Bundy and the third time through

[jorgenswest]

Reposted from game recap…

The third time through the order narrative is somewhat a myth that is founded in the skewed data the third time in a row. The main reason pitchers have poorer numbers the third time through the order is that the data is heavily skewed towards the top of the order and the best hitters. Bundy has faced a batter a third time 48 times. The top 3 in the order account for 25 of the 48. The bottom 3 account for 6. With that skew it should follow that almost any pitcher is going to have much worse numbers the third time through. 

Looking at the data from an individual hitters perspective gives a different perception. I did this a while back and slightly more hitters (around 37%) did better in their third appearance against a pitcher. That isn’t very convincing that the third time through is meaningful.

For example here are the top three in the White Sox order last night and OPS by times facing a pitcher.

Anderson 945, 854, 658

Vaughn 515, 1133, 846

Robert 413, 835, 862

One batter does best the first time, another the second and the last the third. I don’t think that is meaningful for the individual either but it points out what I saw at the individual batter level data.

It seems like the third time through is an established narrative from those that broadcast and write about the game. I believe the skew in the data is misunderstood by many and while there is a slight drop it is not nearly as significant as many assume.

What do you think? Is to much made from the third time through the line up?

[Linus]

I have no idea but that narrative gets repeated often. This should be something that can be nailed down without grey areas. 
I think they should allow pitchers to try and take on the 3rd time but have someone getting ready and be ready to make a move at the first sign of trouble. 

[ICTwin25]

This narrative is used a lot for folks who think Rocco manages a pitching staff well, especially because there is a small sample size of Bundy going that late. He has a 3.60 ERA in the 5th and 6th innings, but has only pitched a combined 15 innings during those two. It worked out last night because the bullpen pitched well, but 58 pitches for your starter who had a good outing is still questionable to me.

[wsnydes]

I guess that I would expect for this data to skew heavily towards the top of the order because if the pitcher allows a base runner from the top, it's less likely that he'll face the heart of the order.  So that makes sense to me.  

One question that I have regarding the hitter data is if it's an apples to apples comparison relative to the pitchers.  If the pitching data skews to the top of the order, does the batter data as well?  Or is that "evened out" across the entire lineup?  I'm not sure that I'm explaining that well...That data you've provided does seem to have a disconnect, I'm just not sure where it's at given the information here.

[wsnydes]

6 minutes ago, ICTwin25 said:

This narrative is used a lot for folks who think Rocco manages a pitching staff well, especially because there is a small sample size of Bundy going that late. He has a 3.60 ERA in the 5th and 6th innings, but has only pitched a combined 15 innings during those two. It worked out last night because the bullpen pitched well, but 58 pitches for your starter who had a good outing is still questionable to me.

It's not just a Twins thing though.  It's happening across the league.  @Riverbrian posted an article last week on this very topic, here.  So, to say that it's a Rocco thing simply isn't true.

[chpettit19]

*I responded to the comment in the game recap, but this is a better place for the bigger convo so will reply here, too.

I think the way it's talked about is too firm and certain. The 3rd time through the order doesn't automatically mean the starter is coming out. It's 1 piece of the equation. Bundy was allowed to face guys a 4th time in the blowout start he had. Last night the game was close and he ended an inning after getting the 9th hole hitter out. The Twins, and many teams, like to give relievers a clean inning and avoid bringing guys in with runners on if they can. The game was close so they wanted to go with the guy they thought had the best chance of getting through the next inning without allowing a run. If it were Gray or Ryan on the mound that would have been an added factor as well.

The top of the lineup approaching for a 3rd time is a trigger to start making decisions, not a decision maker on it's own. The nuance is often lost on message boards, etc. because people tend to speak in far more certain terms while making short arguments online. Bundy has faced guys a 3rd time in 9 of 14 starts. Ryan 12 of 12. Archer 4 of 15. Gray 8 of 11. Ober 5 of 7. Smeltzer 9 of 10. 

I think the "formula" (I know that'll trigger a few people, but it's the best word to use) for deciding when to take someone out is far more complex than "can't do a 3rd time through the order" or "can't throw more than 80 pitches" or "righty vs lefty" or "he's a closer so has to throw the 9th with a 3 run or fewer lead" or any of the other very basic, straight forward ideas that are thrown around on the internet. And despite what people like to think, there was a "formula" when La Russa started managing just like there is today. It's just changed over time. Like everything did. They've gained new information and adjusted. The formula is just more complex and not what people are used to so it upsets some people. It's also not as entertaining and that upsets me. But managers weren't just managing "with their gut" all this time. There just wasn't as much information so readily available so fans didn't have much to argue about.

