Third Time Through the Order Penalty

Vermonter At Large

SoxFan
Moderator
SoSH Member
Have the Sox adopted (officially or unofficially) the "third time through the batting order" penalty as a primary constraint for handling the pitching staff? It sure seems that way to me - except perhaps for Eovaldi.

I'm not even sure that's an actual thing - I think that the science is far from settled - some smart folks contend that the batting order penalty is really just a pitch count penalty viewed from another angle.

Even if it is a real thing, further shortening the length of starter outings would seem counterintuitive - even with an efficient rotation and a deep, quality bullpen, neither of which the Sox have.

Forgive me if this is being discussed elsewhere, but I haven't been a regular here for many years. Still, I wanted to bounce this question off the smartest baseball folks I know because I can't find the answer elsewhere.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Have the Sox adopted (officially or unofficially) the "third time through the batting order" penalty as a primary constraint for handling the pitching staff? It sure seems that way to me - except perhaps for Eovaldi.

I'm not even sure that's an actual thing - I think that the science is far from settled - some smart folks contend that the batting order penalty is really just a pitch count penalty viewed from another angle.

Even if it is a real thing, further shortening the length of starter outings would seem counterintuitive - even with an efficient rotation and a deep, quality bullpen, neither of which the Sox have.

Forgive me if this is being discussed elsewhere, but I haven't been a regular here for many years. Still, I wanted to bounce this question off the smartest baseball folks I know because I can't find the answer elsewhere.
I think there's a strong argument they have: https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/split.cgi?t=p&team=BOS&year=2022#times

RS starters have only faced batters a third time through the order a total of 54 times in 16 starts. (As opposed to the second time being aprox 200 through 25 starts.)

Eovaldi has 24 of those at bats at an .812 OPS. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=eovalna01&year=2022&t=p#times

Pivetta has 12 with a 1.017 OPS. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=pivetni01&year=2022&t=p#times

Wacha has 11 with a .636 OPS. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=wachami01&year=2022&t=p#times

Hill has 4.

Houck has 2.

Whitlock has 0.

If you really want an answer, you'd have to look for effective low pitch outings where the starter was pulled instead of facing the order again. You should also isolate any starts where the team was hopelessly behind and the starter was left in as a sacrificial lamb.
 

Vermonter At Large

SoxFan
Moderator
SoSH Member
If you really want an answer, you'd have to look for effective low pitch outings where the starter was pulled instead of facing the order again. You should also isolate any starts where the team was hopelessly behind and the starter was left in as a sacrificial lamb.
I looked at the game logs and it appears to break down like this:

SP on pitch count: 8 (Eovaldi 4, Pivetta 3, Wacha 1)
SP on BF count (18 or slightly more given platoon splits): 14 (Hill 3, Wacha 4, Houck 3, Whitlock 3)
SP lifted for ineffectiveness: 2 (Hill 1, Pivetta 1)
Unknown: 1 (Eovaldi's 4/24 start in Toronto (72 pitches, 2 ER))

So, it appears that only Eovaldi and Pivetta are on pitch counts, while the remaining four starters are being pulled primarily after having gone through the order twice.

Overall, the starting rotation has faired pretty well, whether because of or in spite of this usage. However, collectively starters have gone only 4.75 innings per start, which means that the bullpen has pitched almost half (131.2 vs 130.0 IP) of the Sox' total innings. I can't imagine that this level of bullpen usage is sustainable nor can I see how maximizing the innings of such an assortment of flotsam as is assembled in the Sox' bullpen currently is leading this team down the path to glory.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Interesting.

