[Mr KLC]

It is entirely possible and entirely practical, in modern baseball, for a team to use a three-man starting rotation. I realize that this is probably not going to happen, but ... this is how it could work, and this is why it would work.

Suppose that a team used a three-man starting rotation, but limited each pitcher to 80 pitches a start or five innings. (This actually would work with 90 pitches a start, but 80 is more conservative, so I'm going to use 80 as a working premise.) Anyway, a starting pitcher always and absolutely comes out of the game as soon as

1) He has pitched five innings, or

2) He has thrown 80 pitches.

No exceptions. Eighty pitches, it'€™s the fifth inning, you're ahead 9-0 and you have two outs and two strikes on the hitter ... tough luck, Sally, you should have thrown more strikes earlier in the game.

Bill expands upon this proposal in great detail, and I highly recommend that if you'€™re interested in this idea -- and if you'€™re here, how could you not be -- you read the whole thing. Just in case you'€™re too busy, though, a quick outline:

1) The current system is not keeping pitchers healthier than the system of 40 years ago did;

2) the current system, which focuses on pitching every fifth day and throwing no more than 110 or 120 pitches per start, has actually resulted in less durability, not more; and

3) pitchers could throw more often, and more innings per season, if they threw fewer pitches per start.

Which leads to Bill'€™s proposal, three-man rotations and strict in-game limits of five innings or 80 pitches, whichever comes first. In practice, Bill says, nobody wound wind up with more than around 245 innings in a season. That'€™s not a huge number when you consider that seven major leaguers topped 220 innings in the 2015 regular season.

But now you're getting 10-25 percent more innings from your three best starters, and 100 percent fewer innings from your worst starters (not counting injuries, of course). Meanwhile, your starter is literally never pitching to the opposing lineup a third time in a game. Which, again, is a good thing.

Who soaks up the rest of the innings? Well, Bill says an eight-man bullpen can handle things: closer, eighth-inning guy, three sixth- and seventh-inning guys, two situational lefties, and another lefty or a long man. €œIf the starting pitchers pitch a little less than five innings per start that'€™ll be 760 innings per season," Bill writes, "€œwhich leaves about 700 for the bullpen. With eight relievers that'€™s 88 innings per reliever. That doesn'€™t strike me as an extraordinary number."

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-...bullpen-112515

Interesting read. The Astros tried something similar to this in their farm system. The starter would pitch 5 innings, and a "2nd starter" would finish the last 4. They would then rotate on the next start. They did this to try and keep their arms fresh through the year. Evidently something is wrong now. I never remember seeing this many injuries watching pitchers when I was a kid in the 70's. Hell, I don't remember seeing to many relief pitchers because we had so many complete games back then.

[iifold]

Injuries due to PED's...

I believe the future is 10-12 "three inning" pitchers. This allows teams to avoid huge contracts. Also lowers injuries. NL teams can pinch hit more...

[d2bets]

No way. Managers would never be able to stick to strict 80 pitch limit. Pitchers would demand to stay in. What happens when they have a perfect game going? What happens when 80 is hit in the middle of an AB and then it's 90? It's totally ridiculous, and ultimately you've got pitchers throwing more innings and more often. Why exactly would this result in less injury? Starters would never get wins.

And then, relievers would get more killed, because managers want to win and would constantly go to the same relievers game after game with so many innings needed.

Bottom line: Dumb. So dumb.

This would totally ruin baseball.

[Chi_archie]

never would happen because the way the current contracts are set up.

you gonna pay Greinke and Kershaw to go out there for a little over half the game and let the bullpen blow it

the #1 starters out there need to be studs that can win you 1 out of 5 games 80-90% of the time

[Buffalo Nickle]

Rockies tried a 4-man rotation similar to this idea a few years back. Don't know how it worked out compared to 5-man. Rockies were so bad it was not a good test case.

I think the 4-man rotation will probably come about eventually.

I don't think a pitcher could recover on 2-days rest after pitching 5 innings.

[d2bets]

never would happen because the way the current contracts are set up.

you gonna pay Greinke and Kershaw to go out there for a little over half the game and let the bullpen blow it

the #1 starters out there need to be studs that can win you 1 out of 5 games 80-90% of the time

That too. You lose the benefit of an ace when he leaves the game up 2-0 after 5 and then the bullpen blows it. And there's nothing better than a brilliant CGSO. Never going more than 5 would be so boring.

[Buffalo Nickle]

No way. Managers would never be able to stick to strict 80 pitch limit. Pitchers would demand to stay in. What happens when they have a perfect game going? What happens when 80 is hit in the middle of an AB and then it's 90? It's totally ridiculous, and ultimately you've got pitchers throwing more innings and more often. Why exactly would this result in less injury? Starters would never get wins.

And then, relievers would get more killed, because managers want to win and would constantly go to the same relievers game after game with so many innings needed.

Bottom line: Dumb. So dumb.

This would totally ruin baseball.

Managers stick to 100-pitch count now pretty strictly. On less rest, they would stick to the 80.

