pitch every three days or so. At first glance it works, you use a ~12 arms every three days.

But that assumes nothing goes wrong.

You would need so many guys at Norfolk and Bowie you could plug in that it would kill your 40 man roster.

[ExileAngelos]

Interesting concept. A few questions to ponder.

1. Who would qualify for the wins?

2. What would this do to length of the games?

3. Would there be a bigger incentive for cash strapped teams to do this since you are in essence not paying starter money to anyone?

4. How many pitchers would it truly require to pull off? If it is less than the normal 12 or 13 is that incentive enough to try since you would enjoy a huge bench?

For the record if I am old school and prefer to see my starter go the distance unless they are either tired or ineffective. Talk about a crazy concept there is one! LOL

[Can_of_corn]

Interesting concept. A few questions to ponder.

1. Who would qualify for the wins?

2. What would this do to length of the games?

3. Would there be a bigger incentive for cash strapped teams to do this since you are in essence not paying starter money to anyone?

4. How many pitchers would it truly require to pull off? If it is less than the normal 12 or 13 is that incentive enough to try since you would enjoy a huge bench?

For the record if I am old school and prefer to see my starter go the distance unless they are either tired or ineffective. Talk about a crazy concept there is one! LOL

Answering for my idea not the OP's.

1- Who cares?

2- Hopefully there wouldn't be more pitching changes then there is currently. It isn't uncommon to see four pitchers in a game under the current set up.

3- Yes, ideally the whole crew would get rotated out once they hit arb 2 or so. Hopefully I wouldn't have to pay any of them more then 3 million or so tops.

4- Therein lies the rub. You would have to have guys stashed in the minors you could switch out. The 40 man roster would be more of a hindrance then the 25.

Once again, not speaking for the OP.

[InsideCoroner]

My idea was predicated upon all of the pitchers in question being able to get through a lineup one time. Nine and out. That way they would be eligible to pitch every three days or so. At first glance it works, you use a ~12 arms every three days.

But that assumes nothing goes wrong.

You would need so many guys at Norfolk and Bowie you could plug in that it would kill your 40 man roster.

Right, that model was what I looked at as well (once through the line-up and done) but then each of your pitchers would be expected to effectively get nine outs and throw up to 75 pitches without needing to be yanked... no easy feat. Especially since opposing teams would match up pinch hitters knowing you couldn't do anything to dodge those bullets.

The concept still intrigues me, though. And hey, if you have guys that only throw the middle frames, they could theoretically win 40+ games in a year.

[Can_of_corn]

Right, that model was what I looked at as well (once through the line-up and done) but then each of your pitchers would be expected to effectively get nine outs and throw up to 75 pitches without needing to be yanked... no easy feat. Especially since opposing teams would match up pinch hitters knowing you couldn't do anything to dodge those bullets.

The concept still intrigues me, though. And hey, if you have guys that only throw the middle frames, they could theoretically win 40+ games in a year.

I would be rotating them so the wins were evenly distributed. That way they all get hosed in arbitration.

[InsideCoroner]

"Sorry, Mr. Boras, but while the 2.14 ERA on a pennant-winning team looks good on paper, the arbitration panel feels that 9 wins and 11 saves isn't enough to justify your asking price."

[sportsfan8703]

Just to think outside the box a little more. Say you have a reliever like Givens. You could have him face a RH's. Then when a LH comes up move him to SS/2nd. Then put him back in at Pitcher. His bat was what held him back as a position player. Ideally you could pair him with a combo player like an Adam Loewen and just have them alternate back and forth.

[ExileAngelos]

Answering for my idea not the OP's.

1- Who cares?

.

Are you serious? Baseball is the one sport where stats mean so much. You don't think it would be a big deal if by fluke some donkey middle relief type went 36-8 for a season?