. . .collectively starters have gone only 4.75 innings per start, which means that the bullpen has pitched almost half (131.2 vs 130.0 IP) of the Sox' total innings. I can't imagine that this level of bullpen usage is sustainable nor can I see how maximizing the innings of such an assortment of flotsam as is assembled in the Sox' bullpen currently is leading this team down the path to glory.
That's the real problem isn't it? If optimal use of starters gets you through half the game, what are you doing for the second half.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
The question comes down to whether a tired (or familiar to the hitters) starter will pitch better in the fifth inning than your fifth worst bullpen arm will at some point in the second half of the game. Apparently they think the answer is “yes” for Eovaldi and Pivetta and “no” for everyone else. There’s a bit of a Monty Hall wrinkle because the starter has to face whatever batters are due up, but you can select which batters your fifth worst bullpen arm pitches to. I’d guess that as the starters get stronger later in the season and the team has more up to date info on the quality of their relievers, things will change.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
The question comes down to whether a tired (or familiar to the hitters) starter will pitch better in the fifth inning than your fifth worst bullpen arm will at some point in the second half of the game. Apparently they think the answer is “yes” for Eovaldi and Pivetta and “no” for everyone else. There’s a bit of a Monty Hall wrinkle because the starter has to face whatever batters are due up, but you can select which batters your fifth worst bullpen arm pitches to. I’d guess that as the starters get stronger later in the season and the team has more up to date info on the quality of their relievers, things will change.
I hate this line of thinking. I guess it's the 5th inning but if the score is 4-0 or 1-0, it should make a difference which arm you use. That and if 3-5 are due up or 7-9.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
I hate this line of thinking. I guess it's the 5th inning but if the score is 4-0 or 1-0, it should make a difference which arm you use. That and if 3-5 are due up or 7-9.
Well presumably if it is 7-9, then the SP isn't through the order yet, and therefore in theory is ok to face them. Whereas if it's 3-5, that's the 3rd time through.

I do agree that the score of the game matters.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
30,969
Geneva, Switzerland
I've really grown to hate the twice through the order thinking. It may even be right, but I hate watching the standard outing become 4-5 innings. I suspect the extended roster has further enabled it.

I particularly hate it when the bullpen is terrible. Yeah, having your best pitchers coe in for high leverage batters in the fifth makes some sense, but the fact that worse pitchers then have to pitch the remaining innngs is a real issue. If you've got a starter going well, yanking him for a guy who may or may not have good stuff that day feels like a bad risk.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Overall, the starting rotation has faired pretty well, whether because of or in spite of this usage. However, collectively starters have gone only 4.75 innings per start, which means that the bullpen has pitched almost half (131.2 vs 130.0 IP) of the Sox' total innings. I can't imagine that this level of bullpen usage is sustainable nor can I see how maximizing the innings of such an assortment of flotsam as is assembled in the Sox' bullpen currently is leading this team down the path to glory.
FWIW..
League average SP is 4.9 IP/start. The leaders --NYM & SD -- are at 5.5.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
I've really grown to hate the twice through the order thinking. It may even be right, but I hate watching the standard outing become 4-5 innings. I suspect the extended roster has further enabled it.

I particularly hate it when the bullpen is terrible. Yeah, having your best pitchers coe in for high leverage batters in the fifth makes some sense, but the fact that worse pitchers then have to pitch the remaining innngs is a real issue. If you've got a starter going well, yanking him for a guy who may or may not have good stuff that day feels like a bad risk.
My hope is that when they get further into the season -- well past the "short spring training" effect -- that reins will become looser.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
I've really grown to hate the twice through the order thinking. It may even be right, but I hate watching the standard outing become 4-5 innings. I suspect the extended roster has further enabled it.

I particularly hate it when the bullpen is terrible. Yeah, having your best pitchers coe in for high leverage batters in the fifth makes some sense, but the fact that worse pitchers then have to pitch the remaining innngs is a real issue. If you've got a starter going well, yanking him for a guy who may or may not have good stuff that day feels like a bad risk.
To me, this change in approach is worse than the shift, worse than 3 true outcomes, etc.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
30,969
Geneva, Switzerland
To me, this change in approach is worse than the shift, worse than 3 true outcomes, etc.
It's a million time worse than the shift. Three true outcomes is pretty sucky though.

I'm honestly ready to put a cap on how many pitchers a team is allowed to have on the roster to force teams to let their pitchers go longer.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
I hate this line of thinking. I guess it's the 5th inning but if the score is 4-0 or 1-0, it should make a difference which arm you use. That and if 3-5 are due up or 7-9.
I’m not sure I understand which way the current score is supposed to influence the direction of the decision. If it’s 1-0, do you want your tired starter to stay in or have a terrible bullpen arm take it later? If it’s 4-0, do you leave your tired starter in or let your terrible bullpen do it? Not being sarcastic, I just don’t understand why the question “who’s going to give up fewer runs” changes in those two scenarios.

Probably more important is the game to game context (who’s starting tomorrow, how much rest does your fifth arm in the bullpen have, etc).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I’m not sure I understand which way the current score is supposed to influence the direction of the decision. If it’s 1-0, do you want your tired starter to stay in or have a terrible bullpen arm take it later? If it’s 4-0, do you leave your tired starter in or let your terrible bullpen do it? Not being sarcastic, I just don’t understand why the question “who’s going to give up fewer runs” changes in those two scenarios.

