Player’s View: Is the Decline of Starter Innings Bad For Baseball?
It’s no secret that starting pitchers throw fewer innings than they once did. Not only have complete games become a rarity (there have only been 20 so far this season), it is all too common to see starters limited to just five frames. The proof is in the pudding. Going by 10-year increments, the average number of innings per start has dropped steadily, going from 6.53 in 1976 to 5.08 in the current campaign. Moreover, the number of outings with 100 or more pitches this year is just 510, a 560 pace. Turn the calendar back to 2016 and there were 1,737 such outings. A decade earlier, there were 2,095.
How do current major league starters feel about the collective decline in workloads? Comprehensive polling isn’t practical, but I did query nine starters — some older, some younger — to get their thoughts on the subject. Here is what they had to say.
———
Merrill Kelly, Arizona Diamondbacks
“There is always cause and effect for everything. From a big lens, not nearly as many people are throwing 200 innings. No one is really throwing 220-230 like they used to. It used to just be, ‘Hey, here’s the ball, it’s your game.’ That’s not happening too much anymore.
“I definitely lean on the side of older school. I’d like to see starters go at least six or seven innings every time. My benchmark is six. If I go six innings I’ve done my job. If I go more than that, great. If I go less than that it leaves a little bit of a bitter taste in my mouth. Five is OK by today’s standards, but I’m not happy with myself if I’m not going longer than that. I also want to go 200 innings every year. That’s kind of my metric at the beginning of each season.
“There are two sides of the coin. One of the reasons you don’t see that too much is that teams are really trying to monitor the health of their starting pitchers. For whatever reason, this 100-pitch number that has kind of come out of thin air — if you get anywhere near that number you’re coming of the game — has become a new benchmark. It used to be where if you were at 100 pitches after seven innings, or even eight, you would be coming back out. But somebody, somewhere, has decided that if you throw 100 pitches you’re more likely to get hurt.
“Along with the implementation of that, there are the bullpens. If you look at our bullpen, Juan Morillo throws 100 [mph]. Justin Martinez throws 100. Jonathan Loáisiga throws 100. Brandyn Garcia is high 90s. So, the evolution of bullpens being as stuff dominant as they are now ties into why starters don’t go as long. Managers are more itchy to get to their bullpen pieces as quickly as they can, whereas in previous years — maybe 10-15 years ago — bullpens didn’t have as many high-leverage, really-good-stuff pitchers. Back then, starters went deeper because a lot of times they were the best option. Teams would trust their starters more, and that’s not the case anymore.”
Max Scherzer, Toronto Blue Jays
“There is a deemphasis on starters. The game has evolved to where starters are throwing fewer pitches. Starters are throwing fewer innings. Starters are getting hurt more. When you look at that as a totality, it’s not a good direction going forward. I would love nothing more than reestablishing the starting pitcher in today’s game, to consistently see guys throwing 100 pitches, and having seven innings be more the standard rather than an outlier. Dylan Cease going nine and 120 [on July 25 at Fenway Park] was a complete outlier.
“I think it’s going to take rule changes in order to really get starters to throw deep into ballgames again. What would they be? That’s a bigger, longer conversation for another time — right now I’d rather stay ambiguous on that — but there would be a lot of benefits. For one, you’re going to get more offense. We know that when the starter faces a lineup a third time through, we get more offense. The hitters would love to see the reestablishing of the starter; they would get more ABs against just one pitcher. And if the starters are pitching more, the bullpen arms are throwing less, so you would be protecting bullpen arms. Those guys really churn. They go up and down a lot, and we would see less of that.”
Logan Webb, San Francisco Giants
“I don’t know that it’s in a bad place. Between the National League and American League there are 10 or 11 qualified starters with ERAs under 3.00, and one or two that are under 2.00. So, it’s not in a bad place; it’s just different than it used to be. Guys used to throw more innings, maybe at the expense of a couple runs here and there. Today’s game is built on run prevention, and there are guys throwing 100 [mph] with max effort every pitch.
