How Bigger Bullpens Are Constraining Offense

Nathan Ray Seebeck-USA TODAY Sports

This is a story about persistence. I thought I had an interesting way of looking at the marked decline in scoring this year so far; as it turns out, I was wrong. A further investigation, however, revealed that another possible culprit was right around the corner. Does it explain the entire decline in offense? Most certainly not. But I’m interested nonetheless, and I hope you will be too.

If you’ve followed baseball in the past five years, you’re probably used to asking questions about league-wide offense early in the season. Major League Baseball has done itself no favors here; the composition of the baseball keeps changing, and home run rates fluctuate wildly as a result. The same is true this year: despite the adoption of a universal DH, offense is down across the board.

The usual suspects are certainly part of the problem. Pitchers keep throwing harder. Putting a humidor in every stadium affects home run rates in unpredictable ways and might suppress home run rates early in the season. The league used two different baseballs last year, and drag coefficient is up this year. Starters are going fewer and fewer innings, giving batters fewer looks at them a third time through the order.

I think that all of those things have something to do with bad offense. But I thought of another potential cause, one I could investigate without learning fluid dynamics. One of the side bargains between the league and the MLBPA after this offseason’s lockout was for expanded rosters early in the season. Teams are allowed to roster 28 players throughout the month of April. On May 30, that number will revert to the standard 26 — this deadline was recently pushed back from May 1. In addition, teams can carry any number of pitchers on their roster until May 1. After that, they’ll be limited to 14, and 13 after May 29.

As you can imagine, teams have taken advantage of these expanded rosters and unlimited pitching allowances to stock up on arms. With starters throwing fewer innings, relievers would normally be heavily taxed, as filling in five innings a day is tough on a bullpen. Teams reacted accordingly; as of Friday, 26 of the 30 teams rostered 15 or more pitchers. There were as many teams with 16 pitchers as with 14. Managers might need multiple pages for a bullpen card these days; every team has an embarrassment of options.

Those extra relievers aren’t just in the bullpen marking time and performing sporadic mop-up duty. They’re out there chipping in, soaking up innings that would otherwise go to starters or gassed relievers. To wit: through Thursday, April 21, there had been 1,406 relief appearances in the 2022 season. Only 11.5% of them, 163 appearances, have been on zero days’ rest — either both sides of a doubleheader or back-to-back games. Last year, 17% of relief appearances were on no rest.

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.

That really matters! Relievers are better when they get to rest between outings. Want a simple proof? I looked at every relief appearance on no rest in the 2021 season. In aggregate, relievers pitching for a second consecutive day produced a 4.63 RA/9. (I chose RA/9 because it’s the cleanest representation of what I’m looking for, namely run prevention.) At first glance, that’s not so bad. That’s quite close to what teams scored per game overall. Hey! Relievers on no rest aren’t any worse than the average pitcher. What no-rest penalty am I talking about?

But that’s not the right comparison. You can’t compare a group of relievers to league average; you’d run into huge selection bias issues. Imagine a world where the only reliever allowed to throw on back-to-back days is Josh Hader. If he produced a 4.63 RA/9 when pitching on his second straight day, that would be a disaster. He’s far better than that, but you wouldn’t notice if you only looked at the aggregate rate statistics.

To account for this, I created a counterfactual: I calculated the RA/9 for every reliever in baseball on days where they weren’t pitching on zero rest. Then I created a control group: the exact same pitchers who pitched on back-to-back days, in the exact same proportion. Instead of their results in those zero-rest games, though, I used their non-zero-rest RA/9 that I calculated up above.

The results? It wasn’t a huge edge, but pitching on zero rest hurt results. Pitchers were worse in pretty much every way. They allowed 0.2 more runs per nine innings. They struck out fewer batters and walked more. They threw slower and allowed more home runs, both overall and per fly ball. In aggregate, those appearances didn’t cost their team much, but they certainly cost them. By having fewer relief appearances on zero days’ rest this year, teams are putting their pitchers in a position to succeed more often. That’s the name of the game; incremental advantages add up to wins.

I could end the story there if I wanted to. The new rules are making bullpens better, which is a huge deal given the massive workload they’ve shouldered so far. The decline in offense? Inevitable. We’re making the good relievers better, and they were already unhittable. Say no more; on May 1, everything will be back to normal.