Probably more important is the game to game context (who’s starting tomorrow, how much rest does your fifth arm in the bullpen have, etc).
If you are up 1-0, use one of your best 2 bullpen arms if you are going that route. If you are up 4-0, using your 5th best arm is fine. I don't think the inning should dictate which MR you use. The situation should.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
It's a million time worse than the shift. Three true outcomes is pretty sucky though.

I'm honestly ready to put a cap on how many pitchers a team is allowed to have on the roster to force teams to let their pitchers go longer.
Who would have thought nerds could actually ruin a game?
 

Vermonter At Large

SoxFan
Moderator
SoSH Member
FWIW..
League average SP is 4.9 IP/start. The leaders --NYM & SD -- are at 5.5.
Sure, but I think that those numbers have been tempered across the league by guys getting knocked out early in games and the more widespread use of openers. The Sox have only had two starts truncated for cause - the rest have been various forms of lower-level usage.
 

Vermonter At Large

SoxFan
Moderator
SoSH Member
It's a million time worse than the shift. Three true outcomes is pretty sucky though.

I'm honestly ready to put a cap on how many pitchers a team is allowed to have on the roster to force teams to let their pitchers go longer.
Yeah, absolutely. If you pull your starter after 18 batters faced, you're typically going to need at least 3-4 relievers to get the job done, so even carrying 14 pitchers is going to put a lot of pressure on your bullpen. Honestly, they don't have three relievers on the staff right now who can be trusted to hold a close lead. Every game is going to be a bullpen crapshoot from here on in, honestly.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Sure, but I think that those numbers have been tempered across the league by guys getting knocked out early in games and the more widespread use of openers. The Sox have only had two starts truncated for cause - the rest have been various forms of lower-level usage.
That's a fair point. But there's only about 50 pitchers in all of MLB averaging more than 5IP. That said, while the Sox may not be outliers in the usage pattern, it seems that taking a chance on 3 or 4 more outs from a starter might be a worthwhile risk (it *is* a risk in their vier, obviously) with good starters and a shallow bullpen.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
If you are up 1-0, use one of your best 2 bullpen arms if you are going that route. If you are up 4-0, using your 5th best arm is fine. I don't think the inning should dictate which MR you use. The situation should.
Ok, but then your fifth bullpen arm has to pitch one of the later innings. That’s what I was trying to say in my initial post - you have five innings to cover. Is it better to use a tired starter plus four relievers, or five relievers? You get to pick the situation when the fifth reliever pitches, whereas the starter has to pitch to whoever’s up in the fifth. But the decision to pull the starter comes down to whether you expect them to give up fewer runs in the fifth or the fifth worst reliever in some inning of your choosing.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Hill was pulled after only 68 pitches today. That’s taking “be careful of the 3rd time through the order” to ridiculous levels.
Yesterday he let Whitlock start the 5th and he gave up a 2 run bomb. Every move he makes is wrong. I think it’s bad luck more than anything but we can’t have it both ways.
 

Vermonter At Large

SoxFan
Moderator
SoSH Member
Hill was pulled after only 68 pitches today. That’s taking “be careful of the 3rd time through the order” to ridiculous levels.
A-yup. The last two games, the starters were pulled early (Whitlock 78 pitches last night) , only to have the bullpen power-puke to the tune of 15 ERs in 8 collective relief innings. Even Game 1 of the series, a 4-0 win, tempted fate, pulling Wacha after only 60 pitches. In that game, Diekman and Sawamura managed to hold the four-run lead. It should be noted that both of them were called upon to pitch on Wednesday night and both coughed up runs pitching on consecutive nights.

We don't honestly know if this is going to be the way the staff is used all season long, or if they are going to slowly stretch Whitlock, Wacha and Hill out to pitch deeper when the weather warms up, but either way, the bullpen has been exposed as a huge gaping weakness with this team.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
A-yup. The last two games, the starters were pulled early (Whitlock 78 pitches last night) , only to have the bullpen power-puke to the tune of 15 ERs in 8 collective relief innings. Even Game 1 of the series, a 4-0 win, tempted fate, pulling Wacha after only 60 pitches. In that game, Diekman and Sawamura managed to hold the four-run lead. It should be noted that both of them were called upon to pitch on Wednesday night and both coughed up runs pitching on consecutive nights.
Whitlock wasn't really pulled early, if they'd actually pulled him early they probably would have won the game because he wouldn't have given up the lead before they took him out. Of course had they pulled him after 4 and the pen had given up the lead everyone here would have complained about that too.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Whitlock wasn't really pulled early, if they'd actually pulled him early they probably would have won the game because he wouldn't have given up the lead before they took him out. Of course had they pulled him after 4 and the pen had given up the lead everyone here would have complained about that too.
That was pretty much my point. Cora can’t win here. He let Whitlock stay in, they gave up the lead. He pulled Hill, they gave up the lead. At some point the players have to perform.

