The Ten Man Pitching Staff

by connie mack on Oct 19, 2006 9:44 PM PDT

162 x 9 = 1458 IP

Can we do it? It used to be routine in an age when GMs didn't really pay attention to their bullpens. As I've said before it opens up CRAZY platoon opportunities.

Economically it has two huge advantages:

Platoons that hit and field like all stars are way cheaper than all stars
decent long relievers are the cheapest decent pitchers available

It also plays to the A's strengths, we have several candidates that could be in the bullpen and come in and throw 2 to 3 high quality innings at a time, and we have four pitchers with 190IP seasons under their belts.

Organizationally, we are better prepared to try this for two more reasons, we constantly stress throwing strikes and pitching to contact, and we have fielded defenses the last two years that have been very adept at turning batted balls into outs.

two more important factors, we pitch in pitchers park, and our AAA team is only a 2 hour drive away.

i see this being a big plus for the regular season, but like dingerpower pointed out in his diary, would need to be changed in the postseason.

Check this out:

Platoons that hit and field like all stars are way cheaper than all stars
decent long relievers are the cheapest decent pitchers available

It also plays to the A's strengths, we have several candidates that could be in the bullpen and come in and throw 2 to 3 high quality innings at a time.

this is a clip from an excel spreadsheet that didn't format that well:

Position    Pitcher    Appearances    avg ip    total ip    comments
1    Haren    33    6    198    avg 220 ip 1st 2 years at Oak
2    Loaiza    33    6    198    avg 195 ip last 4 years
3    Harden    32    6    192    04 189 ip/ 05 128 ip
4    Blanton    32    6    192    avg 197 ip 1st 2 years
5    Kennedy    32    6    192    avg 160 ip from 2002-2005
total for starters                972
long Right    Saarloos    50    3    150    avg 140 ip last 2 years
long Left    TBA(Reuter?)     60    2    120    this works out to 2ip every third day of the season
setup 1    Duke    40    2    80    avg 78 ip last 3 years
setup 2    Calero    50    2    100    at StL he was used less often for over one ip/g
Closer    Street    80    1    80    averaged 74 IP 1st 2 years
bullpen innings    required if starters avg 6ip/start            486
bullpen innings    possible with these numbers            530

1458 total innings

Notes: assumes no extra innings, but also assumes no road losses

Poll

how many pitchers?

10

2 votes

11

17 votes

12

8 votes

13

0 votes

27 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I should have added it in the diary

I think pitching regularly, but not incessantly warming up during the marathon that the season is, will actually be easier on the arms of the staff. Plus roles are more clearly defined and way less warmup pitches are thrown.

by connie mack on Oct 19, 2006 9:42 PM PDT reply actions

Are you actually saying we should sign

a free agent pitcher to be a longman!? A former crappy Giant none the less?

Why not just save money and use Halsey. Not only will he not suck as bad, but will be cheaper.

by Zonis on Oct 19, 2006 9:56 PM PDT reply actions

Reuter's a lefthander,

If we put Kennedy in the starting rotation, (and he's not work 3.5 million to pitch 60 innings a year in the bullpen, we could use him.
He would be extra effective coming in for 2-3 innings at a time in relief of Harden and Haren, who pitch much faster and from the right side.
Lots of teams would start lefthanders in the lineup to face H&H. I bet Woody would have good success with his left handed slop once through the lineup after H&H heat. especially with Chavez, Crosby, Ellis, Kotsay and Bradley behind him.
Ditto for Saarloos coming in after Kennedy.

by connie mack on Oct 19, 2006 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Reuter is also retired

"One thing about ground balls. They don't go out of the ball park." - Tim McCarver

Off The Record

by JLaff on Oct 19, 2006 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions

"Cross him off, then"

by hunter on Oct 20, 2006 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions

grab some pension, meat!

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 20, 2006 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Zonis, good point about Halsey

I thought he was righthanded for some reason. I think your right he could be the lefthanded long guy.

by connie mack on Oct 20, 2006 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Does this also assume

no injuries?

This is the pitching staff I'd go with.