Only, let’s do the math here. Relievers have thrown 1,585 innings (this is as of last Thursday, when I pulled all the statistics, but the general point holds) and have made 5.5% fewer appearances on back-to-back days; fortuitously, they’re pitching 5.5% fewer innings on zero days’ rest as well. That’s the equivalent of 87 innings. A 0.2 higher RA/9 over 87 innings works out to roughly two runs. That’s not what’s killing offense this year, to say the least.

That doesn’t clear expanded rosters of culpability. Fewer back-to-back appearances might just be a drop in the bucket, but fewer innings by starters is a different matter entirely. Starters have been pretty good this year! They have an aggregate 4.07 ERA, which would be the lowest mark since 2013. They’re throwing harder than ever, and the humidor/ball combination seems to be leading to fewer home runs.

Relievers are pitching a lot better than that. They’re on pace for a season we haven’t seen in decades. Thus far, they’ve posted a 3.34 ERA. They’re striking out nearly a quarter of the batters they face. They almost certainly won’t keep it up; that’s not really how this works, so early in the season. If they did, though, we’d be looking at the lowest relief pitching ERA since 1968.

A lot of this has to do with the ball, no doubt. Relievers strike out so many batters that it’s hard to string a sequence of hits together against them. Sure, they’re prone to walks, but walks hurt most when they’re followed up with home runs. But relievers have always been better on a rate basis, regardless of the baseball. They throw with maximum effort and for fewer innings. It’s no surprise that teams want to use more relievers; pitchers improve when they switch from starting to relief. If you could somehow roster 45 pitchers and throw nine different ones every day, you’d probably put up excellent numbers, assuming you could find enough decent pitching.

Here’s where this “more relievers is always better” mindset might fail. Teams are reaching deeper and deeper into their systems for arms. Eventually, you might surmise, the plan will fail. The relievers you add won’t be as good as the innings your starters no longer have to throw, and the whole calculus will be thrown off.

A counterpoint: we haven’t reached that equilibrium point yet. To test this out, I took preseason Steamer projections for every pitcher who has appeared in relief this year. I removed everyone with no projections — position players pitching, basically — and split the remaining players out into four groups of equal innings pitched, ordered by Steamer-projected ERA. The bottom 25% of innings this year have been pitched by relievers with a preseason projected ERA of 4.98. This is the bottom of the bottom, the guys that teams would prefer to avoid if possible. The top 25% of innings this year have been pitched by relievers with a projected ERA of 3.70 — high-leverage arms and such.

That split isn’t increasing as much as you’d expect. To investigate that further, I chose 2018 as a point of comparison and the equivalent point of the season based on games played, then divided those relievers up into quartiles in the same way. Again, I used their preseason projected Steamer ERAs to assess the talent gap between the best and worst relievers. That year, the high-projection 25% of relievers were projected for an ERA of 4.70; the best 25% of innings went to relievers with a projected ERA of 3.47. The gap was roughly 1.25 runs of ERA for both 2018 and 2022, despite the bloated rosters that characterize this year. In other words, pitching depth is improving so quickly that despite using 25% more relievers this year so far, teams aren’t being forced to sacrifice relative quality.

But wait, there’s more. Here’s those four quartiles in 2022 so far, from high to low in projected ERA. The pitchers who were projected to be worst have done much better than expected, as you can see:

Pitchers by Projected ERA Quartile, 2022
Quartile Proj ERA ERA Proj FIP FIP Proj K/9 K/9 ERA Beat FIP Beat K/9 Beat
Highest 4.98 3.60 4.99 3.60 8.0 8.9 1.38 1.39 0.9
High 4.47 3.26 4.56 3.90 8.5 8.2 1.21 0.66 -0.3
Low 4.18 3.25 4.29 3.52 9.2 9.3 0.93 0.77 0.1
Lowest 3.70 3.14 3.80 3.13 10.2 10.3 0.56 0.67 0.1

I apologize for using K/9 instead of K%, but that’s the form I had. The point is clear, though: the relievers that projection systems thought would be the worst have been far better than expected. Wondering where your favorite team’s offense has gone? Your team’s best hitter has faced the other team’s worst reliever. Your guy has lost.

Is this a short-lived phenomenon? It’s too soon to tell, but I buy the general direction things are headed in. Pitcher training is much better than it was five years ago. Maybe the very best in the game are doing what they always have, but if you’re a fringe 40-man reliever, the odds that you’re going to Driveline or a similar facility are high and getting higher. The tools to improve are increasingly available; it’s no surprise that pitchers are taking advantage of them.