And PS - I feel like we had this discussion last July or so.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
That was pretty much my point. Cora can’t win here. He let Whitlock stay in, they gave up the lead. He pulled Hill, they gave up the lead. At some point the players have to perform.

And PS - I feel like we had this discussion last July or so.
Yeah, we probably did, because it's the same people killing Cora/Bloom now that were killing them last July and early August. They probably should do a better job at figuring out how exactly they want to use Whitlock and Houck, but they aren't really struggling this year beacause of that, they're strugging because almost no one is hitting. Not a lot Cora can do about pitching when they need to be nearly perfect to win lately.
 

Vermonter At Large

SoxFan
Moderator
SoSH Member
That was pretty much my point. Cora can’t win here. He let Whitlock stay in, they gave up the lead. He pulled Hill, they gave up the lead. At some point the players have to perform.

And PS - I feel like we had this discussion last July or so.
I didn't mean for this discussion to gravitate (so quickly) into a Baseball Operations second-guess clusterfuck. It does appear that the Sox (either FO, Dugout or both) have been limiting Starting Pitcher outings according to the number of times through the lineup vs straight pitch count. Whether this will become standard procedure, or just as a bridge to warm weather operations, remains to be seen.

I think the general consensus here thus far is that the bullpen is incapable of sustaining those sort of innings, as evidenced grossly during the Angels' series. But hey ...

Perhaps Chaim has a super-secret formula whereby the Sox minor leagues will suddenly start shitting golden goose egg relievers a la Tampa. Perhaps by limiting starters to 80 innings early on, the Sox' rotation will outlast the rest of MLB and come on strong in August while everyone else's arms are falling off.

Whatever the machinations, I'd sure love to start seeing starters going six or seven innings consistently and release
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Hill was pulled after only 68 pitches today. That’s taking “be careful of the 3rd time through the order” to ridiculous levels.
After 68 pitches, having allowed just 1 hit and zero runs, having just retired five Angels in a row.

He was about to face 9-1-2 in the sixth. Here's what 1-2 had done in their previous two at-bats each:

1 - Ward: K, BB
2 - Fletcher: F9, F8

So...0-3 with a K and a BB.
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
11,624
The Coney Island of my mind
Yesterday he let Whitlock start the 5th and he gave up a 2 run bomb. Every move he makes is wrong. I think it’s bad luck more than anything but we can’t have it both ways.
Not picking on you, but your comment really illustrates how the frame of reference has shifted. I'm so old I remember when a starting pitcher who gave up two runs in the fifth inning of a game where he was near flawless through four was having a Really Good Start. It's not confirmation of anything, other than that Whitlock cannot keep MLB hitters scoreless for infinity innings.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Remember the days when we’d be sooo frustrated that Daisuke would “only” go 5.2 innings, allowing 4 hits and 2 runs? Because he made the bullpen work so hard in even his good starts?

Yeah now that guy would be considered a dominant ace.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Not picking on you, but your comment really illustrates how the frame of reference has shifted. I'm so old I remember when a starting pitcher who gave up two runs in the fifth inning of a game where he was near flawless through four was having a Really Good Start. It's not confirmation of anything, other than that Whitlock cannot keep MLB hitters scoreless for infinity innings.
Oh I completely agree. It’s very weird times now.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
That was pretty much my point. Cora can’t win here. He let Whitlock stay in, they gave up the lead. He pulled Hill, they gave up the lead. At some point the players have to perform.

And PS - I feel like we had this discussion last July or so.
We did. It's Cora's job to make good choices on information sets we don't have available. In general, he's aggressive with pitching changes and very passive when it comes to pinch hitting and the like.

Cora can certainly make good choices that have bad outcomes, but over time the record speaks for itself.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
BOS is carrying 14 pitchers currently, which they can only do until May 30, when teams need to go to 13/13.

Another consequence of this approach is that if you have a nine man bullpen, you only have a three man bench and one of those is a backup C, so there is very little bench flexibility. NY went to 13/13 already and their 4th bench player is Tim Locastro, who has helped them win a few times already.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
We did. It's Cora's job to make good choices on information sets we don't have available. In general, he's aggressive with pitching changes and very passive when it comes to pinch hitting and the like.

