Jim Henneman: Kevin Gausman's Inefficiency Is Emblematic Of League-Wide Problem

[PressBoxOnline]

Jim Henneman says Orioles starter Kevin Gausman is suffering from the same ailment that curtails so many young pitchers -- an inability to carry his best stuff beyond the 100-pitch mark.
https://www.pressboxonline.com/2017/06/28/orioles-starter-kevin-gausmans-inefficiency-is-emblematic-of-league-wide-problem

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, PressBoxOnline said:

Jim Henneman says Orioles starter Kevin Gausman is suffering from the same ailment that curtails so many young pitchers -- an inability to carry his best stuff beyond the 100-pitch mark.
https://www.pressboxonline.com/2017/06/28/orioles-starter-kevin-gausmans-inefficiency-is-emblematic-of-league-wide-problem

He's allowing an 817 OPS in the first an 886 OPS in the second and an 848 OPS in the fourth.

I don't think his problems are confined to the 100 pitch mark.

 

I also disagree with the entire premise that pitchers have to go past 100 pitches.  They need to build bullpens that can properly support pitchers that can only go 100 pitches.

[allquixotic]

If they want to speed up the game and make it so the next generation of 100 mph starters can go 7 innings like they did in the 60s when they ate real bacon and drank full-fat milk, they could just make it so that a foul ball counts as a normal strike with 2 strikes.

So any combination of 3 fouls, 3 takes of a strike, or 3 swings and misses will in every case lead to a strikeout, even if the ball lands 1 inch shy of a second-deck home run 3 times in a row.

Then a pitch that the opponent will foul off 8 times in a row (like they seem to do with every Orioles pitcher) becomes an out pitch. Tillman, Miley and Gausman would get around 15 strikeouts per game. 

It'd also cause most games to have soccer scores and last around 2 hours.

[interloper]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

He's allowing an 817 OPS in the first an 886 OPS in the second and an 848 OPS in the fourth.

I don't think his problems are confined to the 100 pitch mark.

 

I also disagree with the entire premise that pitchers have to go past 100 pitches.  They need to build bullpens that can properly support pitchers that can only go 100 pitches.

Article refuted with post #1. That was easy.

[Tx Oriole]

28 minutes ago, allquixotic said:

If they want to speed up the game and make it so the next generation of 100 mph starters can go 7 innings like they did in the 60s when they ate real bacon and drank full-fat milk, they could just make it so that a foul ball counts as a normal strike with 2 strikes.

So any combination of 3 fouls, 3 takes of a strike, or 3 swings and misses will in every case lead to a strikeout, even if the ball lands 1 inch shy of a second-deck home run 3 times in a row.

Then a pitch that the opponent will foul off 8 times in a row (like they seem to do with every Orioles pitcher) becomes an out pitch. Tillman, Miley and Gausman would get around 15 strikeouts per game. 

It'd also cause most games to have soccer scores and last around 2 hours.

I disagree. I would get confused. I am already confused reading this. Sorry don't mean to be tacky. I'd rather keep the game the way it is. 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

He's allowing an 817 OPS in the first an 886 OPS in the second and an 848 OPS in the fourth.

I don't think his problems are confined to the 100 pitch mark.

I also disagree with the entire premise that pitchers have to go past 100 pitches.  They need to build bullpens that can properly support pitchers that can only go 100 pitches.

Saying it's a problem that pitchers can't carry their best stuff past 100 pitches is like saying that it's a problem that the sky is blue and wind sometimes blows.  50 or 75 years ago pitchers still just threw 100 pitches per start on average, and today's game is set up to have everyone go max effort almost all the time.  

If you want pitchers to have their best stuff very deep into games you have to fundamentally change the sport.  You have to somehow incentivize or outright mandate teams to use pitchers in non-optimal ways.  You could tell teams that they only have 9 pitchers on their gameday roster including the five starters.  You could make every reliever after the 2nd one start all batters down 1-0 or 2-0.  You change the game like that and pitchers will have to pitch more and they'll have to let off and pace in non-key moments.  They will give up more runs unless you make some concurrent changes to the ball or the strike zone.