The 2018 season wasn’t a lifetime ago, but things looked different then:

Pitchers by Projected ERA Quartile, 2018
Quartile Proj ERA ERA Proj FIP FIP Proj K/9 K/9 ERA Beat FIP Beat K/9 Beat
Highest 4.70 4.89 4.79 4.31 7.7 8.1 -0.19 0.49 0.4
High 4.21 3.27 4.27 3.70 8.3 9.3 0.94 0.57 0.9
Low 3.92 3.47 4.03 4.03 8.7 8.8 0.44 0.00 0.1
Lowest 3.47 3.24 3.53 3.37 10.3 11.0 0.23 0.16 0.7

Is the new normal that relievers in the back of the bullpen will pitch to a better ERA and FIP than starters in aggregate? No, it’s not that either. Some of this is going to come out in the wash. There’s a lot of room between “fringe relievers are improving” and “fringe relievers are putting up sub-4 ERAs”. But if you’re wondering where all the runs have gone, relievers at the end of the bullpen have a lot to do with it — just not in the way I initially assumed.

Statistics in this article are through games of April 21.





Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.

58 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
RonnieDobbs
4 years ago

This is the progressive narrative you are going with? I am seeing guys that don’t belong on MLB rosters blowing leads on a daily basis at the expense of superior starting pitchers throwing fewer pitches. All of baseball is worse and that includes hitting. It has to get spun as some kind of progressive positive narrative though.

I also find it insane that nobody talks about juiced balls anymore. MLB has proven that they will doctor the balls – why would you not go straight to that to explain any changes? They de-juiced the balls to some extent last year and they may have done it again this year. If you were to ask me I would say that hitting has simply regressed a lot. When the players were hitting superballs they developed a lot of bad, I mean revolutionary data-driven, habits. Now that the players are not hitting golf balls, they are just left with a bad approach and swing flaws. But yeah, this is all about Amazon Web Services and relief pitchers getting better.

Anon21Member since 2018
4 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

Where do you get either positive or progressive from this article? It’s a very neutral description of one aspect of the phenomenon of very low offense. The section about the connection to Driveline and similar stuff is a bit speculative, but the very high performance of relievers (in the aggregate) is not.

Last edited 4 years ago by Anon21
Ukranian to Vietnamese to French is back
4 years ago
Reply to  Anon21

What are the names of mother and father? I’m pregnant, but I’m not on the MLB list, but I’m sorry, but I’m as expensive as I am. I’m a little older than myself, and my measurements are pretty tight. Mac du, there is no need to be a type of network connection.

I’m really pregnant when no one talks about it, but it’s delicious. MLB’s multi-party system will not be the same – why don’t you go black and go to the top of the world to reach the top of the list? Just because he is a man in the south and he can do it everywhere in the world. If you ask me, I’ll talk a lot about it. When a player is very talented, he has a lot of skills, he is smart, a person who needs to know how to play, if he does not play golf, he has to do something. sah un vine, jai la ve Amazon Web Services va yao yao no no ne more than.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago

We may never get something as amazing as the Jeff Sullivan Salmon Feast ever again, but “I’m really pregnant when no one talks about it, but it’s delicious.” is amazing.

Jeff Sullivan Salmon Feast
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Not being on the MLB list must make a delicious pregnancy expensive.

Seamaholic
4 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

Independent labs test the balls all the time. There is a slightly higher drag coefficient this year (as noted in the story) but not nearly enough to explain the drop in offense. And even that slight different in the balls is probably more the result of uniform humidor use, which started this year (virtually all of the decrease in offense has happened in the parks that adopted humidors this year, not the ones that already had them). Not everything is a conspiracy.

By the way, I suspect the biggest culprit is an oldie but goodie: Weather. It’s been cold in a lot of MLB cities so far. Balls move through cold air with a lot more difficulty than in warm, rising air.

Last edited 4 years ago by Seamaholic
sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  Seamaholic

Mostly weather, but also, the universal humidor-ing makes things really difficult to figure out because presumably it is set differently at every ballpark (this also makes identifying park factors way more complicated).

BradleyZimmernsBizarreHitsMember since 2025
4 years ago
Reply to  Seamaholic

As an aside does drag affect hard hit rate bc last I checked it’s down 3 percentage points.

