71 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

I'd view it as 1-5 is your rotation's ceiling and 6-10 is the floor, you'd obviously prefer both to be high but a decent 6-10 makes it harder for your season to go off the rails

Meh, season still likely goes off the rails if you have to venture deep into 6-10. These aren't guys you expect to have league average ERAs. If they're under 5.5 you're probably content and under 5 you're very happy. If they're under 4 like Suarez was last year then you're thrilled and as t least somewhat shocked.

I think the O's have as good as a group as you could hope for here, but if we need to use them for more than maybe 25 starts we're likely gonna be in trouble. Not definitely in trouble, though, which reflects how much less crappy our guys are than most teams who'd be buried if you need to use that many starters who didn't make your OD rotation.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I think the starting pitching on this team is going to be bottom 10 in MLB by year's end. Bottom 5 is possible. Too much injury possibility and possibility for underperformance with absolutely no reinforcements aside from Suarez.

This was the only reason why the quality of depth was brought up in this thread

[jamesdean]

Depth is one thing but what's the quality of it?  You would have to think the home ERA is going to regress this year at because of the wall being moved in.  Most on here wanted the dimensions changed but I think you're going to regret it once the balls start flying into the seats in the dead of summer.  

 

Another phrase that really irritates me is, "innings eater."  Anyone can stand out there and go 7 innings.  Hell, give me a million dollars and I'll be happy to lob the ball for 6-7 innings every 5 days, get my brains beat in and preserve the bullpen.  That's why I loved Burnes- you knew that you were almost always going to get a solid start out of him and the bullpen would get a break from Hyde's quick, trigger finger.  Do they even have someone like that now?  Maybe GRod....maybe Eflin.  But will they do it consistently?  Like I've said, this team better be prepared to score a lot of runs.  I don't care how they do it but if not, you're looking at best, an 85-win team in my opinion. 

[BSLChrisStoner]

Depth is one thing but what's the quality of it?  You would have to think the home ERA is going to regress this year at because of the wall being moved in.  Most on here wanted the dimensions changed but I think you're going to regret it once the balls start flying into the seats in the dead of summer.  

 

Another phrase that really irritates me is, "innings eater."  Anyone can stand out there and go 7 innings.  Hell, give me a million dollars and I'll be happy to lob the ball for 6-7 innings every 5 days, get my brains beat in and preserve the bullpen.  That's why I loved Burnes- you knew that you were almost always going to get a solid start out of him and the bullpen would get a break from Hyde's quick, trigger finger.  Do they even have someone like that now?  Maybe GRod....maybe Eflin.  But will they do it consistently?  Like I've said, this team better be prepared to score a lot of runs.  I don't care how they do it but if not, you're looking at best, an 85-win team in my opinion. 

No they can't. 

 

The average 2024 MLB start was 5.2 innings. 

 

Having a starter regularly take the ball, and give you 30 starts, and 160 competitive innings (not immediately taken out of games, generally league average for the rotation slot) is extremely valuable....   so then you aren't dipping into that extended depth, and getting less innings, and likely less competitive innings. 

[jamesdean]

No they can't. 
 
The average 2024 MLB start was 5.2 innings. 
 
Having a starter regularly take the ball, and give you 30 starts, and 160 competitive innings (not immediately taken out of games, generally league average for the rotation slot) is extremely valuable....   so then you aren't dipping into that extended depth, and getting less innings, and likely less competitive innings. 

Chris, anyone can throw 7 innings. They don't because of
injury paranoia or because they might be getting hammered.

[Mackus]

Chris, anyone can throw 7 innings. They don't because of
injury paranoia or because they might be getting hammered.

Right but it doesn't really count if you're getting bludgeoned to a 6+ ERA. When people describe a innings eater they're talking about someone who has a history of avoiding injuries (being available) and being pitch efficient enough to remain in games reasonably deep all while managing an ERA that doesn't require removing them from the rotation. Innings eaters are typically back-end guys, so the ERA thing is the key, they're right on the edge of not being good enough but they're availability keeps them in the mix.

If the term bothers you, it bothers you, we've all got pet peeves. But I don't think there is much ambiguity over the meaning.

[jamesdean]

Outside of the rare TOR starters who consistently go deep into games, "innings eaters" to me, are synonymous with a mediocre to lousy pitchers who's main function is to take their lumps for the team and preserve the bullpen. Every team has them.

What constitutes an innings eater today? 5 innings?

[Mackus]

Outside of the rare TOR starters who consistently go deep into games, "innings eaters" to me, are synonymous with a mediocre to lousy pitchers who's main function is to take their lumps for the team and preserve the bullpen. Every team has them.

What constitutes an innings eater today? 5 innings?

