Baseball Keeps on Breaking the Same Record

Earlier, Travis Sawchik wrote about the struggles of the middle class in this free-agent market. Sawchik called attention to those players predicted by the FanGraphs community to sign for under $45 million, and he found that the actual terms have been significantly lower than expected. Sawchik highlighted eight players in the group who have done better than the forecasts, despite the trend around them. Something those eight players have in common? They’re all relievers.

For all the talk of how slowly the free-agent market progressed — and, I suppose, continues to progress — relievers have seemingly been the exception. Relievers have come off the board in droves, and even back around the winter meetings, when all anyone could think about was Giancarlo Stanton and Shohei Ohtani finding new teams, relievers were finding contracts left and right. There was some obvious market enthusiasm, and to this point, free-agent relievers have signed for more money than free-agent starters. There are 24 relievers who have signed for multiple years, and that doesn’t count Mike Minor, who’s going to be tried as a starter again. One market is only one market, but still, what’s going on? It’s actually pretty simple to understand. You might even already know the answer.

Here’s a plot I’m sure you’ve seen in some form. Going all the way back to 1901, here is the league-wide percentage of all innings thrown by starting pitchers.

It’s a steady drop, and, in 2017, baseball reached a new low. Last season, starters threw just 61.9% of all innings, the result of teams exercising caution. Caution about injury risk, and caution about in-game over-exposure. You hear more than ever about the times-through-the-order penalty. This isn’t anything new. Relative to even the somewhat recent past, the starters of today are being babied, at least if you ask some of those old-timey workhorses. More of the work is falling to the relievers.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

So now let’s think about that in a different way, with the help of the Baseball Reference Play Index. We’ll keep going back to 1901, even though I don’t care about those early years, for these purposes. I have three images to show you. First, for every year, here is the average number of position players per team. This counts them all the same, whether they played every day or pinch-ran just one time. All I care about is a player being rostered.

Nothing has really changed for a while. Sure, things have probably changed somewhere under the surface, but just looking at the overall picture, the average team last season used 22.5 position players. The average team in 1980 used 22.5 position players. The average team in 1953 used 22.5 position players. There was a big recent drop in 1994, but, that one is self-explanatory. This line has held steady. Nothing to see here.

Now, I mentioned a record in the headline. About that: In 2013, baseball reached a new all-time high in average number of pitchers per team. In 2014, the record was broken. In 2015, the record was broken. In 2016, the record was broken. And, in 2017, the record was broken. I imagine it’ll be broken again in 2018. There are two types of pitchers, as long as we’re going to oversimplify. Here are the average number of pitchers per team to have started at least one game.

Again, there’s really not much. There are some rises and falls, but the overall average over the past decade works out to 9.9. For the decade before that, 9.8. For the decade before that, 9.9. There’s a useful reminder in here that every single team should expect to need several starting pitchers. It’s not just about the opening-day starting five. But that’s not exactly a new message. Every team is probably going to need reasonable depth. Not every team is in possession of reasonable depth. So it goes. This all leads up to the obvious final plot: average number of relievers per team. The general definition is that these guys didn’t start even once. As a consequence, I’m missing out on the relievers who got random starts on bullpen days, but I’m not worried, because those games are infrequent.

And there’s the explosion. This follows perfectly from the first image, up above — as relievers have been handed more of the work, more relievers have been needed to do it. Over the past decade, teams have used an average of 13.0 relievers. The decade before that, the average was 10.5. The decade before that, the average was 8.2. Last season alone, the average was 14.7, up from where it was in 2016, which was up from where it was in 2015. Teams are increasingly shuffling through more relievers. You see guys going between Triple-A and the majors all the time. The scale of churn is unprecedented.

This requires that teams be more creative with the disabled list. This also requires that teams have a greater share of pitchers on the 40-man roster. A possible consequence of that is that position players are increasingly asked to be versatile, which might be why we’ve seen good hitters who don’t defend well finding limited markets. Mike Moustakas, for example, isn’t known for his versatility in the field. But that’s just a theory, and this isn’t a post about Mike Moustakas. This is a post about the demands on the bullpen.