The drag is a factor in a majority. Didn’t look at runs but HR/FB rate changes (which ofc all produce runs) and if we assume all those “would’ve been a HR in 2021” balls that are the numerical result of the rate change p much all become outs, that’s an 8 point swing in league BA as of like 5 days ago

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
4 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

I find it curious that a certain segment of the baseball watching public is so dead set on the idea that the fundamental problem with offense is, essentially, a moral failing on the part of the hitters.

Ryan DCMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  HappyFunBall

Boomers gonna boomer

sbf21
4 years ago
Reply to  Ryan DC

You know, every time I encounter a comment like this I have to dig deep to resist the urge to burn a large pile of coal and dump a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
4 years ago
Reply to  HappyFunBall

As a corollary, I find it curious that the same people that complain about greedy owners continue to give money to said owners.

Dmjn53
4 years ago
Reply to  HappyFunBall

all of these problems stem from the fact that hitters “aren’t ashamed to strike out anymore”, as if today’s hitters are overjoyed when they strike out

Halladay In CambodiaMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  Dmjn53

I’ve swiped left on the fastball, father! I can return home, now.

noah2112Member since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  HappyFunBall

Because they listen to all the former players in the broadcast booths complain about today’s players inability to hit through the shift.

Barney Coolio
4 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

You think this article was positive? I definitely felt like the article’s tone suggested, “Offense is down, which is a bummer, perhaps bigger bullpens are one of the many reasons why.” Perhaps I got that impression because I am biased because I don’t like weak offense, but the article uses terms like, “culpability,” and “the usual suspects,” to make its arguments which suggests that extreme run suppression is not a good thing.

Shirtless George Brett
4 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

I swear to god after I’m finished reading an article I scroll down to the comments just to see how many downvotes RonnieDobbs got for his latest ridiculous comment.

Anon21Member since 2018
4 years ago

Discussion question: if you were trying to reverse this death spiral, return offense to roughly 2010 levels, and were completely indifferent to the health of professional pitchers, what number of pitchers would you permit teams to carry on their rosters? (Stipulated that the number of pitchers is not the only relevant variable, but it should be able to cause a directional change.)

I think I would probably start by trying 9 and adjust as needed. (This would be significantly fewer pitchers than teams carried in 2010, but I think pitchers have gotten too good to just roll it back to where things were then, and for purposes of discussion I don’t care if pitchers’ arms start flying off when IP per start suddenly spike by 50%.)

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  Anon21

I used to be really against limiting the number of pitchers. I don’t feel that way anymore.

That said, I would also be really in favor of expanding who counts as a two-way player. So I think 9 real pitchers would be good, with a strong incentive for trying to develop real, live, two-way guys. There are tons of guys with who pitched in college, are too immobile to play anything but first base, and who profile as potential 100 wRC+ types. Not good enough to hold down a roster spot normally, but what if they were also a middle reliever? Brendan McKay is the guy who stands out most for me in this category.

Anon21Member since 2018
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Yeah, I think incentivizing the development and use of two-way players would be a good way to go. You’d have to have strict rules about who counts so it doesn’t turn into a dumb loophole, but thresholds by number of PAs as a hitter in the previous minor or major league season should do the trick.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  Anon21

Like, 9 real pitchers and up to 3 two-way players? Up to 4 two-way players? I don’t even think most teams could do that. But I think it would be neat to have the margins of the roster filled out with guys who were sort of on the margins of both hitting and pitching rather than having it filled with a guy who can throw 100 MPH but do nothing else. It gives you a logical set of guys to handle super-low level innings and also pinch hitting here and there.

Six Ten
4 years ago
Reply to  Anon21

I’m in favor of limiting the number of pitchers but I have a mental block on the “who is a pitcher” question. In MLB anyone could theoretically be pitcher or play any other position, so you really need to find some meaningful way of designating.

My concept is something like “At any given time, a team can have no more than 10 players on the active MLB roster who have thrown a pitch in the previous 30 days.” Within a given game, you could go over that number, but then you’d have to send someone down before the start of your next game. (Or they’d stop doing that entirely to get an extra pitcher, but 11 is still two fewer spots than now.)

And then the other piece that I think has to be here is a tighter leash on using the minors to stash extra guys. I’d like to see a rule that any player sent down must stay down for at least 30 days unless an MLB player needs to be replaced for injury, and the injured player must be placed on a new 30-day DL (or the 60-day DL) if the player replacing him had previously been on the MLB roster that season. No more yo-yoing through July and August.