Yes, that's what it means. A backend guy whose best attribute is availability.

160 innings counts as an innings eater these days. Fewer than 60 guys qualified last year and only 21 reached 180. It's more about making every start than going 6+.

I think that the abundance and effectiveness of relievers is a bigger factor in starters going fewer innings per start. In the 70s, starters prevented more runs than relievers did, so you used your starters as much as you could. Now, relievers are better at preventing runs, so you use your relievers as much as you can. Pretty common sense approach, IMO. There aren't many starters out there these days that are better in the 6th or 7th inning than the guys in the pen. The guys that are, are extremely valuable.

[jamesdean]

Yes, that's what it means. A backend guy whose best attribute is availability.

160 innings counts as an innings eater these days. Fewer than 60 guys qualified last year and only 21 reached 180. It's more about making every start than going 6+.

I think that the abundance and effectiveness of relievers is a bigger factor in starters going fewer innings per start. In the 70s, starters prevented more runs than relievers did, so you used your starters as much as you could. Now, relievers are better at preventing runs, so you use your relievers as much as you can. Pretty common sense approach, IMO. There aren't many starters out there these days that are better in the 6th or 7th inning than the guys in the pen. The guys that are, are extremely valuable.

Yes, the evolution of the overpowering bullpen arms has definitely played a huge role in teams being content for a starter to go 5 innings at the most.  For me personally, it's a sad commentary on the sport and specifically, starting pitching.  Baseball is cyclic so I do expect it to return one day to starters throwing 7-9 innings but it's going to take a radical, philosophical adjustment from all levels of the game. 

[Mackus]

Yes, the evolution of the overpowering bullpen arms has definitely played a huge role in teams being content for a starter to go 5 innings at the most. For me personally, it's a sad commentary on the sport and specifically, starting pitching. Baseball is cyclic so I do expect it to return one day to starters throwing 7-9 innings but it's going to take a radical, philosophical adjustment from all levels of the game.

I think it would take a rules change. Teams aren't going to intentionally make bad tactical decisions, and using your better pitchers more often is an obvious smart thing to do. Some rules changes that handicaps velocity and incentivizes one guy pitching deeper into games would be needed. 3 batter minimum rule is a very small first step. Total number of relievers per game or limits on how many games a RP can pitch could do it.

And you'd need corresponding rules changes to balance out the huge advantages that hitters would get from forcing starters to go deeper, or else be comfortable with runs increasing dramatically . For someone who seems to dislike change, that's a lot of change to ask for!

[jamesdean]

I think it would take a rules change. Teams aren't going to intentionally make bad tactical decisions, and using your better pitchers more often is an obvious smart thing to do. Some rules changes that handicaps velocity and incentivizes one guy pitching deeper into games would be needed. 3 batter minimum rule is a very small first step. Total number of relievers per game or limits on how many games a RP can pitch could do it.

And you'd need corresponding rules changes to balance out the huge advantages that hitters would get from forcing starters to go deeper, or else be comfortable with runs increasing dramatically . For someone who seems to dislike change, that's a lot of change to ask for!

I'm not against change as long as the balance of a sport stays intact.  When the steroid era was in full bloom, the offensive numbers were absurd and a real detriment to the sport from a historical perspective.  We finally came out of that over time but now, it's like 1968 being revisited, which was also ridiculous for completely opposite reasons.  You should always strive for balance so that all the fans get to enjoy whatever their preference is.  You may be right about rule changes but I do think that when revolutionary players come on to the scene (check Lamar Jackson), they can take a sport in a whole different direction.  That's why baseball always seems to stay fluid through the decades.  Can you imagine the impact Babe Ruth had when he became a full-time outfielder in 1920?  His 54 homeruns were more than any one team that year.  It wasn't immediate, but eventually, he changed the game.  I don't know who it will be, but I do think there will be a pitcher who will defy today's injury profiles, start regularly throwing complete games and change the expected paradigm.  And I for one, will welcome it with open arms.  

[Ravens2006]

The COR rating of the baseball can be changed to make the ball less jumpy. Bats can be engineered to be less potent, or they could go to all composites that are built to specs that limit some power. They could expand the zone to allow for more offspeed, they could raise the stitches to increase break without the need the spin it as hard. There are many things that could be done to make the game different. Batters would have to adjust and shorten swings, bunting and spreading the ball to all fields could become relevant again. Contact could matter more. Defense could matter more. Lots of options. In the end it would be a more enjoyable watch to my eyes.

But again, none of that's gonna happen. The powers are happy with HRs and Ks and consumable young arms throwing 102 for a couple years before blowing their arms out, to be replaced by the next pawn throwing 102...