Cora can certainly make good choices that have bad outcomes, but over time the record speaks for itself.
The record which is an average of 93 wins a year, with 1 WS and 1 ALCS appearance out of 3 chances?
 

SinkingLowe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2012
39
Maine
I think the general consensus here thus far is that the bullpen is incapable of sustaining those sort of innings, as evidenced grossly during the Angels' series. But hey ...
Rich Hill said essentially the same thing on an episode of Rob Bradford's podcast earlier this spring. I'll have to go back and listen again, but basically he said that Tampa's bullpen use wasn't sustainable in the long run and that all the bullpen arms were tired before the postseason started.

From a watchability standpoint, I much rather watch a pitcher who is dealing through four then give up a hit in the fifth and try to right the ship in the sixth. If he comes back out for the sixth and gets back track that's a much better roll of the dice than what they're doing now which is take out the pitcher that's dominant through four or five and replace him with the roll of the dice from the bullpen.
 

Vermonter At Large

SoxFan
Moderator
SoSH Member
Rich Hill said essentially the same thing on an episode of Rob Bradford's podcast earlier this spring. I'll have to go back and listen again, but basically he said that Tampa's bullpen use wasn't sustainable in the long run and that all the bullpen arms were tired before the postseason started.
This brings up a really good point that New England fans should know well after decades of watching Auerbach, Belichick, Francona and Cora - that getting to the playoffs and winning in the playoffs are completely different things. In baseball, the evidence is manifested in over-used pitching staffs, teams built on mashing basement-dwelling rivals' mediocre pitching (or sometimes hitting) and teams that arrive in the playoffs on the backs of the performances of one or two great players. It's amazing how otherwise really smart baseball people don't get this (see Cashman, Brian). Chaim Bloom still has to prove this to New Englanders because the Rays' current pitching paradigm has not proved to be successful in the post-season.
 
Last edited:

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
30,969
Geneva, Switzerland
This brings up a really good point that New England fans should know well after decades of watching Auerbach, Belichick, Francona and Cora - that getting to the playoffs and winning in the playoffs are completely different things. In baseball, the evidence is manifested in over-used pitching staffs, teams built on mashing basement-dwelling rivals' mediocre pitching (or sometimes hitting) and teams that arrive in the playoffs on the backs of the performances of one or two great players. It's amazing how otherwise really smart baseball people don't get this (see Cashman, Brian). Chaim Bloom still has to prove this to New Englanders because the Rays' current pitching paradigm has not proved to be successful in the post-season.
Completely agree on this. Playoff managing is completely different. I usually don't want to see a starter pulled if he give up three over the first couple in the regular season, but in tpost-season, he obviously should be. A lot of the analytic driven changes to baseball are based on the idea that stuff adds up--more plate discipline yields better outcomes over time, the shift yields better outcomes over time even if it means a bunt double down third from time to time. The current bullpen usage seems to ignore the adverse impacts over time of sending out four, five relievers every game. I obviously can't do the math on this, it's not who I am, but I bet its true. Or course, I also want it to be true because I hate watching starters go for four innings.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Bill James said years ago (like, 30+ years ago) that the more relievers you use, the greater your chances of ending up using a guy who just doesn't have his stuff that night and will cost you the game. Pulling starters so early greatly increases those chances.

There's innovation, and then there's dogmatic adherence to innovation.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
It actually seems like it might be a good way to exploit a market inefficiency. If everyone is trending in this direction, how cool would it be to trend the other way - have starters go 6-7 (even 8 - gasp!) innings, and rely LESS on your bullpen, but when you do bring your bullpen in, they're high quality, and usually well-rested, arms, who can dominate the late innings. This way you could also carry fewer pitchers perhaps, and give your team a longer bench, which allows you to better deal with the constant shuttle of relievers the other team throws at you - every one of their relievers, you suddenly have a good matchup for.

I know...revolutionary!

(Though this is the way it used to be....)
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,920
Bill James said years ago (like, 30+ years ago) that the more relievers you use, the greater your chances of ending up using a guy who just doesn't have his stuff that night and will cost you the game. Pulling starters so early greatly increases those chances.

There's innovation, and then there's dogmatic adherence to innovation.
This is made even worse today because of the three batter minimum. In the old days, Diekman would have been pulled after he gave up the hit to Walsh the other night, and a righty would have faced Stassi. Didn’t end up mattering, but we’ve seen multiple instances where a pitcher came in and didn’t have it, but was stuck to face three batters.