“I wish I could throw max effort, but I’m not like that. I have to be more like the older group. My max effort isn’t as hard, so I need to worry more about where I’m throwing the ball. I have to go more innings and try to get as many outs as I can for the team. If you look at my numbers, I’m probably not the best at run prevention compared to some guys. There are different ways to do it. There are other guys who throw a lot of innings, as well. Then you’ve got guys who are anomalies. Cristopher Sánchez throws a ton of innings and doesn’t give up runs. He throws sinkers at 97 from the left side.
“Like I said, I don’t think it’s in a bad spot. I watch starting pitchers and some of these guys are really fun. They’re throwing hard and striking people out, but you also have guys who are going seven or eight innings. There is a mix of both, which I think is really good.”
Payton Tolle, Boston Red Sox
“I would probably consider myself more on the old-school side of it. I grew up thinking that a starter needs to go as long as possible every time. I had games in college where I went nine innings and threw 125 pitches. There were games where I didn’t go more than 100 pitches, and it was like, ‘Why am I out already?’ I suppose it was because I was getting hit.
“That said, I think [limiting innings] is smart, especially with young guys. I think it can prolong careers. Overall, guys are throwing harder and for longer. You look at a guy like Miz [Jacob Misiorowski] and what he’s doing. How do you control a guy like him and make sure that he’s healthy? Here, if our starters can go six innings, we have a pretty good bullpen, We can put it in their hands and feel good about it.
“You do see guys like Sandy Alcantara, in Miami, having more of a workload. He’s had some complete games in recent years. But with technology advancements and people thinking more about how the body works during a game… I mean, every time I go out there I want to throw a complete game. It’s a special thing that is being lost in today’s game.”
Logan Gilbert, Seattle Mariners
“I think it’s a better game when guys go deeper. I know there are a lot of reasons why things have changed, but as a starting pitcher, you kind of want ownership of the game. You want to go as deep as you can and not just turn it over to someone else halfway through. Of course, nowadays bullpen guys are so good, and teams don’t want the pitcher to see [hitters] three times. They want the bullpen guy to come in and match up. I get all that, but at the same time, I think it’s a better show, a better atmosphere, if the starting pitcher is going deep. I’m biased when saying that, but it’s how I see it.
“I understand that situationally there are reasons you don’t want [the starter to go through the order a third time], but there is also a lot of feel involved in pitching. There are things you have to read during the game that can determine if the starting pitcher should keep going.
“Having as many pitches as possible can help you go deeper into games. You can pitch batters in different ways, different times through. The game has turned a little bit toward throw your best pitches often as you can, but if you show a hitter that best pitch in three different at-bats, eventually they’re going to make an adjustment. That’s a reason you see a lot of guys trying to add more pitches. You can have a deeper arsenal and give different looks as you go on.”
Gage Jump, Athletics
“I feel like some orgs want the guys who can go five innings, have really good stuff, and strike out a lot of people. That’s really cool, but I look at a guy like Dylan Cease who is going deep in games and also getting a bunch of whiffs [and] also striking people out. He’s very efficient. That’s kind of the blueprint of what I want be: a guy that gives you length, but is competing in the zone with good stuff.
“I don’t know many starters that don’t want to go deep in games. I mean, if I could go eight innings every time, that would be awesome. But right now, those games where the other team’s offense is putting up good at-bats and you have to grind through that, really battle to make it through six, I’m fine with that. It’s the shorter stints where I’m throwing 90 pitches and only getting to the fifth inning — there have been a bunch of stressful pitches — that are frustrating. I’m hurting our bullpen. It’s that domino effect.
Being a young guy, I look at the veteran guys that had been going those seven, eight, even nine innings. That’s always been my goal. I mean, one of my goals has been to throw a complete game at this level. It’s really difficult, but I think when you’re able to do that, you are really in tune with yourself as a pitcher. Sometimes when you step on the mound your body feels good, but sometimes your body feels bad and your stuff isn’t as good. Being able to persevere through that and still go seven or eight innings is a testament to pitching.
“Some of those numbers [complete games in earlier eras] are insane. I’ll be scrolling through social media, or wherever, and see that someone has pitched a complete game. When that happens, it really piques my interest. I’ll always go watch that game afterward, no matter who it is, so that I can learn from it. Complete games are a testament to pitch-ability and are awesome to watch.”
