4-15 Post Game Thread

[jdk82]

Wow 160 innings in relief. He must have pitched almost every game.

Starters used to go 300 IP regularly as well, wonder what they were doing different back then.

[jim]

Well, there is also the argument that a starting pitcher's job is easier because he only has to go out there every fifth or sixth day, whereas a reliever is going to be going out there three or four times a week, and that doesn't count all the times he may have to warm up for the possibility of going into a game.

It doesn't surprise me, therefore, that a reliever can only go 70-80 innings nowadays, although it should be pointed out that guys like Sutter and Gossage used to pitch 100 innings routinely, and of course Mike Marshall once pitched more than 160 innings - in relief (1974 or 1975).

I think you can make the argument that there are things that are easier about starting than relieving, like you said knowing when you are going to go. But the bottom line is that pitchers as a group who have changed roles (starter to reliever/reliever to starter) have had their ERA's go down when moving into a reliever role, and up when going into a starters role.

[Richie Allen]

Wow 160 innings in relief. He must have pitched almost every game.

Starters used to go 300 IP regularly as well, wonder what they were doing different back then.

And it wasn't unusual for a reliever to pitch the final two or three innings.

[Popeye_Card]

Well, there is also the argument that a starting pitcher's job is easier because he only has to go out there every fifth or sixth day, whereas a reliever is going to be going out there three or four times a week, and that doesn't count all the times he may have to warm up for the possibility of going into a game.

It doesn't surprise me, therefore, that a reliever can only go 70-80 innings nowadays, although it should be pointed out that guys like Sutter and Gossage used to pitch 100 innings routinely, and of course Mike Marshall once pitched more than 160 innings - in relief (1974 or 1975).

I think you can make the argument that there are things that are easier about starting than relieving, like you said knowing when you are going to go. But the bottom line is that pitchers as a group who have changed roles (starter to reliever/reliever to starter) have had their ERA's go down when moving into a reliever role, and up when going into a starters role.

Speaking just pure performance metrics (i.e. ERA), that difference is going to be due to a few factors. If a reliever comes in and struggles, there's a safety net--if he gives up a walk or two and a couple of hits, it's on to the next reliever. Whereas a starter is going to stay out there and work through it before the 5th inning or so, because the team needs to chew up innings. Also, relievers are usually going to have their situations cherry-picked for them. In the case of a Looper, he probably wasn't going to enter an inning with 2 of the 3 batters coming up being lefties. As a starter, you have to face all types--sometimes that's good (facing the opposing pitcher). Sometimes it's bad (facing a lefty slugger that would usually get a LOOGY out of the bullpen).

I'm still intrigued by the Looper conversion. It may just be bad memory on my part, but his pitches seem to have much better late sinking movement to them this year vs. last year. And his control and command have improved, for whatever reasons. Maybe it's as simple as him knowing that he doesn't have a safety net now, and he needs to attack hitters and limit walks.

If he can keep pounding the bottom half of the zone and limit the walks, I think we could be looking at a 4.00-4.50 ERA over 180 innings or so. I'd be very happy with that, considering what you would have paid on the open market for that kind of performance from a free agent.

--P--

[Jmodene]

Right on, Popeye. 4.50 or better would be gravy. I'd settle for league average from Looper. The main concern, as noted above, is health - whether Looper can successfully handle the transition. (I keep thinking of Rick Aguilera.) So far, though, he seems to have a handle on things; he's not overthrowing, trying to get more K's, and seems to have a plan out there (give credit to Duncan for setting the course, and to Looper for staying on course instead of being stubborn like Stephenson, Tomko, or Marquis).

As for Mike Marshall, he pitched in 106 games that year, a major league record for games pitched in a single season. And he did it throwing a screwball, which is supposed to destroy your arm, but in his case it didn't.

Richie is correct, too, about the way relievers used to be used - it wasn't until Sutter that closers started being used strictly in save situations (it was because Sutter kept breaking down in the second half of the season); it wasn't until Eckersley that they started pitching only the ninth inning.

We're seeing some relaxing of that now - we're seeing a few more "4-out saves" than we used to (Falkenborg got a 2-inning save today for Memphis, FWIW) - but I doubt we'll go back to the days of closers throwing 100 innings.

[skmsw]

Starters used to go 300 IP regularly as well, wonder what they were doing different back then.

A short answer to your question: the number of pitches it takes to play a whole baseball game has gone up steadily. Around 1934, 110 pitches was the average 9-inning ballgame. Now it is well over 160. Why is that?

There are deeper lineups and more power hitters now.

It takes 27 outs to finish a game, but the number of baserunners you can allow during that time is unlimited. More power means pitching more carefully (more balls, more walks). Deeper lineups means fewer hitters you can challenge. More power and deeper lineups means more baserunners and more runs scored. All of the above means more pitches thrown.

Yes, some pitchers used to occasionally throw 150 pitches in a start, or go all the way thru the 14th inning, etc. But overall, 300 IP was not a lot more pitches thrown on average in 1950, than around 215 innings today.

[The Third Man]

160+ underrates Marshall's season - he pitched 208 innings in 1974, in 106 appearances (and 179 innings the year before). That's 2 innings each game with an off day every third game.

Marshall's '72-'74 is a pretty amazing stretch...

1972: 116 innings, 200 ERA+, 87 PRAR
1973: 179 innings, 143 ERA+, 88 PRAR
1974: 208 innings, 141 ERA+, 82 PRAR

[Richie Allen]

160+ underrates Marshall's season - he pitched 208 innings in 1974, in 106 appearances (and 179 innings the year before). That's 2 innings each game with an off day every third game.

Marshall's '72-'74 is a pretty amazing stretch...

1972: 116 innings, 200 ERA+, 87 PRAR
1973: 179 innings, 143 ERA+, 88 PRAR
1974: 208 innings, 141 ERA+, 82 PRAR

Which is why we saw one of those rare instances where a reliever won the Cy Young award in '74. He was also third in the MVP voting. By the way, Al Hrabosky was 5th in the Cy Young voting that year.