SP Rich Harden
SP Dan Haren
SP Esteban Loaiza
SP Joe Blanton
SP Jason Windsor

RP Huston Street
RP Justin Duchscherer
RP Kiko Calero
RP Chad Gaudin
RP Joe Kennedy
RP Shane Komine
RP Kirk Saarloos

Other Candidates:
RP Santiago Casilla
RP Shawn Kohn
RP Ron Flores

by Zonis on Oct 19, 2006 9:58 PM PDT reply actions

it assumes no injuries

but when there are injuries, they are replaced with the competent arms in Sacramento which we aren't wasting their service time at the very end of our bullpen.

by connie mack on Oct 19, 2006 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions

The Cheap Pitching Staff

There is also always the method used in the low minors, that sometimes I think why a team like the Devil Rays and Royals don't try.

Dual Starters.

Essentially, you have a 12 man pitching staff with 10 Starters, Two Relievers.

Each pitcher pitches 4-5 innings, then the next one takes over. Two good relievers act like 'closers'.

Since it is easy to find average pitchers who can go 4 innings then good pitchers who can go 7, it might be worth a shot if you have no luck with pitching anyways (ala the Royals and Rays)

by Zonis on Oct 19, 2006 10:03 PM PDT reply actions

Terrible Idea

Every so often this is tried as a way to deal with an incompetent starting staff. It never works because the game plan for starters and relievers is different. A starter potentially goes through the order three to five times; most relievers never go through an order more than once. For that reason, starters need several different pitches while relievers go with their two or three best. A four inning "tweener" fits neither category and becomes problematic. What happens if your pitcher goes through the order more than once, but less than three times? This is why long relievers are usually also spot starters.

The problem with a ten man pitching staff, I think, concerns the way pitchers are used these days. I think you could get away with it if a "quality start" meant going into the eighth inning. But now, with many pitchers coming out during the sixth or at the beginning of the seventh inning, you need more than three set-men
(five starters + one swing guy + closer = 7).

What I find more intriguing is the idea of a four (rather than five) man rotation, which has been suggested recently by several sports pundits, and which was the norm until the last fifteen years or so.

by richwol on Oct 19, 2006 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions

5 starters, 3 set men & 2 long relievers

by connie mack on Oct 20, 2006 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions

My point is to use two or three cheap starters

as long relievers, especially in games with a greater than 3 run differential.
If its the fifth inning and we're down by 3 runs, use the long reliever. Every now and then they pitch great and we hit a 3 run homer. leave em in, but when they lose it, quickly go to the A team, calero, duke and street.
if they blow it, leave em in there and tell them to take it for the team, at the end pitch whoever needs an inning or two to stretch out.

the real point is to create platoons on the roster which will result in more runs scored than the staff allows.

by connie mack on Oct 19, 2006 10:15 PM PDT reply actions

La Russa tried something like this back in the 90s

It was a 9 man pitching rotation, meant for each pitcher to go 3 innings. The idea fizzled after a week.

The problem is ... if the starter is doing well, and conserving pitches, you don't really have a need for the system. If the pitchers aren't that good, no amount of short leashes will really help that much, and will more likely overwork the 'reliever'.

by Rickeyfan on Oct 20, 2006 12:31 AM PDT reply actions

When LaRussa tried it

he didn't have the horses we do now.

by connie mack on Oct 20, 2006 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions

If a starter or long reliever is pitching good

DONT pull him. Let him keep pitching. There will be many games, often wins, when the starter will pitch into the 7th 8th or 9th innings. But when they're just okay, like ELo in game 2 at Oak, leave them in there then, too until they've thrown their 100 pitches or 6 innings. We'll get em next time. (Obviously this doesn't work in the playoffs).
there would probably be lots of games when the starter throws 6 or 7, the long reliever comes in and we win because the offense will be so much more potent that it is capable of coming back better than it has done.

by connie mack on Oct 20, 2006 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions

I like the idea of fewer pitchers and more

platoons. Especially at 1B/DH.

But I don't think Calero, Duke and Street are really durable enough to be used this way. The trouble with keeping the end of pen guys in Sacramento is that the A's routinely go with 23 and 24 man teams as a way to avoid the DL.

I don't see fewer than 11 being practical with this bunch.

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 20, 2006 3:21 AM PDT reply actions

Durability of our top trio

I think you are probably right WaddellCanseco that our three bullpen guys Kiko, Duke and Huston might not be the right three guys.
I think Huston probably is. And I'd like to see Duke's number of appearances decrease but innings stretch. for example, somewhere in the last three innings or so put him in against the heart of the lineup. then let him cruise against the bottom of the lineup for a second inning. and then don't use him the next day.

If we go this route, we might have to trade Kiko, but when he was in Saint Louis, he pitched less games but averaged over an inning pitched per appearance over two years. He might welcome this change if he doesn't have to warm up all the time for just one or two batters.

by connie mack on Oct 20, 2006 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions

So what you're saying is....