Chase Burns, Cincinnati Reds
“You definitely hear about it. I guess you see staring pitchers going fewer innings in games just because the game is getting harder. The game is developing and adapting. Hitting is harder, but so is pitching, especially with ABS. Hitters are digging into technology and information and getting better. Guys are throwing harder, but they’re also throwing a lot more pitches in an inning. So, you do see a little bit of a decline in the starting pitcher. Then again, Chris Sale threw a complete game [on August 27 versus the Dodgers]. There is still hope for starting pitchers.
“My body has gotten accustomed to throwing like I do. To be a power pitcher and be able to throw 100 pitches, ripping everything hard… but it goes both ways. There are also guys who throw 92 [mph] — that’s their max — and they’re ripping it as hard as they can. It’s just how you body adapts and what your body wants to do.”
Shane Bieber, Toronto Blue Jays
“I love it [when starters throw a lot of innings]. I think it’s super impressive. It’s the the no. 1 sign of a frontline starter. Is the game better off [when more starters are going deep in games]? Starting pitching would be better off. I think everything over last 5-10 years — baseball and the commissioners office, just the way the game is going — they’ve gone away from prioritizing starters. Which is fine. They prioritize offense over everything else, and I understand that’s kind of what the fans want. But for the health of the game… yeah. Starters going deep into ballgames never hurts.”
Matthew Boyd, Chicago Cubs
“How did Jim Leyland say it? You’re only as good as today’s starting pitcher. Something like that. Starting pitchers can dictate a game. I believe that the value of navigating through a lineup three or four times with efficiency will always have a place in the game. Some would argue that once the playoffs come around it’s less valuable, but I think it’s even more valuable in the playoffs. It’s got value in the regular season and it’s got value in the postseason. You can never replace that.
“We’ve gotten to this point where… obviously, everybody wants certainty. When you talk about outcomes that are more certain than others, a strikeout is always going to be more certain than a ball that’s hit on the ground and is caught by someone, thrown, and caught by someone else. Front offices want to choose the thing that has more certainty, but that being said, efficiency — I’m biased in that sense — is always going to have value. Getting outs and going deeper in games has paramount value. To me, it’s the gold standard.
“The part that makes it tricky — why we’re not seeing it happening more frequently — is because there are things that aren’t quantifiable. Strikeouts are quantifiable, but they’re not necessarily efficient. Navigating a lineup multiple times through, setting up pitches… you can’t quantify things like that in a model, at least not easily. That’s why you see the decline of [pitcher innings].”
David Laurila grew up in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and now writes about baseball from his home in Cambridge, Mass. He authored the Prospectus Q&A series at Baseball Prospectus from December 2006-May 2011 before being claimed off waivers by FanGraphs. He can be followed on Twitter @DavidLaurilaQA.
The decline of the starting pitcher is a bad thing for baseball as an entertainment product, but I doubt the league sees it that way. The fix is simple and brutal: cut the pitcher roster limit by one per year until you see starter innings back where you want them, while also severely tightening minor league assignment rules (e.g., if you’re sent down you can’t appear again in MLB for 20 days, with no exception for replacing an injured player). There would be a lot more offense and a lot of careers would be ended by injury, but on the other side you would find the pitchers who are capable of standing up to a traditional starter’s workload. Right now, there is increasingly no way to select for those players because no one is being asked to attempt it.
*because there is no reason to attempt it
Baseball is not better or worse depending on how long one pitcher can pitch.
I think it is! The storyline of each game is enhanced by having the starters act as the protagonists, battling fatigue and the hitters’ increased familiarity to try to find a way through. In addition, the anonymous legions of fungible relievers who get a larger share of the innings now are not easy to market or for fans to keep track of, since they are likely to be gone before they become familiar. And the current competitive equilibrium where every team is trying to cover the largest possible share of innings with short-burst relievers is also very likely suppressing offense, which generally also detracts from the entertainment qualities of the sport.
Well said, and agreed. Outside of a vacuum, the leaguewide velocity arms race has been bad for the visual product. Pitching velocity’s gone up, innings pitched have gone down, and batting averages have gone way down. Hitting velo is more challenging and necessitates more of a TTO approach, and pitchers have to continue doubling down on velocity to keep up. Everyone gets hurt, everyone strikes out.