I’m not sure if 30 days is enough even, but to me the ability to run out 15 relievers interchangeably all season long on a team that only has 13 or 14 total pitchers in the first place is the most aggravating part and exacerbates the blowing out arms risks. I want that to go away.

Six Ten
4 years ago
Reply to  Six Ten

Ignore the parenthetical in paragraph 2, that was leftover from a more complicated way of trying to articulate an idea.

sbf21
4 years ago
Reply to  Anon21

I’ve believed for a couple of years that 11 should be the absolute max – a number to be agreed to grudgingly after bitter negotiation. I think that would go a long way toward restoring offense to the game.

johnforthegiants
4 years ago

The expanded roster is sure helping the Giants’ relieving. Yesterday they beat the Brewers, who were starting Corbin Burnes, 4 -2 using no fewer than 8 different pitchers to cover 9 innings, without even using their best reliever, Tyler Rogers (who had pitched the day before). Pretty much the only lapse by any of them was Jake Mcgee giving up a solo homer (the other run scored on two infield hits and an error). Something does seem a little screwy.

TulkasMember since 2020
4 years ago

Mets doing their best to break the mold on both fronts. Our offense does a lot on the basepaths and our relievers are the weakest part of the team.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
4 years ago

Um, this argument is somewhat illogical.

Bigger bullpens don’t create better pitchers, in fact, you could argue the opposite: bigger bullpens give more opportunity to less-talented relievers.

If you want to make the argument that pitchers are “better” because they can face less hitters, eh, maybe, but it’s not making higher quality pitchers.

PhilMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  airforce21one

You may want to re-read (or actually read) the article, as this very point is discussed.

tdouglas
4 years ago
Reply to  airforce21one

The average reliever is generally as good as a good starter. Once you read the article, you’ll see that there are enough good relievers in MLB to stifle offense. Maybe that won’t be true at some point, but for now, if you’re a manager, you want to use relievers over starters. There’s a reason the Rays began using the opener strategy consistently — the numbers supported it.

Original Greaser Bob
4 years ago
Reply to  tdouglas

But we’re not talking about average relievers, we’re talking about bottom of the barrel, inning soaking guys. How’d they get to be lights out in one off-season? And don’t give me “Driveline”. I suspect it’s more to do with batted ball data, fewer misses in the zone turning into homeruns, doubles, etc. Wouldn’t that explain the drop in FIP, and such a larger gap in xFIP versus FIP for these guys compared to quality relievers who were already able to suppress hard contact? I’d like to see the batted ball data on these bottom tier guys.

Last edited 4 years ago by Original Greaser Bob
TheUncool
4 years ago

Read the article.

Also, the article doesn’t fully flesh out just how much of this downturn will likely fade away later in the year due to various planned/expectable changes… on top of the fact it’s still an early small sample of just ~2.5 weeks of games so far during the (very early) part of the season when pitchers/defenses generally have the upperhand over offenses anyway.

Original Greaser Bob
4 years ago
Reply to  TheUncool

Read the article.
He didn’t compare it to similar time-frames so what’s your point?

BradleyZimmernsBizarreHitsMember since 2025
4 years ago

I did on my own using fangraphs data actually. I don’t have everything in front of me to rattle off bc I did it almost a week ago now. but:

While the league batting average has dropped 14 points vs 2021 and it’s a .280 BABIP, close to 8% of that drop gets explained by the change in HR/FB rate, basically if you assume p much all those hits that would’ve went hard last year get caught, that would cause an 8% BA drop so far.

The innings with the highest drop are the 5th and 6th while innings 1-3 and 8-9 are within 1 point or so of 8 on the decrease

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  tdouglas

That isn’t the case. It all has to do with the situation each is placed in. Your average reliever isn’t going to be able to throw a high quality start time after time like Max Scherzer does, but I feel confident in saying that Max Scherzer could handle any role in the bullpen and be among the best in the game in any of them.

BradleyZimmernsBizarreHitsMember since 2025
4 years ago
Reply to  tdouglas

Yep they’re often quality pitchers who just never were able to develop more than 2 pitches that got some results and they had some idea where it was going.