[Buffalo Nickle]

If you did have this arrangement, you have to remember you have two starting pitchers in the bullpen capable of pitching the same 5 innings on 2 days rest which means you have two guys that can pitch at least 3 or 4 innings every two days. They are also going to be more effective pitching fewer innings.

It doesn't change things that much. The innings for the starter do not go down. You don't get to use them in the 7th inning. On the other hand, you get the benefit of using your best pitcher more often and you have two more relievers that are much better than the middle innings guys you have now.

It's just like pitchers not pitching complete games any more or relievers pitching only 1 inning. It was something people were very resistant to but now they accept it as the way things are and ought to be.

One team does it and has success. Everybody else copies.

Football coaches used to not believe in the blitz or passing much. Used to never go for it on fourth down. Strategies change.

[Chi_archie]

Managers stick to 100-pitch count now pretty strictly. On less rest, they would stick to the 80.

they do?

many stud guys like Arrieta pitch 115ish just about every game

there is no hard and fast 100 pitch limit

[Buffalo Nickle]

they do?

many stud guys like Arrieta pitch 115ish just about every game

there is no hard and fast 100 pitch limit

The average pitcher pitches 95 pitches. And 115 is way down for the past. That used to be considered babying a guy with a bad arm.

Bottom line is you have the same pitching staff. The results are not going to be much different. It is just a matter of preference and fans accept whatever works and however players are used.

[Chi_archie]

The average pitcher pitches 95 pitches. And 115 is way down for the past. That used to be considered babying a guy with a bad arm.

Bottom line is you have the same pitching staff. The results are not going to be much different. It is just a matter of preference and fans accept whatever works and however players are used.

results absolutely can be different

you take your #1 pitcher out after 5 and then you run 4-5 more guys out there

your risk of losing a 1-0 or 2-1 game goes up

with every extra arm that you rely on to go out there enters the game, the risk that one of them is just off and awful that day, goes up.

instead of maximizing your starter when he is going good and letting him good 7+ innings and just using your top set up man and closer

[Buffalo Nickle]

they do?

many stud guys like Arrieta pitch 115ish just about every game

there is no hard and fast 100 pitch limit

Why are you going to have four or five guys out there? You have a 5-man starting staff now. Doesn't that mean, you can piggy back two starters 5-4 and just have several guys out there once every three days. Don't you have several guys out there now?

If the pitchers are pitching roughly the same number of innings, the results will be the same. This assumes that a pitcher can pitch as effectively with two days rest. That is the real question. The other stuff just falls into place.

[d2bets]

The average pitcher pitches 95 pitches. And 115 is way down for the past. That used to be considered babying a guy with a bad arm.

Bottom line is you have the same pitching staff. The results are not going to be much different. It is just a matter of preference and fans accept whatever works and however players are used.

Average is a completely different thing than a strict pitch count. Go look at how many starters threw more than 100 pitches in a start last season. Gotta be in the hundreds, maybe thousands of starts. Happens all the time. The strict limit is more like 120. Not too many starts over 120 pitches, but there are some. 80 would be a huge leap. Pitchers don't want to come out after 4 or 5 innings. Might work for some guys, but not the whole rotation.

[Buffalo Nickle]

Pitchers used to not want to come out after 7 innings. Do you know that pitchers used to complete almost every game they started?

Relief pitchers used to routinely pitch 2 or 3 innings also.

Short relievers used to come in for the 8th AND 9th inning.

Same pitching staff if going to produce the same results. It doesn't really matter how you shuffle the innings.

This is just an idea you are resistant to. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it will not work.

The only question is if a pitcher can pitch as effectively on two days rest. I kind of doubt it. But you can still go 4-man rotation.

[Buffalo Nickle]

If a pitcher can pitch as effectively on 2 days rest, you are almost assured of giving up fewer runs than you do now. It cannot be a negative if you give up fewer runs.

[d2bets]

If a pitcher can pitch as effectively on 2 days rest, you are almost assured of giving up fewer runs than you do now. It cannot be a negative if you give up fewer runs.

Yes, it can. You will end up with pitchers, both starters and relievers, all making more appearances. An appearance itself is taxing, it' not just the innings. This will result in more fatigue and more injuries and shorter careers. If anything, it'd be better to go to a 6-man rotation.

[Buffalo Nickle]

That seems like an absolute statement to me.

Again, the bottom line is if you pitch your pitchers the same number of innings, you are likely to get the same results.

If your 4th and 5th starters are now only going to pitch 3 or 4 innings, they are going to be hell to hit. You are still getting the majority of your innings from your best pitchers.

This idea is to reduce arm fatigue. Not increase it. I'd say arguing that it will destroy pitchers is the better argument. But that is probably fairly unlikely.

[Chi_archie]

yeah all innings are not created equal

more appearances with the same amount of innings will wear you down alot more

you LIKELY won't get the same result

[Buffalo Nickle]

Well, the stat guys believe that it is pitching the sixth and seventh innings that create injuries.

And the 5-man rotation was put in to decrease injuries but it hasn't. So I am not sure you have a valid premise there. On the other hand, 1-inning relievers are getting their arms blown out.

Pitching injuries are a mystery. I think this strategy is a matter of preference. It would be interesting to see it implemented by someone.