I have mixed feelings on rule changes to force things. I love baseball and try hard not to “old man yells at cloud,” anytime I talk about the state of the game. The pitch clock and ban on shifts have been superb for baseball – so I’m not anti-rule change! I just think it won’t happen until throwing lots of innings is what gets paid the big bucks.
What I find interesting is that we are pretty sure that lowering the pitch counts for individual pitchers, and encouraging them by the rules of the game to throw max effort and max spin 100% of the time does absolutely no good for preventing injuries, and has increased them exponentially throughout the past 20 years, and yet the same strategy has been copied by every team and continues to do so today. If pitcher health was really a concern, this would have changed years ago.
I believe a change in the rules is the only thing that can help progress this, because no-one is willing to adapt new strategies unless they are forced to, they just follow the herd.
That’s because, despite all the talk, it actually isn’t an anti-injury decision. Maybe some of it was at first, in the early 2000s, but the change in the last 5-10 years has been driven by performance. Throwing fewer innings may not make the pitchers healthier, but they reduce opponent’s offense, which in theory should make it easier to win.
I do not agree. I would rather have Steven Strassburg pitch into his 40s by leaving after 6 every time. Pitchers are throwing harder and harder. Injuries are way up. If your crafty and not pitching all out, then you can pitch longer, but that art seems less common. Throwing a 100 is just asking for more and more injuries if you ask for more late innings.
I think it really is a worse product. It became really noticeable to me with the COVID doubleheader rule that shortened games to 7 innings. I naively thought that shorter games would just cut out innings 8 and 9. But in reality, they were cutting out innings 6 and 7. The often slog innings of middle reliever slop, especially noticeable for bad teams. The doubleheaders went straight from starter to setup man or closer (or even a complete game), and my god what a difference that made for watchability.
Its amazing when it’s a close game in the middle innings and the starters are out there. There is a lot of drama in two pitchers trying to out do each other and not let the other one beat them. Once there is a parade of relievers it loses that element.
Would you see more SP innings or more MIRPs?
“this 100-pitch number that has kind of come out of thin air”
Really interesting how players can still view basic stastistics like they are magic.
He’s not wrong, though, 100 pitches became the standard simply because it’s a round number. I don’t think there’s really any science behind the idea that you minimize injuries if you pull guys at 100 pitches.
Yep, and then there was an attempt to say a pitcher is x times more likely to get hurt after going over 110, 120, or something like that, and then it was determined that there’s wasn’t much evidence to cap it at round numbers. Teams are focusing more on the third time through, velo dips, arm angle changes, etc. than a pitch count nowadays.
Thats not really true though. Yeah there is some “round numberness” to it but it didn’t come out of nowhere with no science behind it. As far back as the 80’s teams, analysts and doctors noticed a correlation between high pitch counts and injury. BP even invented a “pitcher abuse stat” to try and quantify and correlate it.
The real push came in the late 90’s from actual medical professionals like Dr James Andrews (a guy who has repaired more pitching arms than probably everyone else on earth combined). He didnt cite 100 pitches as a hard and strict number or even say it was the only factor, but he noted that once guys, especially younger pitchers, go over 100 pitches the increase in injury rises significantly. Basically, his research was that the more fatigued a pitcher gets the more likely he is to get hurt. and most guys get to that dangerous fatigued level ~100 pitches.
And around the same time you had guys like Kerry Wood being borderline abused as a rookie (multiple 120+ pitch outings) then suffering a barrage of arm injuries which seemed to confirm everyone’s thinking and scared the hell out of teams.
TLDR: there is an aspect of make-believe to it but to say its made up out of thin air is far from true.
Max Scherzer’s statement is why is such an important piece of MLBPA leadership.
He had such a comprehensive argument made in such a condensed statement. Really impressive
While these comments are interesting, and while there’s a lot of different perspectives in terms of seniority–Hall of Famers, journeyman vets, younger guys, etc–it feels a bit homogeneous in terms of their roles in pitching staffs. Besides Kelly and Boyd, all of these guys had prospect pedigree and came up with the expectation that they would be a #3 kind of guy or better. I can kind of intuit what they think about the shift in pitcher usage.