Starters: Harden, Haren, Blanton, Loaiza, ???
Long Guys: Saarloos, Gaudin
Short Guys: Street, Duke, Kennedy.

Yeah, no Calero here.

Actually, didn't the A's go with a 12-man staff through this past season? I agree you can cut back to 11, for sure.

In looking through the old Baseball Encyclopedia I have, I noticed that most old pitching staffs did only have nine pitchers on them. But in those days, they had four-man rotations, a fifth swing guy, a long guy, and then three two-inning guys. There was no LOOGY, and no single-inning closer who came in every time there was a "save" situation. Closers, before Eckersley, generally worked only one or two run games, frequently for multiple innings. There was even a time, not that long ago, when a team's official "closer" could wind up with as few as ten to fifteen saves, or less.

by richwol on Oct 20, 2006 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions

I just assumed if we pay Kennedy to stay

He's making too much to relieve and we'll use him as a starter, plus he has a history of delivering the innings.

Consider this:

Starters (in order of durability):
Haren
Blanton
Loaiza
Kennedy
Harden
AAA starting rotation:
Windsor, Williams, Gaudin, Meyer,

Lefty Long Reliever:
Halsey
Righty Long Reliever:
Saarloos
Lefty Setup:
TBA possibly Flores?
Righty Setup:
Duke
Closer:
Street

extra parts/trade chips:
Calero (stash in AAA until first injury or trade)
Gaudin (send to AAA as a starter with a mandate to throw strikes)
Witasick (put on roster, showcase & trade for parts by the deadline)
AAA starting rotation is trade chips, along with Saarloos, who becomes replaceable.

by connie mack on Oct 20, 2006 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions

That sounds like how the A's used Rollie Fingers

by connie mack on Oct 20, 2006 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the A's need to use the short term dl more

Chavez should have definitely been out for 21 days. Crosby, Kotsay, Kennedy, Calero & Duke also spent time banged up but not on the DL

by connie mack on Oct 20, 2006 7:33 AM PDT reply actions

Isn't there some crazy rule

that you can only send a player to the DL 15 times per team per year? Which is a wall that we ran right into this year?

by hunter on Oct 20, 2006 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Interesting idea,

you might find this article by Christina Kahrl somewhat interesting.

In the article, you praises the Tigers use of the Toledo Mudhens as a place to stash players, and keep them fresh.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Oct 20, 2006 7:39 AM PDT reply actions

thanks for the link

I think the LOOGY is a luxury the A's can't afford. but the LOIGY (left handed one inning guy) is one they can. In fact, I think they should have two lefthanders capable of an inning or more in their bullpen. I think this would be a good place to look in Japan. Or take a marginal AA or AAA reliever and give them the chance.

by connie mack on Oct 20, 2006 7:50 AM PDT reply actions

One thing I've always

wondered about the A's is their lousy track record in acquiring Japanese players. One would think that given all the talk about exploiting inefficencies, they would do a better job with regards to Japan, since there are at least 2 "inefficiencies" there: Japanese players, even today, are still undervalued. Furthermore, most MLB teams do not have a (large) fanbase there.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Oct 20, 2006 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions

Your idea is logical

Unfortunately it will never happen, just like a 4 man rotation or using a closer in high leverage situations rather than protecting 3 run leads in the 9th inning will never happen. The reason it will never happen has nothing to do with its effectiveness, but that its failure is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Players are led to believe that it won't work, supposed "experts" in the media viciously attack any new ideas like this, and GMs and managers would abandon it at the first sign of short term failure. Ideas like these are thus doomed to failure in the short term and won't be implemented in the long term. I would love to see some team with the conviction to try it, but I'm not holding my breath.

I still think the Big Hurt kicks ass.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 20, 2006 3:45 PM PDT reply actions

4 man rotation might work best

A 4-man rotation has been shown to add no additional risk of injury (the study was linked on AN within the past year) and solves the problem of the weak link number 5 starter. Very few starters go beyond 7 innings these days anyway. If the 4 man rotation produces more quality starts than the 5 man rotation it's not even clear how much harder it would be on the bullpen, since what really stretches a bullpen is when your starters get knocked out early. One of the days I'm sure a team will revive the 4 man rotation just because it makes a lot of sense.

by SA on Oct 20, 2006 8:19 PM PDT reply actions