Teams are calling on more relievers all the time. At any given moment, there are only so many good relievers to go around. So it makes sense you might see greater urgency to acquire the relievers who are well above-average. And beyond that, just as another consequence of relievers shouldering more of the load, you have relievers expected to throw more innings in each game. You also see a reluctance to use relievers too often on back-to-back days, and especially on back-to-back-to-back days. So bullpens now need to be deeper. There’s hardly such thing as a throwaway role anymore. Competitive teams want to be really strong with their back four or five, which requires investment. That can be even more greatly important in the playoffs, where managers have gotten aggressive with bullpen use. Just about every bullpen job now is important. That importance is reflected in growing salaries.

So relievers get to benefit. That has to come at someone else’s expense. Maybe it’s being taken out on back-of-the-rotation starters and positionless hitters. That’s something for another day. For this day, we witness the bullpen explosion. A reliever no longer has to be a closer to make good money. This is because teams need more good relievers than ever. I don’t know when this trend is going to top out, but it could still be some time.





Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

25 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
tb.25
8 years ago

I came here expecting either velocity or K-rates.

My expectations were exceeded.

Mac
8 years ago

” relievers were finding contracts left and right”. True, both LHP and RHP relievers had lively markets.

jtricheyMember since 2021
8 years ago

When I see graphs like this in any category, I always wonder “where is the absolute lowest or highest this trend can go?” I mean that more in regards to percent of innings for starters than the pure # of relievers. I don’t think there is really a true upper limit to number of relievers. But for innings by starters, how long can this continue to go down? The limits of a 25 man roster would have to set a limit of around 33% I would think. That could still be 40-50 years away. Personally I don’t like the trend, and I think a great starting pitcher is now on the underused side. Will there come a time when a innovative team or two will get back to increasing starter innings? So many good questions to ponder.

fjtorres
8 years ago
Reply to  jtrichey

Kevin Cash is looking into that with his four + four rotation.

Makes sense to consider slotting less designated starters if starter innings/game are going to keep on dropping. Especially if you like multi-inning middle relievers. The idea is to keep the four best pitchers on a tight rotation to maximize their innings over the season despite the shorter starts. Four pitchers getting 30-35 starts, the rest to bullpen days.

It’ll be interesting to see how it, ahem, plays out.

Jetsy Extrano
8 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

Yeah, at some point the whole idea of “starter” breaks down, and then you have to figure out what to graph.

Fraction of innings pitched by whoever pitched the most innings in that game?

Gini coefficient for assignment of innings to pitchers?

If a game goes 4 + 4 + 1, or 3 + 3 + 3, what do we want to think about that, is the basic question.

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
8 years ago
Reply to  jtrichey

At some point a team is going to experiment with carrying the tandem starter rotation on up beyond the low minors. Two pitchers each throwing something in the neighborhood of 3-4 innings, with a small handful of traditional short relievers to fill the gaps seems like an inevitability

fjtorres
8 years ago
Reply to  HappyFunBall

Or an official Storm Davis regime for everyone: five innings to the starter, 2-3 innings to middle relievers, setup+closer or mop-up at need.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago

I think you could also just say that literally every team needs more relievers. No one is “blocking” anyone else. This is true, to a much lesser extent, for starting pitching as well. But lots of teams fail to need a third baseman. Moustakas just got screwed by simple supply and demand, not by a roster crunch…just as the relievers are getting more demand.

However, the roster crunch definitely likely would hurt the market for for defensively limited players that are best as part of a platoon. Lucas Duda, for example. Or Neil Walker. You can sometimes run a 3-man platoon if you have a lefty-masher in left field and a righty-masher in right field, and then you could have someone without platoon splits play every day. But that requires a fairly unusual personnel setup. Guys who can’t play multiple positions and who also shouldn’t be batting against lefty/righty pitchers are going to have a tough go of it.

TransmissionMember since 2017
8 years ago

I guess the drop in the average number of position players in 1994 isn’t self-explanatory, because I’m not getting it. The strike wouldn’t have affected the average number of position players rostered by a team; it would have decreased the average total number of players used in a year by a team, but not the average number on a team’s roster at any given time. What obvious thing am I missing that informs that dip?

GoatHerderMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  Transmission

If a position player made a single appearance, think a September call up, that was counted as being rostered during the season. Looking at graph it appears recently that teams averaged 22-24 position players used a year, not that their roster on average had 22-24 position players on it at any given moment.