What I’m more interested in, I think, is the perspective of guys Justin Wrobleski, Aaron Ashby, Adrian Morejon, Sean Newcomb, or Spencer Arrighetti. These bullpen pieces and swingmen are hugely valuable because they’re covering those lost SP innings, covering the 5th through 7th, piggy-backing after the opener. I wonder how they feel about this shift? Shouldn’t this impact their bargaining power and earnings?
A side note: appreciated that so many of the players, even Mad Max, highlighted what Cease has been doing this year/over his career.
Get Andrew Chafin while he wears his “Failed Starter” shirt.
Look at Fangraphs leaderboards – 20 years ago (2007), there were less than 10 starting pitchers whose average fastball velocity approached or exceeded 95mph.
This year? 59.
(this is pitchers with >100 innings and >94.5mph average fastball).
This is the reason why innings are down, and pitch counts are down. Pitchers are working harder today.
Great point, but I guess there’s a little “chicken or the egg” here. Are they throwing fewer innings bc they’re working harder or are they working harder bc they know they aren’t gonna go that deep anyway? Could some of those guys living at 95 and averaging 5+ IP per start still succeed at 92, but give you 7 IP more consistently? I don’t have any definitive answer there, of course, but I think that’s what people are trying to sort out here.
We do kind of know the answer to this, it’s in the 3rd time through penalty. Statistics measure what happens in the aggregate. Individual results will vary and that is great but we need to stop expecting (wishing for) back end starters to pitch like Dylan Cease. Rules forcing guys to do so won’t improve the game, though it will likely lead to more runs.
Good stuff hear and interesting to hear how some pitchers actually understand the reasons for declining starter innings even if they don’t like it and others not as much. I did get a laugh out of Gage Jumps “I look at a guy like Dylan Cease who is going deep in games and also getting a bunch of whiffs [and] also striking people out. He’s very efficient.” because Dylan Cease is more famous for not being efficient and leading the league in starts but never innings.
It seems to me that the current discussion about starters is “third time through the lineup”-itis. With younger pitchers, that seems to combine with the “protect the arms” mode so that it is almost automatic that a pitcher under 28 will be pulled the second a batter reaches base after twice through the lineup – whether it is the 3rd or 5th, and whether the pitch count is 68 or 91, and regardless of whether the pitcher has allowed any runs. Once upon a time, throwing a shutout or one-run game wouldn’t even prompt a manager visit until the 7th….now, it’s 4 2/3 of one run, three hits, a walk, and you get a “nice job” and pat on the butt and your day is done. Forget complete games…there are barely any quality starts.
The 3rd time through the order “penalty” isn’t a new thing. It’s been baked into the cake for generations.
Doing a quick, nonscientific study using bRef’s league splits pages for various seasons going back into the 40s, and looking at the tOPS+ (OPS+ relative to the split): 1st time through is 90-95, 2nd is generally right around 100, and 3rd/4th+ hovers between 105 to 110.
The difference is teams have accounted for this precisely by building out nasty bullpens.
Pulling starters early and leaning on a group of fungible flamethrowers is definitely the smart move, which is why the league should step in and make it much harder to do that all the time.
Detective Tolle solves another case
Not sure if you follow him closely, but every interview (and really, every appearance on the field) lets him showcase his incredible sense of humor. Sometimes intentional, sometimes not.
i honestly dont think the pitching in the MLB is in such a terrible position. we all know who the Cy Young candidates are by name still, and there’s plenty of narratives around SPs. i think the best innovation was enforcing a 3 batter rule
that said, i think cutting the roster by a pitcher or two is a really unobtrusive way to “improve” over utilization of the bullpen
The only truly effective way, IMO, to “improve” over utilization of the bullpen comes from either deeper restrictions on the up-down shuttle or tangible rewards for using your bullpen less or penalties for expanded usage. You can cut the number of roster slots, but that’d just create more churn or other “creativity” with roster rules.
Whether it’s delaying transactions, reducing the number of times a player can be sent down in a season before being subject to waivers, creating a window in which a DFA’d player cannot resign with the team that DFA’d him (don’t think I haven’t been paying attention, Atlanta), or actually silly things (the hitting team gets a free baserunner when you bring in a reliever — a ghost runner of their own choosing?) that would never happen, that’s the lever you need to pull.
