Relievers turning into starters

[Drstrangelove]

Derek Lowe, Ron Guidry, Dave Stewart, Herb Pennock, Phil Niekro.

Lots of great starters that spent years in the bullpen.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by Drstrangelove

Derek Lowe, Ron Guidry, Dave Stewart, Herb Pennock, Phil Niekro.

Lots of great starters that spent years in the bullpen.

How many of them played 5+ years of pro ball without a single start then were declared by the scouts as one of the best starters in the league before ever starting a game?

[Drstrangelove]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

How many of them played 5+ years of pro ball without a single start then were declared by the scouts as one of the best starters in the league before ever starting a game?

Price + Tea + China = ?

Here's what you said:

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Again, my example is of a guy who pitched for 8 years professionally & always had 3 pitches but never had the stamina to start until he turned 29.

Derek Lowe, Phil Neikro, Ron Gudry, Herb Pennock, Dave Stewart, and bunches of other people who have been posted.

Guidry was 25-3, won the CY, a year after he left the bullpen.
Lowe was 21-8 directly from the bullpen.
Neikro led the league in ERA directly from the bullpen.
Pennock was 16-8 directly from the bullpen.
Stewart was 20-13 one year after he left.

All of them were relievers and had always been so or had been so for years. Two of them are in the HoF.


Oh and hey... let's talk about Wilbur Wood. 10 years in the majors. 344 relief appearances and 21 starts. In 1968-1970, he led the AL in games each year. At age 29, he went directly to starting in 1971, 22-13, 334 IP, 1.91 ERA, led the league in ERA+. I guess he doesn't count because... umm...well, for some reason.

Sorry. Relievers do become stars as starters very late in their careers at 25-26-27-28-29. Real life says so.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by Drstrangelove

Price + Tea + China = ?

Here's what you said:


Derek Lowe, Phil Neikro, Ron Gudry, Herb Pennock, Dave Stewart, and bunches of other people who have been posted.

Guidry was 25-3, won the CY, a year after he left the bullpen.
Lowe was 21-8 directly from the bullpen.
Neikro led the league in ERA directly from the bullpen.
Pennock was 16-8 directly from the bullpen.
Stewart was 20-13 one year after he left.

All of them were relievers and had always been so or had been so for years. Two of them are in the HoF.


Oh and hey... let's talk about Wilbur Wood. 10 years in the majors. 344 relief appearances and 21 starts. In 1968-1970, he led the AL in games each year. At age 29, he went directly to starting in 1971, 22-13, 334 IP, 1.91 ERA, led the league in ERA+. I guess he doesn't count because... umm...well, for some reason.

Sorry. Relievers do become stars as starters very late in their careers at 25-26-27-28-29. Real life says so.

Here's my OP.

How do you guys handle cases like this? I never saw him as anything more than a potential top closer but all of a sudden his stamina has gone from 3 to 6 (1-20 scale) and the scouts now consider him to be the 3rd best "#1 starter" in MLB.

Here's a later post after a few responses.

Yes but both of them were starters in the minors. This guy has now pitched for 8 years professionally without a single start. Got an example in history that fits that story?

So I ask again. Got an example of a guy that pitched 8 years or more of pro baseball without ever making a start and then the scouts call him one of the top starters n the game before making a start?

[NoOne]

anecdotal examples are not a logical argument, for any side of any argument.

i'm not looking for an example, because personal incredulity is a logical fallacy too. upto you to prove yourself right.

what they did in the minors is important? meh to that. you're either moving the goal line or being too specific in order to exclude most things due to technicalities. i.e. when someone gives a fairly good equivalent, you add requirements or have impossible standards for the comparison.

you pose it as a question, but it is not a question to you. you 'believe' and there's no arguing wiht believers. (specifically only about this exact topic.)

it doesn't seem weird at all.. especially if not frequent. an isolated example is not needed to prove anything or disprove anything. although in this case an occurence is disproving non-existence, which is relevant, but not much esle.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by NoOne

anecdotal examples are not a logical argument, for any side of any argument.

i'm not looking for an example, because personal incredulity is a logical fallacy too. upto you to prove yourself right.

what they did in the minors is important? meh to that. you're either moving the goal line or being too specific in order to exclude most things due to technicalities. i.e. when someone gives a fairly good equivalent, you add requirements or have impossible standards for the comparison.

you pose it as a question, but it is not a question to you. you 'believe' and there's no arguing wiht believers. (specifically only about this exact topic.)

it doesn't seem weird at all.. especially if not frequent. an isolated example is not needed to prove anything or disprove anything. although in this case an occurence is disproving non-existence, which is relevant, but not much esle.

So something not happening in over 100 years of baseball history is an "anecdotal example"?