I mean La Russa himself changed how pens/pitchers were used. It's just how the world works. People get used to things being done a certain way and when that way changes they complain and call the new way dumb. They wait for any opportunity to point out where it goes wrong while ignoring the times it goes right. When La Russa started using lefty specialists, and going on matchups earlier in the game to give Eckersley a clean 9th inning to work with people called him crazy, too. Now that teams are advancing past that formula they're being called crazy. And in 20 years when teams start using guys different than this they'll get called crazy. It's just the way of the world.

[Trov]

1 hour ago, jorgenswest said:

Reposted from game recap…

The third time through the order narrative is somewhat a myth that is founded in the skewed data the third time in a row. The main reason pitchers have poorer numbers the third time through the order is that the data is heavily skewed towards the top of the order and the best hitters. Bundy has faced a batter a third time 48 times. The top 3 in the order account for 25 of the 48. The bottom 3 account for 6. With that skew it should follow that almost any pitcher is going to have much worse numbers the third time through. 

Looking at the data from an individual hitters perspective gives a different perception. I did this a while back and slightly more hitters (around 37%) did better in their third appearance against a pitcher. That isn’t very convincing that the third time through is meaningful.

For example here are the top three in the White Sox order last night and OPS by times facing a pitcher.

Anderson 945, 854, 658

Vaughn 515, 1133, 846

Robert 413, 835, 862

One batter does best the first time, another the second and the last the third. I don’t think that is meaningful for the individual either but it points out what I saw at the individual batter level data.

It seems like the third time through is an established narrative from those that broadcast and write about the game. I believe the skew in the data is misunderstood by many and while there is a slight drop it is not nearly as significant as many assume.

What do you think? Is to much made from the third time through the line up?

I have long argued this is a stat that is somewhat self fulfilling as well.  Most pitchers now a days hardly get a chance to make a full trip through the order a third time, except in rare situations.  That is not just on Twins but across the league.  Many will get into the third time but not finish, for various reasons, inning count, pitch count, or not doing well. 

What that means just as you pointed out, that if the first couple of hitters get hits, and he is pulled he cannot balance out that hit.  Heck, even if he retires the first 2 and gives up a single that is a .333 average, and he is pulled then he cannot counter that by getting the next guy out and dropping to a .250.  

I am not saying hitters have a better chance the third time through, but I agree that it is blown way out of proportion that a guy cannot do a third time through a line up.  Overall the the sample is much smaller.  It is like saying a left hander cannot hit against another lefty, but most of the time the hitters are not given much of a chance to prove it, unless they do it quickly. 

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, Trov said:

I have long argued this is a stat that is somewhat self fulfilling as well.  Most pitchers now a days hardly get a chance to make a full trip through the order a third time, except in rare situations.  That is not just on Twins but across the league.  Many will get into the third time but not finish, for various reasons, inning count, pitch count, or not doing well. 

What that means just as you pointed out, that if the first couple of hitters get hits, and he is pulled he cannot balance out that hit.  Heck, even if he retires the first 2 and gives up a single that is a .333 average, and he is pulled then he cannot counter that by getting the next guy out and dropping to a .250.  

I am not saying hitters have a better chance the third time through, but I agree that it is blown way out of proportion that a guy cannot do a third time through a line up.  Overall the the sample is much smaller.  It is like saying a left hander cannot hit against another lefty, but most of the time the hitters are not given much of a chance to prove it, unless they do it quickly. 

Agree with the general idea here in relation to current stats. But the league has far more stats than this that they've based this strategy on. They're using historical data, and minor league data, and pitch data, and so many other things. The better the pitcher the more leash they get, too. The reason guys like Bundy are taken out earlier than guys like Ryan is because the teams are better at knowing who gives you the better chance of getting the next 3 guys out. Teams don't take deGrom, Scherzer, and Verlander types out after the 2nd time through the order or when they give up a single to the 3 hole hitter his 3rd time up. They take Bundy types out because they don't want to overexpose lesser pitchers because that's not the best way to win baseball games.

[Mike Sixel]

It hurts my brain that people think this is a Twins "problem " without looking at all at the rest of the majors. 