Or would we get more MIRPs and a more fluid “rotation”. How are we sure a 5 man rotation is even the best way to allocate resources? Why not 60 pitches every 3-4 days for 9 guys with a couple “stopper” types?
Idea: what if we strengthened the 3 batter rule? Maybe teams can only pull a reliever after 3-5 batters twice per game. So effectively you prohibit teams from using a cavalcade of SIRP every game, and therefore decrease the number of pitchers and increase the value of a starter pushing that one extra inning.
i have wondered many times if ditching the “manfred man” would alter pitching. having to save arms in case of extras is not really a factor anymore in close (or even semi-close) games. would reverting to traditional extra inning rules change the way pitchers are deployed in anything resembling a drastic way?
I never thought I’d advocate for less baseball, but I can’t help but wonder how a 154-game season would affect things.
This, a million times this! I totally agree, and i don’t want less baseball, but baseball can still be the “there’s a game on every night during the season” outlier amongst the big sports and have fewer games. 154 has the advantage of being a traditional number, and 72 fewer innings to cover would make some kind of difference to pitcher arms. Since it’s <5% of a season, it couldn’t cost much for players (1-2 seasons of wage freeze maybe (at most)?) if they wanted it. Fewer injuries and a bit more time off, what’s not to like? Obviously it’s way down the list of priorities in negotiations (and i don’t think it’s on owners’ and players’ radar 2026-27) , but I’m pretty sure it could be win win. Fewer tickets, broadcasting, etc., to sell, but on margin how much difference would it really make to profitability?
Just curious, does that statistic on innings per start account for openers?
The innings stat includes openers.
A parade of 3 batter relievers breaks up the rhythm of the game and is not entertaining, especially if the pitching changes are mid-inning. This is also coupled with the knee jerk reaction of having a pitching coach visit the mound if the reliever has to pitch to batter #4. To get more innings out of a starter, you will have to figure out how to reduce the value of max effort on every pitch — as well as make using a reliever more costly. Without making offense explode. My general thinking (based on no analytical research) is to lower the mound, increase the pitching distance, deaden the ball, restrict pitching rosters, and reduce the treadmill of minor-major league reliever shuttling would be needed.
You can’t deaden the ball because owners will just keep the trend going of making the MLB fields smaller and smaller until they never have a star think they caught one that didn’t go over the fence. The fields are already smaller than many HS baseball fields, hence the decrease in the always extremely exciting inside the park HR, and triple.
“How do you control a guy like him and make sure that he’s healthy?” If you can answer that question Mr. Tolle there are unlimited riches awaiting you from every baseball organization in existence now and in the future.
100% think it’s bad for baseball as a sport. I’d limit teams to 3 available pitchers per game, a fourth added in extra innings. I’d also tie the DH to the SP to get rid of openers. The evolution of pitcher usage is directly tied to to increasing a team’s chance of winning, but it is killing the game aesthetically.
Limiting to three pitchers sure seems like it would push the equilibrium towards more guys throwing 2-4 innings, right? Not sure that would accomplish the goal of increasing the starter innings
Needs a rule for who you can use as an emergency pitcher if the third guy’s arm falls off (otherwise it’s a limit to two pitchers and an emergency guy). I’d suggest that it must be a guy who started the game as a position player, makes two-way guys who can play the field really valuable, which I like.
My own idea is to simply declare that if you throw a pitch in an MLB game and are not the extra man for a double header, you occupy one of your team’s MLB roster spots for the following 4 days (and get paid accordingly unless suspended without pay by MLB, but even suspended without pay or dead, you fill that roster spot). Current pitcher usage with a 26-28 man roster is absolutely critically dependent on bullpen churn.
I think this is pretty interesting rule to explore.