Also anecdotal examples may not prove anything but they do provide evidence that something is possible.

[Drstrangelove]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

So something not happening in over 100 years of baseball history is an "anecdotal example"?

Also anecdotal examples may not prove anything but they do provide evidence that something is possible.

Imo, that's not the point.

This thread... it's title, the posts, it's location is unique in the history of the universe. 100 years? This thread hasn't happened in 15 billion years. But that doesn't make it relevant to anything.

The essence of your posts (imo they keep changing to adapt to whoever posts a refutation) is that it's impossible for a reliever to become an amazing starter. But that's not true.

If you want to say it's not very common or it's very rare, then fine. You stand on much firmer ground there. But when one says never and then adds conditions to prove it, then that is the proverbial quicksand. It's very rare. Take the branch,

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by Drstrangelove

Imo, that's not the point.

This thread... it's title, the posts, it's location is unique in the history of the universe. 100 years? This thread hasn't happened in 15 billion years. But that doesn't make it relevant to anything.

The essence of your posts (imo they keep changing to adapt to whoever posts a refutation) is that it's impossible for a reliever to become an amazing starter. But that's not true.

In 1972 and again moreso in 1973, people thought Wilbur Wood---- a guy who up to age 29 had started 21 ML games in his life---- was going to win 40 games in one season. "But hoho!! He started 21 games by then, not the magical zero."

You can modify your stance as you like. But the essence is the same. If you want to say it's not very common or it's very rare, then fine. You stand on firm ground. But when one says never and then adds conditions, it's as useful as the "never in 15 billion years" thread comment.

The essence of my post is that it is impossible for a reliever to pitch for 8 years in pro ball without making a start and then scouts around the league declare him one of the best starters in the league, before starting a single game.

[Rosco Peabody]

Sounds like a little bit of nitpicking for something that's implausible, not impossible

[dkgo]

and it's absolutely worthless. if you narrow down the criteria enough you can always find something that's never happened before.

before 1920 no one had ever hit 30 homeruns in a season, then all of a sudden some former pitcher named babe ruth hit 54! that ****s impossible the game must be broken

[Kimchi]

Whenever I start my league Nick is one of the first guys I trade for. I have successfully converted him to a Starter in 5/7 of my leagues. In one of my leagues, he is a 3 time Cy Young winner, 20 game winner twice, and is 30.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

Sounds like a little bit of nitpicking for something that's implausible, not impossible

I think the impossible part, which I noted in the OP so it wasn't "added later", is the idea that scouts around the league would declare him one of the best starters in the league without ever seeing him start a professional game.

[Rosco Peabody]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

I think the impossible part, which I noted in the OP so it wasn't "added later", is the idea that scouts around the league would declare him one of the best starters in the league without ever seeing him start a professional game.

I agree, though I can picture some scout saying, "Hey, look at that kid pitch. He's been really working on his endurance. You know what? I bet he could be a starter. He's already an effective closer, I bet he could do the same thing once you stretch him out a bit."

Scouts say such a variety of things, I don't find it out of the realm of possibility

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

I agree, though I can picture some scout saying, "Hey, look at that kid pitch. He's been really working on his endurance. You know what? I bet he could be a starter. He's already an effective closer, I bet he could do the same thing once you stretch him out a bit."

Scouts say such a variety of things, I don't find it out of the realm of possibility

I agree with that. If the scouts had said "hey, I think this guy can be an effective starter", that's a whole lot more believable than a consensus among all of the scouts that he is a top 5 starter in the entire MLB.

[Elendil]

Maybe the game doesn't quite model stamina well. Maybe the vast majority of pitchers need to be generated with starter-potential stamina? Then pitchers with major-league potential would be used at least occasionally as starters in the minors. IRL, how many outstanding major-league relievers never started a game in the minors? I just checked 5 top closers from past and present, and the only one who started only a few games in the minors was Kenley Jansen (2). The rest were basically *only* starters in at least the low minors. Small sample, but there may be something here...

[Sweed]

My 2 cents that I should know better than to add..

OOTP is a computer game it is not real life. The scouts are "bags of numbers" trying to create an illusion of a person that is a scout, he's not real. Being a computer game there will be shortcomings and places you have to "add to the story" to make it real in your mind.

In this case I'd create in my mind the following..

Many scouts, coaches, and other players have always thought "Nick" would be a good starter. Hell, Nick always knew he could do it but he never got the chance. The organization he was part of didn't see him that way, had a ton of P's they thought were better, thought he'd pay off more being a top line closer and never had him work on a starter's routine. Take your pick. In this scenario Nick never had a chance to show or even work on stamina due to the team's "know it all coaches".