So lots of quality just limited longevity in terms of how the stuff played through times through an order

Dmjn53
4 years ago
Reply to  airforce21one

the whole point of the article was to illustrate that the opposite is true

MTfor42Member since 2025
4 years ago

Fresh relievers being more effective than a starter after 60/70/80 pitches isn’t super surprising. Starter fatigue and times through order penalty make sense as contributors to this. Having more fresh relievers with expanded rosters factors in too. 45 one inning pitchers is obviously impossible, but I wonder if 12 pitchers throwing 3 innings/appearance every 3/4 days might ever evolve. It’s just strange to me that the buckets of pitchers “starter” and “reliever” are so different. One throws ~100 pitches every 4/5 days, while the other throws ~20 pitches ~every other day.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  MTfor42

I haven’t seen a starter pitch every four days in a long time and while some relievers do pitch every other day, the days of Goose Gossage and Rollie Fingers are long gone. Goose threw 134 innings, including two 7 innings relief stints, in 63 games in 1978 and had 21 decisions. Fingers pitched over 100 innings for 10 straight years and made 60 or more appearances in 8 of those years. Of the 24 pitchers who made 70+ appearances in 2021 only 7 averaged 1 inning per outing. The most innings pitched by someone who started 2 games or less was 83.2 by Chad Green. Garrett Whitlock made the most multi-inning appearances with 31 and still only threw 71 innings. The reason this is of significance is that it brings into focus the idea of some here that limiting the number of pitchers on a staff might be a solution to the lack of hitting. I don’t see that happening.

noah2112Member since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  MTfor42

A number of years ago I think the Rockies tried the 3×3 approach for a few games, but the gave up on it quickly. The thing that surprises me about today’s pitchers is that starters through fewer innings per game and start fewer games per season. If you are only going to have starters go 4 innings, do they really need so much rest between starts?

davelambMember since 2017
4 years ago
Reply to  noah2112
BradleyZimmernsBizarreHitsMember since 2025
4 years ago
Reply to  noah2112

They DO if they’re going Max effort each time and all this efficiency stuff is part of a process or trend that’s just led them more and more down that lathy

Tristan
4 years ago

Time for: Expansion!

Mike Green
4 years ago

It is indeed strange that relievers have as a whole improved their performance over 2021 much more than starters despite the longer bullpens. 2022 starters have so far posted a .242/.312/.390 slash, somewhat better than last year’s .248/.314/.423. Meanwhile 2022 relievers are at .218/.301/.342, much better than last year’s .238/.321/.395. On average, a manager will get significantly better performance from the pen than from the starter, and because of the length of the pen, it’s much easier to make this sustainable for a month or two.

Six Ten
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike Green

It’s interesting that last year managers actually didn’t get better performance from relievers. Is that just the effect of an extra bat for NL teams in the second half of games?

Doug LampertMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  Six Ten

If roster spots were free, then you’d expect starter and reliever marginal value to be the same (you take a starter out, when he’s no better than your worst reliever on rate stats).

Given that both groups will overperform this marginal rate most of the time (most starter pitches aren’t when they are about to come out and most relievers aren’t the worst in their bullpen) it wouldn’t be shocking if both groups had about the same total value.

In theory, roster spots aren’t free, they are a limited resource and you can’t have nothing but one inning guys; so we give relievers a higher replacement on the assumption that a reliever with given rate stats is less valuable than a starter with those rate stats.

With expanded rosters and relatively easy revolving door transfers back and forth to AAA, it’s getting a lot closer to roster spots being free than it was even a few years ago. Reliever performance and starter performance should be expected to converge.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
4 years ago

In Monday’s 7 games only 16 runs were scored in the first 6 innings and 30 runs came across in the last 3. I understand it is only a very SSS but a study of the games show that it was the starters who excelled. Buehler was actually allowed to pitch a complete game. Scherzer and Mikolas both went 7 scoreless. Berrios took a shutout into the 8th and Eovaldi also went 7 allowing only 2HR’s. Burnes put up 11 K’s in his 6+ innings of scoreless pitching. Lorenzen, scoreless, and Valdez, 1 unearned run, both pitched 6 while Bieber and Kelly threw quality starts. The back end of the bullpens failed miserably in several of the games. It isn’t the bullpens and 8,411 relievers on every team. The reality is that nobody is hitting. The cumulative BA of all teams was a putrid .217 and 14 HR’s were hit, 9 of which were solo shots. It borders on the unbelievable that in the face of diminishing offense the Lords of Baseball would do something to further lessen scoring by putting humidors in all the parks and decreasing the carry on the ball. It all adds up to lacklustre baseball and is very discouraging to someone who has been an avid fan since Willie and MIckey were rookies.

