"Start highest rested" - Dead in real life?

[spitfire]

Originally Posted by conception

From a starting pitcher's point of view, if he starts 32 games instead of 40, that's 8 less realistic chances a year that they could get hurt. I'm sure some of them see things this way and thus oppose the 4 man.

It's also 8 more chances a year to win games, pump up those stats, and cash in on their next contract!

Could be wrong, but wasn't Billy Martin the last manager to use a 4-man rotation when he was in Oakland? Seem to recall that they got through the season ok, but that every one of his starters developed arm trouble not long afterward. If my memory is accurate (and that's a big if ......), that may have served as a cautionary tale against using the smaller rotation in today's game.

Off the top of my head, my guess is that there are a couple of other factors that may argue against the 4-man rotation. For example, more night games than there were in the old days, meaning cooler temperatures and more chance of injury to fatigued arms. Also, simply enough, young pitchers coming up are groomed to work every fifth day. They gear their routines to that rhythm and possibly would need a certain type of retraining to strengthen their arms enough to pitch effectively without the extra day of rest. I suspect that modern pitchers would be as capable of working in a 4-man rotation as they ever were, assuming they were physically and mentally ready for same, but that managers don't want to risk blowing out a good arm and taking the fall for being unconventional. Surely with the pressure to win today, if a major-league manager felt comfortable giving his best pitcher(s) 40 starts, they'd do it?

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by spitfire

Could be wrong, but wasn't Billy Martin the last manager to use a 4-man rotation when he was in Oakland? Seem to recall that they got through the season ok, but that every one of his starters developed arm trouble not long afterward. If my memory is accurate (and that's a big if ......), that may have served as a cautionary tale against using the smaller rotation in today's game.

And if my memory is accurate, the Nationals have had a 5 man rotation ever since being in Washington and last year every single starter spent time on the DL. [EDIT: Nope, my memory isn't accurate. It was 2007 I was thinking of, but not all 5 spent time on the DL. Only 4 of the 5]

Guess the 5 man is no good either.

Have to expand the rosters to 30, and have a pitcher throw once a week I guess.

Course they'll get hurt then too, so then we'll expand it to.............

[thbroman]

[QUOTE=spitfire;2676234]
Off the top of my head, my guess is that there are a couple of other factors that may argue against the 4-man rotation. For example, more night games than there were in the old days, meaning cooler temperatures and more chance of injury to fatigued arms. Also, simply enough, young pitchers coming up are groomed to work every fifth day. They gear their routines to that rhythm and possibly would need a certain type of retraining to strengthen their arms enough to pitch effectively without the extra day of rest. I suspect that modern pitchers would be as capable of working in a 4-man rotation as they ever were, assuming they were physically and mentally ready for same, but that managers don't want to risk blowing out a good arm and taking the fall for being unconventional. Surely with the pressure to win today, if a major-league manager felt comfortable giving his best pitcher(s)

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Yes, but you're still paying for him regardless because the contract is guaranteed. When contracts are not guaranteed, then it's different, since you aren't paying for anything other than current peformance. With guaranteed contracts you're essentially paying for current and future peformance.

Again, there is no guarantee that pitcher will still be healthy in 4 years even with the guarantee. You will be paying him regardless. He will also be older and may not be as good in 3 or 4 years anyway. If you want to win now, then do what it takes to win now. We're talking about only 5 or 6 extra starts over 162 games, which in today's game equals what, 25-30 more innings. It's not like they're asking for 100 starts from them.

The way the Brewers used Sabathia last year was the way it should be done when you have someone of that quality.

#5 pitchers today would not have been on a major league roster in earlier years. To me, the # 5 slot is a throw away game because most #5's suck. So, that is about 30 throw away games per year.

[spitfire]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Have to expand the rosters to 30, and have a pitcher throw once a week I guess

Don't let the union hear this, or it will be part of the next collective bargaining!!!!

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Again, there is no guarantee that pitcher will still be healthy in 4 years even with the guarantee. You will be paying him regardless. He will also be older and may not be as good in 3 or 4 years anyway.

Which is exactly why one wouldn't want to push the player so hard it increases the chance of injury.


In terms of pitcher usage, anecdotal evidence from earlier years indicates that the pitchers themselves approached the game differently, by only throwing as hard as needed in a given situation. A pitcher would put more effort into a situation where he was ahead only 2-1 than he would if he were ahead 8-1. They would only throw their best stuff when it was called for, and then back off the rest of the time.