Then one winter Nick goes to a pitching guru thinking with work he could convince the team in ST that he should be given a chance. Hell if not he'll got to FA and find a team that will give him a shot. The Guru is amazed at how Nick flies through his program. Other Ps go to the guru too and word leaks out. Scouts start paying attention, he throws at the teams facilities over the winter to real batters, and the team starts to see the light and "talks him up". Why not? If he's great it won't be a secret for long, it could generate excitement and ticket sales.

But alas, OOTP is just a game and isn't going to leak this info to you slowly over time. You have to take a "leap of faith" that the "bags of numbers" uh, I mean scouts have done their work and this has become the consensus view of the scouting world.

Or.......... You can go to commish mode and simply edit his endurance back to what it was and move on. You have already shown that you're not going to find an answer here that will satisfy you. So next best thing is to do whatever you need to to make your baseball world real to you.

[Drstrangelove]

Originally Posted by Sweed

OOTP is a computer game it is not real life. The scouts are "bags of numbers" trying to create an illusion of a person that is a scout, he's not real. Being a computer game there will be shortcomings and places you have to "add to the story" to make it real in your mind.

But alas, OOTP is just a game and isn't going to leak this info to you slowly over time. You have to take a "leap of faith" that the "bags of numbers" uh, I mean scouts have done their work and this has become the consensus view of the scouting world.

Thanks. This is a smart insight that I'm glad to have read. At one point, Musial and Ruth were pitchers, Winfield and Frank Thomas were tight ends, and Koufax and Bob Gibson were basketball players. Then they weren't. A lot of water went under the bridge from one point to the other. The game is more often then not unable to give us all that.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Elendil

Maybe the game doesn't quite model stamina well. Maybe the vast majority of pitchers need to be generated with starter-potential stamina? Then pitchers with major-league potential would be used at least occasionally as starters in the minors. IRL, how many outstanding major-league relievers never started a game in the minors? I just checked 5 top closers from past and present, and the only one who started only a few games in the minors was Kenley Jansen (2). The rest were basically *only* starters in at least the low minors. Small sample, but there may be something here...

My guess is that the reasoning behind this is that the AI wouldn't handle it well if all it's pitchers could be used as starters.

[Drstrangelove]

The problem I think is reality.

Raddatz, Gossage, Rivera, Chapman can't and couldn't throw that way for 7 or 8 innings. Koufax, Marichal, Gibson, Kershaw, Martinez could. Partly that's because the latter group had multiple high quality pitches and didn't throw 100% on each pitch. But it's also because people's circulation, muscles and biology are all slightly different. Top relievers throw very hard (95-100%) for just 20-30 pitchers and are able (have to be able) to get ready equally fast if not faster. Top starters take a long time to get loose, but can throw at 90% for 100 or more pitches. (Koufax, Marichal, Ryan have games well over 160 pitches, with Koufax tops at 212.)

It's like imagining a sprinter is the same as a marathoner because they both run. I'm certain that Koufax and Martinez could have been world class closers at AA or even AAA level, in the same way that Rivera and Gossage might have been able to be world class starters at those levels. But being world class at the MLB level is many times harder and subtle physical deficiencies can be magnified.

Stamina in my mind is the tool that allows the game to simulate that reality. It's not imo an AI issue. Otherwise, regardless of what a team wants, it makes no sense that a top reliever would stay a reliever and make 1/3 to 1/2 the money that a top starter makes.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

My guess is that the reasoning behind this is that the AI wouldn't handle it well if all it's pitchers could be used as starters.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. If the vast majority of pitchers in OOTP had starter-type stamina, the AI would probably have a lot of problems.

Part of the divide between OOTP and reality is that in reality, it's not stamina that keeps a reliever from being a starter. It's the lack of a third pitch or their stuff just isn't good enough to face hitters multiple times (especially a third time) in a single game. But, their abilities are good enough for short appearances where they can maximize what they have in a short spurt. They can max out their fastball velocity for an inning (like someone mentioned above) or throw that wicked breaking pitch 8-10 times in a 15-pitch appearance because that's their job, get a couple outs and hand the ball over. The greatest reliever of all time made nearly 70 percent of his minor league appearances as a starter, but the Yankees organization wisely realized that Mariano Rivera's fastball-cutter combination was unhittable in short appearances. The rest is history.

Yes, those guys eventually lose stamina to throw a lot of pitches because they simply don't do it. But if a coaching staff or organization decides the guy is good enough to start after having been a reliever, they just slowly build his pitch count until he's ready. It's not a common occurrence these days, but it happens. The reason it isn't a common occurrence now is for the reason that was mentioned by someone above (and the Rivera example illustrates): teams let guys start until they prove that they either aren't good enough or they're more valuable in the bullpen.

But because of the constraints of how OOTP works, we have to live with a few funky examples that don't quite translate to what we see in real life.