"Start highest rested" - Dead in real life?

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by thbroman

As you state the situation, it DOES appear ridiculous, yet surely it cen't be so obviously the case, or someone would have tried extending their top starters in the way you describe. So there must be some powerful reason that keeps them from doing so. I just wish I knew what it was.

They like to claim today's athlete's are so much physically better than those from the past, yet they can't do what the players from the past did. How can this be?

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

They like to claim today's athlete's are so much physically better than those from the past, yet they can't do what the players from the past did. How can this be?

I don't know...

[bababui]

The Angels skip the fifth starter when there are a few off days in a month.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

They like to claim today's athlete's are so much physically better than those from the past, yet they can't do what the players from the past did. How can this be?

Part of it may be financial. The money involved in paying players, whether in percentage of revenue terms or in numeric terms, is much higher today than in earlier years. As a result a player represents a larger capital investment than in earlier times, thus a team might be less inclined to take chances with that investment. The player himself, recognizing the value of investment, may be less likely to take risks.

It's also more expensive for a club to replace a player. The majors pay most of the cost of developing minor leaguers these days, and releasing a player to bring in a replacement is costly since many player contracts are guaranteed. The days when an MLB team could dump an established major league player and have it cost just ten days' pay are long gone.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Part of it may be financial. The money involved in paying players, whether in percentage of revenue terms or in numeric terms, is much higher today than in earlier years. As a result a player represents a larger capital investment than in earlier times, thus a team might be less inclined to take chances with that investment. The player himself, recognizing the value of investment, may be less likely to take risks.

It's also more expensive for a club to replace a player. The majors pay most of the cost of developing minor leaguers these days, and releasing a player to bring in a replacement is costly since many player contracts are guaranteed. The days when an MLB team could dump an established major league player and have it cost just ten days' pay are long gone.

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?

[ms2002]

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.

Edit: Or are using 4-man rotations in the league setting? In that case the AI uses the strict rotation to keep the number of starts realistic. But I agree, it should start the highest rested in the playoffs... I'll look into it

Personally, I think the AI should automatically make a 3-man rotation for the 3 best starting pitchers on their team for 5-game series. For a 7-game series, it should be a 4-man rotation with the top 4. The way it's set up now gives an unfair advantage to the user. I've seen playoff teams leave out their #1/#2 starters in series.

[Le Grande Orange]

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?

But if you're paying that pitcher $10 million a year for four years, and you use him so much in that first year you burn his arm out, you're still on the hook for the rest of the contract even though he won't be playing those three other years. Whereas fifty years ago contracts were almost always on a year-by-year basis, so you could run the pitcher out there like crazy since there was little downside financially to doing so. It'd only cost you thirty days' pay to get out of the contract during the season, and nothing at all in the off-season.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

But if you're paying that pitcher $10 million a year for four years, and you use him so much in that first year you burn his arm out, you're still on the hook for the rest of the contract even though he won't be playing those three other years. Whereas fifty years ago contracts were almost always on a year-by-year basis, so you could run the pitcher out there like crazy since there was little downside financially to doing so. It'd only cost you thirty days' pay to get out of the contract during the season, and nothing at all in the off-season.

Whose decision was it to start handing out these ridiculous contracts?

Anyway, there is no guarantee that pitcher will be healthy 4 years down the road no matter what, so get what you can while you can.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Anyway, there is no guarantee that pitcher will be healthy 4 years down the road no matter what, so get what you can while you can.

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.

[struggles_mightily]

Originally Posted by thomamon

Haha, they do baby pitchers now a days. Even when they have days off now, they usually don't skip a guy to get back to number 1. They treat the pitchers as if they are so fragile, which in turn has made them become fragile. Its really quite unreal.

Yeah, ballclubs treat these guys as though they have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in them or something. What the hell is up with that?

