There is a trend going around in baseball about pitching. It’s not a good one. And if rumors of change become reality, then it’s going to get a lot worse.
In 1997, the Atlanta Braves‘ starting rotation threw 1,096.2 innings between them. Since 1980, that has been the team record, with similar numbers (within 60 innings) in 1992-93, and 1998-2000.
Starting pitching has been the hallmark of the franchise, but of course there were 3 Hall of Famers anchoring the mound in those years.
Throwing out the strike years of 1981 and 1994, and some of the least innings from Braves’ starters were recent: 2016 (880.1), with 2017 ranking 4th (914.1… thank you R.A. Dickey).
The Braves are trying to get back to some more dominant starting pitching now, but there’s a major concern I see on the horizon… one exhibited strongly during this year’s playoffs: the reluctance of a manager to let starters go deep into games.
There’s Reasons
Sure, I get it: in a do-or-die scenario, managers feel like they can’t afford to allow a pitcher to work himself out of trouble – especially after a couple of runs have already scored.
The poster child for this in the “How to Handle Pitchers” book that every manager gets constant video updates on in Yu Darvish.
You saw this: it was World Series Game 7.
- First inning: 2 runs scored by Houston
- Second inning: 3 more, and Darvish was gone. The Astros were never challenged after that.
Was that the right move in that instance to remove Darvish? Probably – and frankly, the Dodgers had little choice. But so many pitchers are not even being permitted to get to the 3rd trip through lineups, it seems.
In their series vs. the Astros the Yankees’ starters went 6, 4, 6, 5, 7, 4.2, and 3.1 innings. In the Indians’ series (which they won, of course), it was 3.1, 5.1, 7, 7, and 4.1 while the Indians starters went 6.2, 2.2, 5.2, 1.2 and 3.2.
I was actually surprised to see 3 instances of 7-inning stints. But none of these outings saw any starter see the 8th… and that was rare for other clubs as well.
Heck, Justin Verlander’s complete game in the ALCS was talked about reverently until the end of the world Series!
New Paradigm Forming?
We’re hearing new terms: “piggyback starts” – as in a starter going 4 innings, then yielding to another ‘starting’ pitcher who is also scheduled for 4 innings… before the 8th or 9th inning guy mops up.
What’s going on here?
Today it’s happening in the playoffs (for the most part), but I think it’s a trend that may change the game. There’s a few reasons.
In short, I mainly believe it’s the mortal fear of pitching injuries that has many minor league starters going 4-5-6 innings – or 100 pitches max, regardless of the inning total.
These pitchers graduate through the majors and then idea of changing their habits to allow them to extend further is anathema to pitching coaches and managers alike.
So at the first sign of trouble – or 100 pitches, or the pitcher’s spot in the (National League) lineup comes up in the middle of the game – you replace him.
You may as well have the DH in the NL if the starters never grab a bat more than once.
Here’s the other reasons why this will probably continue:
- The MLB Player’s Association has been lobbying for a 26th player on the active roster for some time now. If you’re going to baby your pitchers, then the 26th man – just as in double-headers – will almost certainly be a pitcher. Maybe 2 when that universal DH rule is adopted.
- The MLB is talking about league expansion. 2 more teams. 26 to 28 more pitching jobs (not counting the 30 more from the previous point). Think all of those will be major league quality arms? Guess again.
- Want to be analytical? Sure: one of the reasons people think that DiMaggio’s 56-game streak will never be broken is because of this ‘age of pitching specialization’ – where batters don’t see the same pitcher 3 or 4 times a night. Well then, apply that theory to the entire game and entire lineup: change ’em early and often!
Hey – in this day and age of analytics, that last point is probably being lobbied hard in several Front Offices. That may especially be true among teams with lower budgets who can’t afford the better pitchers and have weak farms to help them out (I’m looking at you, Miami).
So instead of 3 frontline starters making $10-20 million apiece, teams could opt to use 5 or 6 cheap guys for those slots… piggybacking them. After all, why spend $15 million on a guy who only goes 4 or 5 innings?
It’s nutty (and messes with the roster), but we’re heading that way.
So the Braves?
More from Tomahawk Take
- Atlanta Braves 2023 Preseason Top 30 Prospects List: 11-15
- Braves News: Braves sign Luplow, Atlanta’s shortstop plans, more
- Atlanta Braves Could Go With Six-Man Rotation in 2023
- Atlanta Braves sign free agent outfielder Jordan Luplow
- Atlanta Braves 2023 Preseason Top 30 Prospects List: 16-20
The trend hasn’t taken hold yet…In the 38 seasons since 1980, 2014 saw the 5th highest starter innings. But 2015 was 16th most, 2016 was 20th most and 2017 23rd most.
The trend is going sharply downward: 2,205 fewer starting innings since that 2014 apex.
The Braves grabbed hurlers for 2017 that were supposed to be ‘innings eaters’ – Dickey, Colon, and Garcia. That didn’t quite work out, but at least their thinking was still in the right place.
But for 2018 (at least so far), we have multiple starters who look like they should be able to routinely go 6 or 7 innings and maybe longer. They’ve got the talent coming: use it and don’t knuckle under to this acceptance of mediocrity.
Averaging 6 innings over 162 games gets the team to 972 innings…which would have been good enough for 15th place in the past 38 Braves’ seasons.
6.5 innings on average? That’s nearly what the 1997 team did.
Next: Do I have to pick just one?
And that, my friends, would be a trend toward success.