If this was really the case, that would explain some of the differences.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by spitfire

…young pitchers coming up are groomed to work every fifth day. They gear their routines to that rhythm and possibly would need a certain type of retraining to strengthen their arms enough to pitch effectively without the extra day of rest.

Again, just listening to the guys in the booth and the guests they invite in, the biggest difference in routine seems to be that in the day of the four man rotation pitchers didn't have a 'side day' between starts.

When you add up the 60-80 pitches on the side day, 40+ to warm up before the game, and the between innings warmups, I wouldn't be surprised to find that pitchers throw more today than they did in the 1945-75 era. If they cut out the side day and cut the pre-game warmup in half, they might put less strain on their arms with 40 starts than they do with 33. (Yes, I know warmup pitches are not the same as game pitches, but you're still putting mileage on the arm, even if it's easy mileage.)

A pitcher for the Watertown Wizards (a local team of college all-stars) said that the average starting pitcher throws as many warmup pitches on game day as they do game pitches. He thought it was stupid, cut his warmups in half and had the lowest ERA on the staff. (And yes, I know you shouldn't extrapolate from one pitcher's experience.)

[68pirate]

If any beta testers are following this, I would like an option in v10 for ai rotations to maintain strict order. In v9 if you change an ai controlled team to strict order the ai just changes it back to start highest rested. This leads to some unrealistic pitcher games started totals in historical leagues.

[Hazza]

It might be interesting to note, that with "clean" baseball, the number of injuries could possibly decrease.

As far as I understand it, using steroids can promote more muscle tears and things like that compared to baseball of yore.

I guess the guys should stick to doing coke and greenies instead of steroids.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Hazza

It might be interesting to note, that with "clean" baseball, the number of injuries could possibly decrease.

As far as I understand it, using steroids can promote more muscle tears and things like that compared to baseball of yore.

That could be. My dad is a veterinarian, and he says that they don't like to give animals steroid shots less than six months apart because it can result in weakness in the connective tissues near the injection site(s), and to a lesser extent throughout the body.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I tend to work the opposite way. The more $ I put into something the more use it will get. When it comes to pitchers, the less they get used the less impact they have on your team so why not get the most benefit from them?

Well, it does always boggle my mind when closers end up raking in so much. For what 60 innings. Maybe 65?

If they want to make as much as they do, we need to go back to 2 inning closing.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Hazza

As far as I understand it, using steroids can promote more muscle tears and things like that compared to baseball of yore.

I have a friend who knows a lot about steroids and he has told me exactly what you said.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Well, it does always boggle my mind when closers end up raking in so much. For what 60 innings. Maybe 65?

If they want to make as much as they do, we need to go back to 2 inning closing.

This is true, especially since so many saves are "cheap" saves unlike when they first began the save stat.

Also, if the closer is supposed to be your best reliever, why save him till the 9th. Why not bring him in to stop a rally so that maybe the "closer" won't be needed in the 9th? That's what the "fireman" did before all this specialization.

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I have a friend who knows a lot about steroids and he has told me exactly what you said.

I wonder also whether it's true that injuries and the fear of injuries is increased by the highly specialized way that kids are groomed for the majors now. Instead of being 2- or 3-sport athletes in high school, it's common now for kids to have year-round intensive instruction, and for potential pitchers to be trained for that role virtually non-stop.
So along with being over-muscled chenically, they also might be overmuscled for baseball developmentally.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by thbroman

I wonder also whether it's true that injuries and the fear of injuries is increased by the highly specialized way that kids are groomed for the majors now. Instead of being 2- or 3-sport athletes in high school, it's common now for kids to have year-round intensive instruction, and for potential pitchers to be trained for that role virtually non-stop.
So along with being over-muscled chenically, they also might be overmuscled for baseball developmentally.

That also is very likely.

[Curtis]

Yeah, the development of the single-sport athlete is almost certainly a contributing factor. There have been studies that showed multi-sport athletes have reduced injury frequency (I have no idea about severity).

It used to be said that there was a reason each sport had its 'season', and that playing a sport out of season was bad developmentally. I believe this is why sports that run all year round (I'm thinking gymnastics here) have such high injury rates.