It’s odd to me that teams have loaded up on so many relievers, and mostly given away potential matchup advantages on the other side of the ball. How many times have we seen JBJ have to face a lefty or Dalbec a rough righty late because there are no other options?

Addign a long man and a utility bat at the expense of two short relievers seems like it could help.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
Completely agree on this. Playoff managing is completely different. I usually don't want to see a starter pulled if he give up three over the first couple in the regular season, but in tpost-season, he obviously should be. A lot of the analytic driven changes to baseball are based on the idea that stuff adds up--more plate discipline yields better outcomes over time, the shift yields better outcomes over time even if it means a bunt double down third from time to time. The current bullpen usage seems to ignore the adverse impacts over time of sending out four, five relievers every game. I obviously can't do the math on this, it's not who I am, but I bet its true. Or course, I also want it to be true because I hate watching starters go for four innings.
It does seem like teams have only solved for half of the equation on this one. Yes, it's absolutely true that starters become less effective the longer they go in the game. So if you want your starting pitchers to put up their very best rate stats possible, you remove them before they go through the order the 3rd time. But it's ignoring what happens for the rest of the game and the long term consequences of managing that way.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Completely agree on this. Playoff managing is completely different. I usually don't want to see a starter pulled if he give up three over the first couple in the regular season, but in tpost-season, he obviously should be. A lot of the analytic driven changes to baseball are based on the idea that stuff adds up--more plate discipline yields better outcomes over time, the shift yields better outcomes over time even if it means a bunt double down third from time to time. The current bullpen usage seems to ignore the adverse impacts over time of sending out four, five relievers every game. I obviously can't do the math on this, it's not who I am, but I bet its true. Or course, I also want it to be true because I hate watching starters go for four innings.
Completely agree with this. It actually wasn't that long ago that managers would let starters tank playoff games. It was happening well into the 2000s. It's only the last ~10-15 years that managers will pull their SP in the 1st or 2nd inning if they're worried it's going to get out of hand. This is great innovation, because you never just want to concede a playoff game. They are too valuable. Especially in the best of 5 first round.

That being said, just because it's a good strategy in the postseason doesn't mean it is a good strategy for the 162 game regular season. The bullpen usage adds up, and like @Smiling Joe Hesketh mentioned, if you are using 4+ relievers each night, chances are one of them is going to suck. From a strategy perspective, I think the jury is very much out on this approach.

The other factor here is starting pitcher injury / durability. I don't think we have enough data yet, but maybe this new approach will lead to fewer injuries / TJS / etc. If that turns out to be true, then I could get behind it a little more, even if I'm not sure about the strategic implications.
 

JOBU

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 22, 2021
8,383
Third time through rule works great if you have a lights out pen like the MFY. For us, it's a joke.
I agree completely. Cora’s strategy is a winning strategy if you have a lockdown pen… or even an above average pen. There’s no one in the bullpen that you can rely on with any sort of regularity. On any given day anyone in the pen can blow up at any time. Because of that it makes his bullpen management is a losing strategy. Cora needs to leave starters in until they lose effectiveness whether thats before, at, or after the lineup turns over three times.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
I'm not sure why people think this is Cora's strategy, I am sure the front office is dictating approximate pitch counts/number of batters faced.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
To what extent is the Rays approach a financial management tool rather than a performance improvement tool?
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
30,969
Geneva, Switzerland
Bill James said years ago (like, 30+ years ago) that the more relievers you use, the greater your chances of ending up using a guy who just doesn't have his stuff that night and will cost you the game. Pulling starters so early greatly increases those chances.

There's innovation, and then there's dogmatic adherence to innovation.
This is what I've always though intuitively. Even good pitchers have bad days. When you use five pitchers in a game, the odds that one of them just doesn't have it that day is a lot higher, and one shit inning can really ruin a game, and I think we're seeing that happening.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
This is what I've always though intuitively. Even good pitchers have bad days. When you use five pitchers in a game, the odds that one of them just doesn't have it that day is a lot higher, and one shit inning can really ruin a game, and I think we're seeing that happening.
And it wears the bullpen down over the course of 162 games. You can get away with it in a short playoff series where there are days off for travel every couple of days, but over the long six month, 162 game grind? It's asking a LOT of your bullpen. Rich Hill was recently quoted as pointing out how fatigued the Rays' bullpen arms were once they hit the playoffs.