With no restrictions on pitcher usage or number of pitchers allowed the optimal strategy with a 25-man rosters is something like a ~5 inning starter going all out, and a series of all-out relievers following.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Saying it's a problem that pitchers can't carry their best stuff past 100 pitches is like saying that it's a problem that the sky is blue and wind sometimes blows.  50 or 75 years ago pitchers still just threw 100 pitches per start on average, and today's game is set up to have everyone go max effort almost all the time.  

If you want pitchers to have their best stuff very deep into games you have to fundamentally change the sport.  You have to somehow incentivize or outright mandate teams to use pitchers in non-optimal ways.  You could tell teams that they only have 9 pitchers on their gameday roster including the five starters.  You could make every reliever after the 2nd one start all batters down 1-0 or 2-0.  You change the game like that and pitchers will have to pitch more and they'll have to let off and pace in non-key moments.  They will give up more runs unless you make some concurrent changes to the ball or the strike zone.

With no restrictions on pitcher usage or number of pitchers allowed the optimal strategy with a 25-man rosters is something like a ~5 inning starter going all out, and a series of all-out relievers following.

If anything the piece should have delved into Gausman's inability to get deeper into the game with his 100 pitches.  That article would have at least had the possibility of being interesting.

[esmd]

48 minutes ago, interloper said:

Article refuted with post #1. That was easy.

Seriously.  The whole premise just makes no sense.

[Frobby]

46 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Saying it's a problem that pitchers can't carry their best stuff past 100 pitches is like saying that it's a problem that the sky is blue and wind sometimes blows.  50 or 75 years ago pitchers still just threw 100 pitches per start on average, and today's game is set up to have everyone go max effort almost all the time.  

Is there evidence that average pitches per start hasn't really changed in the last 50-75 years?    I didn't think that pitch-level data went back that far.

For what it's worth, Dylan Bundy ranks 15th in MLB in pitches per start, at 103.6.     Gausman and Miley rank 57th and 58th, at 96.8. There are 140 rotation spots, so 57/58 is still above average.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Is there evidence that average pitches per start hasn't really changed in the last 50-75 years?    I didn't think that pitch-level data went back that far.

For what it's worth, Dylan Bundy ranks 15th in MLB in pitches per start, at 103.6.     Gausman and Miley rank 57th and 58th, at 96.8. There are 140 rotation spots, so 57/58 is still above average.

 

There is sporadic data, including quite a bit from the 1950s Dodgers. They averaged around 100 pitches a start but with wider variation.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There is sporadic data, including quite a bit from the 1950s Dodgers. They averaged around 100 pitches a start but with wider variation.

For whatever it's worth, in 2005 there were 54 pitchers averaging 100 pitches per start.    This year there are 32.    That's from BP, and their data on this doesn't go back before 2005.

[DrungoHazewood]

36 minutes ago, Frobby said:

For whatever it's worth, in 2005 there were 54 pitchers averaging 100 pitches per start.    This year there are 32.    That's from BP, and their data on this doesn't go back before 2005.

I would guess there's been a decline over time. But maybe not as much as is commonly thought. It wouldn't surprise me if it's accelerated more recently.

[99ct]

7 hours ago, Tx Oriole said:

I disagree. I would get confused. I am already confused reading this. Sorry don't mean to be tacky. I'd rather keep the game the way it is. 

 

Haha all he really had to say was that a foul ball can count as strike three, rather than keeping the AB alive. Interesting idea actually, but not sure I like it in the end

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, 99ct said:

Haha all he really had to say was that a foul ball can count as strike three, rather than keeping the AB alive. Interesting idea actually, but not sure I like it in the end

It's a horrible idea, unless you want to see 15 strikeouts a game.