That having been said, I don't remember ever hearing about injuries in swimming or golf (except for Tiger Woods), and those in tennis 'feel' like they're below the level of the seasonal sports. In the case of at least tennis (and maybe the other two), it may be that I'm just reading the wrong periodicals, and if I followed tennis religiously I would be aware of a lot more injuries. (Davenport and Huber are the only ones who come to mind.)

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Yeah, the development of the single-sport athlete is almost certainly a contributing factor. There have been studies that showed multi-sport athletes have reduced injury frequency (I have no idea about severity).

It used to be said that there was a reason each sport had its 'season', and that playing a sport out of season was bad developmentally. I believe this is why sports that run all year round (I'm thinking gymnastics here) have such high injury rates.

That having been said, I don't remember ever hearing about injuries in swimming or golf (except for Tiger Woods), and those in tennis 'feel' like they're below the level of the seasonal sports. In the case of at least tennis (and maybe the other two), it may be that I'm just reading the wrong periodicals, and if I followed tennis religiously I would be aware of a lot more injuries. (Davenport and Huber are the only ones who come to mind.)

I could be wrong but I think one of the Williams sisters was hurt for a while.

[struggles_mightily]

Originally Posted by Isura

The problem is that there is no evidence really that pitchers perform better on 4 days rest vs 3 days rest. There is evidence that pitchers get injured more when fatigued (high pitch counts), but 4 days vs 3 days there doesn't seem to be a difference in risk of injury.

My problem is with the Luddish "they baby pitchers too much these days!!!!" line of thinking; which I associate as much or more with boo-hooing over the decline in CG as with mournful weeping at the grave of the 4-man rotation.

And conclusive evidence or no, you can understand why teams don't want to try the 4MR. Quite apart from personnel relations issues, fifth starters are usually low-quality, inexpensive bodies (particularly if you have a decent farm system)... may as well hedge against the risk of injury if the cost is low.

And what are the data sets for the 4MR vs. 5MR studies? Does this involve comparing historical data w/ that from the present day? Isn't there a problem there with isolating the relevant variable? And if we're talking about occurrences within modern data, then it's harder to recreate the effects of long-term usage of the 4MR.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by struggles_mightily

And what are the data sets for the 4MR vs. 5MR studies? Does this involve comparing historical data w/ that from the present day? Isn't there a problem there with isolating the relevant variable? And if we're talking about occurrences within modern data, then it's harder to recreate the effects of long-term usage of the 4MR.

I've wondered about the MR thing, also. Has anyone done the research to find if relievers today pitch more innings per season than they used to? If starters aren't going as long, that would seem to indicate that they must, but the emphasis seems to be on the greater number of appearances today. Would more, but shorter, appearances result in more wear and tear than fewer, longer appearances?

The actual number of innings pitched per game for starters has only gone down by one or one and a third innings since 1957. During that time the pitching staff has gone from (someone please help me out here, because I'm guessing) ten to thirteen, and from five and a half relievers to eight. That would make me guess that the innings pitched per reliever per season must be down by about the same proportion that it is for starters. Really, modern day relievers would hardly seem to be overworked.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Well, then simply set it to 'start highest rested'... the AI always uses this unless you tell it to do otherwise.

I was just reading this thread while searching for something unrelated and I need to briefly chime in. This is most definitely NOT what the AI uses by default, and probably my biggest wish for the game is that the AI wouldn't keep changing these preferences back to "strict order." As Markus' original post implies, "strict order," that is, making the #1 pitcher wait a fifth day before his start so the #5 starter can get some innings, is a creation of the 1990s. For over 90% of baseball history it was not used. (I'm leaving aside the concept of the Sunday starter, which was moderately prevalent for a few years in postwar baseball.)

Needless to say, this causes huge problems for me, since I like to play in "god mode."

Here is what the AI actually does with respect to this: the default is always "strict order." I can (and do) change all the teams to "start highest rested starter," which remains sticky until one of two things happens:

1. There is any change on the AI's 25-man roster.
2. We reach a Monday in the schedule.

Yes, every Monday every single team changes from "start highest rested starter" to "strict order." This means that I have to monitor all the transactions every single day to watch for 25-man roster changes, and then every Monday I have to go through each and every team and change them back to "start highest rested starter." The interesting thing here is that Markus seems genuinely unaware of this, so I'm hoping we can get some kind of a quick fix on this. I sincerely hope so; it would correct one of the most frustrating things about historical leagues.