“This counts them all the same, whether they played every day or pinch-ran just one time. All I care about is a player being rostered.”

TransmissionMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  GoatHerder

Thanks, my tired brain still managed to process that as something to the effect of “on average, during the season, X of the team’s active roster were position players.” With your restatement, I see that this IS a season-long cummulative number, not the average of any one day, and thus was affected by the strike.

My oops, thanks.

Dominikk85Member since 2020
8 years ago

I wonder if some team will load up on versatile players and go 11 hitters and 14 pitchers. Basically have a catcher and 10 ben zobrists (one of them also catches). The lack of bench bats doesn’t hurt all that much if you play in the AL (ideally you have some switch hitters).

The big question is how much this costs you on defense. If it is not too much you could rotate the ben zobrists around the field and bullpen the games even more.

In fantasy some use that strategy and fill the bench with pitchers but of course real baseball includes defense.

oyerj6
8 years ago
Reply to  Dominikk85

I am not as sure about needing to be ben zobrist versatile, but I do believe that some team will eventually “scrap” starting pitchers. Yes they will have a pitcher start the game but the goal won’t be for them to go 6 or 7 innings. Just get a group of 13 good relievers and only allow them through the batting order roughly 1 time through the batting order each.

Jetsy Extrano
8 years ago
Reply to  oyerj6

There are about 1400 innings to get through in a season. That’s 13 relievers doing 108 each, so how do we generate enough 100+ inning relievers?

If they can each pitch every second game, it’s 4 outs in each game. Or if every third game then 6 outs. That actually does not seem crazy on the face of it! But it doesn’t end up happening much, is it too high a workload or am I doing dumb arithmetic?

Doug LampertMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  oyerj6

No reliever in MLB managed even 90 innings last year, only 5 managed 80 or more. Assume you have 13 good relievers and they average 80 innings.

What do you do for the other 402 innings the average team needed to have pitched last season? You can go with tandem starters, but you need someone to eat innings.

Doug LampertMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug Lampert

Interestingly, the 13 highest inning relievers in all of MLB last year averaged exactly 80 innings each (seriously, they add to exactly 3120 outs).

jtricheyMember since 2021
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug Lampert

In that case every starting pitcher in the league would count towards your good relievers, and one would assume could pitch 120 innings pretty easily.

Joe Joe
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug Lampert

You can have more than 13 relievers on a 40-man roster.

CCSAGE
8 years ago
Reply to  Joe Joe

Active is 25

mikejuntMember
8 years ago
Reply to  Joe Joe

Yeeah but the 40 is what matters because you can always rotate guys on and off to manage their workload.

How often does a 5th starter wtih options get called up, used, and then optioned back down until he’s needed in the rotation again 10 days later?

Doug LampertMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  mikejunt

But you stay down or DLed for 10 days. For a starter that’s one appearance missed, which comes up anyway when you have an off day or something since the number 5 starter is the one that misses that start anyway.

For a relief only staff, each time you send someone down he’s out for 4 or so appearances. You’re further and substantially cutting the number of innings you’ll get from each pitcher.

How many MLB ready relievers does your team have that you can afford to do this often enough to help? You’ve still got the usual injuries to deal with and still need some of those roster spots for things other than pitchers.

And, again, to get an average of 80 innings from 13 relievers (which is grossly inadequate) you needed the 13 relievers with the MOST innings in all of MLB, as you add additional relievers, even if you have your pick of all of MLB, you are reducing the expected average you can get from each as none of the others come close to 80 innings, and then cutting the innings per pitcher further by removing them from the roster regularly.

Just how many relievers do you think you have available?

mikejuntMember
8 years ago
Reply to  Dominikk85

The Dodgers are pretty close to this but I think that they generally find the additional rotation of resting position players and ability to shuttle relievers on their rest days makes going to the actual 14 man bullpen irrelevant.

CCSAGE
8 years ago

Did the Quality Start just become relevant?

allinawislon
8 years ago

Thanks for sharing !
https://goo.gl/emE4PB

Adam SMember since 2016
8 years ago

This is a good example of how replacement level works.

Say replacement level used to be the 165th best reliever (5.5 per team). As teams use more relievers, replacement level is ~ the 225th best reliever. That pushes the value of every relief pitcher up just a bit leading to larger than expected contracts based solely on past trends.