Dmjn53
4 years ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

maybe on that one day, but overall this year the gap in effectiveness between starters and relievers is massive. Relievers right now have a half-run advantage in both ERA (3.41 to 3.97) and FIP (3.57 to 3.83), and they’re doing so while pitching almost as many innings (1996.2 to 2302).

Monday might have been an exception, but relievers have been more effective than starters and it’s not even close

MikeD
4 years ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

One night of games is so small that it doesn’t even count as a small sample size.

BradleyZimmernsBizarreHitsMember since 2025
4 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

And a day where clearly (esp bc we’re early in the season) it was all front end starters going

BradleyZimmernsBizarreHitsMember since 2025
4 years ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

Once you start listing off names you show that you just cherry picked a day where it is as mostly team’s Aces/#2 starters so that ofc will skew data.

And good for Berrios throwing a shutout bc his performance up until your tiny sample has been dreadful

WARonEverything
4 years ago

Maybe part of this is having more RP gives you a better chance for better match-ups. Not sending a guy out on zero rest also means not having to send him out on zero rest against a team’s better hitters if he doesn’t match up well. How many more LHRP are there in the current bullpens vs what we usually see? My guess is that this extra LHRP in most bullpens is helping get the match-ups to help with a lot of this, so yes May and June will almost surely see some changes in total scoring and likely scoring off RP. Have these bullpen games in Aprli like SF threw yesterday is pretty crazy.

Dmjn53
4 years ago

well that’s it too. Every time a reliever is put into the game, he’s put into the game to face a specific 3 hitters, and in all likelihood the team has data to suggest that he’s the best pitcher on the team to face those specific 3 hitters

NATS FanMember since 2018
4 years ago

As a Nationals fan who had to endure a 21 run game followed by a 13 run game on subsequent days, what they heck are you talking about! This is a distribution problem. All you need is every team to play us and offense will be back to normal league wise! Actually, I am half kidding. Unfortunately only half.

Trevor May Care Attitude
4 years ago

Would it be better, instead of limiting the number of pitchers allowed on each roster, to simply limit the number of pitching changes per game? If a team were limited to 4 pitching changes per 9 innings (so, 5 total pitchers), it wouldn’t affect most games, but it would eliminate “bullpen games” and encourage the cultivation of 100+IP RP’s, a type of pitcher which existed with regularity for decades, but has disappeared. You’d have to think through a proper penalty for exceeding 4 changes, so that it wouldn’t be strictly impossible, but it would be highly disadvantageous. Also, forgiveness of a pitching change due to injury in certain situations might be necessary, but with restrictions regarding how soon the removed player could return to action.

MikeD
4 years ago

While watching a Yankees/Guardians game the other day, it struck me that the Yankees pen was 10 deep, all good, to the point that Chapman and Green might only be the 4th or 5th best arms in the bullpen. They’re still good, but there could be even better options. Relievers today all have velocity and or nasty secondary pitches. How do teams find and develop that many arms for the pen today? It’s no wonder hitting is down. Maybe teams need to be limited to 11 or 12 pitchers.

BradleyZimmernsBizarreHitsMember since 2025
4 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

Back when my dad was a kid, dudes who were triple digit throwers (while they didn’t have radar guns as widespread as today, guys like JP Richard and Sudden Sam you just knew hit triple digits) appeared in just a small handful every generation.

Now, every team seems to have at least one guy who can do it, usually in the pen

evo34Member since 2023
4 years ago

So when was the last time MLB had both a stable baseball and roster ruleset? 2015?

BradleyZimmernsBizarreHitsMember since 2025
4 years ago

I’m glad someone at the site made the connection that offensive production might be down bc of shorter starts.

A friend saw the league BA and was talking on Facebook about needing to ban the shift and I looked up what’s different this year and while I saw the results of the deader ball (can account for ~8 of the 14pt BA drop) I also noticed MASSIVE changes in BA in the 5th and 6th innings. Avg was down 28 and 19 points. The 4th & 7th down 14 and the rest around 8-9. Getting a fresh arm vs seeing an arm the 3rd time is a significant boon to run prevention

I looked at this a few days ago and at that point the most “worked” pitcher was Burned with like 290 pitches and 18.1 innings over 2 starts.