[RonCo]

Do a search on pitchers injuries and rotation studies and you'll find a whole bunch of studies. Reading a lot of them, and trying to integrate them together into one thought stream, I get:

• The 4-man rotation does not create more injuries or degradation of performance
• High pitch counts do tend to create more injuries, especially extended use after high pitch count outings. In other words, pitching while tired creates injuries.
• The 5-man rotation creates the impression that the organization is protecting their pitchers, hence
• If a team goes to 4-man rotations with hard limits on pitch count (which most studies seem to support as being wisest), they will leave themselves open to ridicule when their pitchers get hurt (as they might, regardless)

If I were an ace starter in the majors, I would gather my three best team mates and work out an agreement that all four go to management and say "I'm fine with a four-man rotation as long as we limit ourselves to 115 or so pitches an outing." I would then proceed to get my 40 or so starts, and probably be in line to win a Cy Young merely because I'll get an additional five opportunities to win games that my competition wouldn't.

I've heard the argument that agents wouldn't allow it, but quite honestly, a star pitcher who can start 40 times a year is going to be able to draw more cash than one who can start 35 times. So at the beginning an agent may complain, but if a usage makes a player more valuable, then it will eventually be to the agent's benefit.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I've heard the argument that agenst wouldn't allow it, but quite honestly, a star pitcher who can start 40 times a year is going to be able to draw more cash than one who can start 35 times. So at the beginning an agent may complain, but if a usage makes a player more valuable, then it will eventually be to the agent's benefit.

Sabathia should do that.

[Isura]

Originally Posted by struggles_mightily

Yeah, ballclubs treat these guys as though they have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in them or something. What the hell is up with that?

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.

[RonCo]

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.

That's right. So this says I could get by with four guys at millions of dollars per season rather than five guys at millions of dollars.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

Sabathia should do that.

Every starter should do that.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Every starter should do that.

Well yeah, but he is the most known now for CGs.

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Did pitchers really throw on three days' rest all year? (A trip to Retrosheet should confirm or refute the claim.) Were injuries really less common then? (Hard to determine because the data doesn't really exist.)

A couple of things to note about the 1960s:

1) The schedule length was shorter, with teams playing 162 games in 25 weeks as compared to 26 weeks currently. There were also quite a few scheduled doubleheaders back then. This would tend to work against much use of a strict 4-man rotation.

2) The regular Disabled List operated completely different back then. It was limited to just two players being on it at any given time, and for most of the decade the required stay was either 21 or 30 days.

There was thread on here a while ago discussing 4 man vs 5 man rotations. I believe it linked to an article that proved statistically that the 4 man rotation is better (better performance, less injuries). I don't feel like searching for it, but it's here some place. Personally, I only play with 4 man rotations with pitcher endurance set to normal. I usually use a spot starter that gets around 8 starts a season. I never have problems with injuries, and I use starters with endurance of 50/100 and up. You can use the guys that have high 40's, but I find 50 to be the magic number to get consistent 6+ innings/start.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

They like to claim today's athlete's are so much physically better than those from the past, yet they can't do what the players from the past did. How can this be?

It's not that they can't...it's that they won't

[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.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Do a search on pitchers injuries and rotation studies and you'll find a whole bunch of studies. Reading a lot of them, and trying to integrate them together into one thought stream, I get:

• The 4-man rotation does not create more injuries or degradation of performance
• High pitch counts do tend to create more injuries, especially extended use after high pitch count outings. In other words, pitching while tired creates injuries.
• The 5-man rotation creates the impression that the organization is protecting their pitchers, hence
• If a team goes to 4-man rotations with hard limits on pitch count (which most studies seem to support as being wisest), they will leave themselves open to ridicule when their pitchers get hurt (as they might, regardless)

If I were an ace starter in the majors, I would gather my three best team mates and work out an agreement that all four go to management and say "I'm fine with a four-man rotation as long as we limit ourselves to 115 or so pitches an outing." I would then proceed to get my 40 or so starts, and probably be in line to win a Cy Young merely because I'll get an additional five opportunities to win games that my competition wouldn't.

I've heard the argument that agents wouldn't allow it, but quite honestly, a star pitcher who can start 40 times a year is going to be able to draw more cash than one who can start 35 times. So at the beginning an agent may complain, but if a usage makes a player more valuable, then it will eventually be to the agent's benefit.

Correct sir! Bob Boone was the last manager to attempt this for an extended period of time while he was in KC,unfortunately,they didn't heed pitch count data and their experiment blew up by August of that season.Sooner or later another manager will get this right and then, the revolution will be televised....over and over