I like seeing SP go deeper in games; so this is in that context. What if, if you make a pitching change in the middle of an inning, the next inning the team that was batting gets a ghost runner on 1st base? I think there would be multiple positives.
a) would incentivize sticking with a starter in the mid 4th /mid 5th/ mid 6th who is generally doing well but is going through third time through the order. These pitchers though would also give up more runs. Which will help offense.
b) It add managerial strategy to pitching changes; to me this is a good thing; another vector to judge managers, and its always “fun” to debate.
c) would continue to reduce specialization and incentivize even relievers to pitch whole innings; it would be harder to justify bringing in a lefty/righty in the middle of an inning, and if you did, there would be incentive to finish the inning. Perhaps fewer max effort relief innings, thereby reducing strikeouts.
d) would continue to shorten games, since there would presumably be less mid inning pitching changes.
The idea of the ghost runner has already had the band aide ripped off; and them starting at first, not second, means this is not a massive change.
I would like to see this tried but I’m sure there would be some unanticipated results or adaptations.
All very interesting, but Scherzer’s probably the most collated idea of the bunch. Starters going deeper isn’t about what is best for run prevention or for edging up your win%. It’s for making the game more dynamic, more fun, and more human
I don’t see a path to getting starting pitchers to throw more innings. They’ve just shifted to such max effort styles that they’re able to pitch less, even as they get hurt more.
For me, the answer would be to stop being precious about it and lean in. Just let them pitch less at a time. Adjust rosters to 28 players, but with only 25 eligible for a given day. the three pitchers you have who are the most tired have the day off but are still on the 28.
Here is what the 10 year buckets look like if you don’t stop ~50 years ago:
2017-2026 5.20 [2.58]
2007-2016 5.86 [2.40]
1997-2006 5.93 [2.45]
1987-1996 6.10 [2.45]
1977-1986 6.29 [2.41]
1967-1976 6.93 [2.46]
1957-1966 7.19 [2.38]
1947-1956 7.65 [2.37]
1937-1946 8.04 [2.25]
1927-1936 8.24 [2.18]
1917-1926 8.47 [2.12]
1907-1916 8.70 [2.04]
1897-1906 8.74 [2.00]
1887-1896 8.70 [2.01]
1877-1886 8.77 [1.99]
1871-1876 8.99 [1.77]
If every generation can say, “why don’t starters go as deep as we did”, then it has me thinking that it is really something somewhat baked into the game “causing” it.
The numbers in brackets are fWARper 200 innings, so if the goal is to have the average starter’s inning be more productive, then I guess whatever has been happening the last ~150 years seems to be working..?
Fans want name-recognition and narratives.
Decline of “Starter” usage isn’t necessarily bad. But a decline of stars (or at least known players) being involved in story-building moments IS bad for the fan experience.
…but on the other hand, the usage of extreme pitching depth gives small market teams a competitive boost that allows them to compete with big market teams that can afford to pay the super aces. I think this competitive balance is good for the game.
My personal pet solution to the issue…every game you have to designate your three pitcher ‘active roster.’ And the only pitchers you can use that day (barring extra innings or some other pre-defined unique situations) are those three pitchers. Don’t know exactly what it would mean for starting pitchers (though I suspect if would mean more innings)…but it would bring a ton of fun and strategy to each game!
I could see a team designating a starter, a multi-inning guy, and a short-inning guy as an ‘active roster.’ And then the strategy comes around when do you pull the starter and let the multi-inning guy go…and under what conditions are you comfortable bringing in the short-inning guy, knowing if he throws too many pitches he won’t be available tomorrow.
Would be a lot of fun!
In addition to what Anon said, I think pitchers going longer in games would result in more balls in play/less strikeouts.
To me, baseball is most exciting when the ball is in play–the EDLC play where he throws a 105 mph rocket to nab the runner at home was an edge-of-your-seat play for the full 30ish seconds.
A strikeout is cool enough, home runs are exciting off the bat, but I get the most enjoyment out of watching the kinetic, chaotic action of a bang-bang play.
The Nationals went through an extremely long list of relief guys this season. Pitching 4 or 5 guys a game was common. Giving them fewer relievers would have just made it even worse. It was awful! The problem was the Nats did not want to employ any relievers making above the MLB minimum to save money. I believe if every team was actually trying to win and budgeted accordingly, then the complaints about teams employing a bunch of relievers per game would mitigate.
Feel free to go name by name through all the guys the Nats employed in the bullpen. Not one made a million or more without being cut or traded very quickly. The Starting pitching is nearly as cheap. Irvin is the highest paid guy at $2.5 million.