[Schmoeman5]

I don't like the premise of "the dreaded 3rd time through the order". It's basically saying that the hitter has the pitcher all figured out or that hes out of gas. So since there's a book on practically every hitter ie pitch to hitters weakness they're saying by the 3rd time pitchers can't do that. I call bull poop. It's more of a mental thing. Pitchers know that he's coming out at the first sign of trouble. The one thing the "old timers" say that is still a recognized truth is baseball is a mental game. If a pitcher is tired he is more apt to miss his spots but if a pitcher goes out to the mound knowing that he's coming out after a walk hbp error Basehit whatever then why bother. And I know it's rarely a fatigue thing. Verlander doesn't have the same velocity he used to, but he still pitches the same way. Easy 90-92 first time thru, 92-94 the second time 95+ the third time and he mixes things up more. Kershaw the same. These guys know they're past physical prime but they somehow are able to navigate said 3rd time. Stop babying them. 

[4twinsJA]

A factor last night was how hot it was, did you see how red Bundy's face was. Also, BP was rested, needed to get pitchers some innings.

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, ICTwin25 said:

 It worked out last night because the bullpen pitched well, but 58 pitches for your starter who had a good outing is still questionable to me.

Did it work last night? the first pitcher that came in blew the lead, and the Twins won because of a 4 run tenth. The Starter's ERA was 1.00 and the Bullpen's ERA was 3.60. Sure they won the game, but was it in spite of the bullpen usage or because of the bullpen usage, we will never know.

[SwainZag]

7 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Did it work last night? the first pitcher that came in blew the lead, and the Twins won because of a 4 run tenth. The Starter's ERA was 1.00 and the Bullpen's ERA was 3.60. Sure they won the game, but was it in spite of the bullpen usage or because of the bullpen usage, we will never know.

Bundy gave up 1 ER in 5 innings, an ERA of 1.80.  The bullpen gave up 1 ER in 5 innings, an ERA of 1.80.  Getting 5 solid innings of 1 run ball from Bundy, who carries an ERA of 4.50 should be lauded.  Bundy historically is prone to giving up home runs, and against a fairly powerful, free swinging team like Chicago I have no problem with him being pulled, especially considering the score.  If the Twins were up 4 or 5 to 1, I would have bet that Bundy would have trotted out and at least started the 6th.  

So it a nutshell, yes it worked out last night.  Even if the Twins would have lost 3-2 in extras last night, it still wouldn't have been on not letting Bundy go deeper into the game, it would have been on the offense's failure to score runs. 

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

It hurts my brain that people think this is a Twins "problem " without looking at all at the rest of the majors. 

You always say that, but was there another team that pulled its starter after 58 pitchers, in just 5 innings yesterday, recently?

There wasn't any yesterday or Sunday, people could claim the Rays and Boston did something similiar yesterday, but both went with a starter and let the second pitcher go 5 inning and  82 and 93 pitches.

Also, just because others "are doing it" does that mean that fans can't complain about it?

Maybe the Twins told Bundy no matter what today the most innings you are going is 5, we need to get some work from Jax, Duffey, and Pagan; seems like kind of a weird plan and one that is almost conceding the game or the next days game, Which is confusing since the three previous starters went 6,5,7, but at least it would be a plan.

[Mike Sixel]

7 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

You always say that, but was there another team that pulled its starter after 58 pitchers, in just 5 innings yesterday, recently?

There wasn't any yesterday or Sunday, people could claim the Rays and Boston did something similiar yesterday, but both went with a starter and let the second pitcher go 5 inning and  82 and 93 pitches.

Also, just because others "are doing it" does that mean that fans can't complain about it?

Maybe the Twins told Bundy no matter what today the most innings you are going is 5, we need to get some work from Jax, Duffey, and Pagan; seems like kind of a weird plan and one that is almost conceding the game or the next days game, Which is confusing since the three previous starters went 6,5,7, but at least it would be a plan.

I'm not sure what one piece of data has to do with what the entire league has been doing for several years now. Which remains my point.  Complain all you want, you have that right.  Asking one team to do what everyone in baseball has decided is a bad idea seems like a losing fight that will lead to unhappiness. 

[TwinsDr2021]

5 minutes ago, SwainZag said:

Bundy gave up 1 ER in 5 innings, an ERA of 1.80.  The bullpen gave up 1 ER in 5 innings, an ERA of 1.80.  Getting 5 solid innings of 1 run ball from Bundy, who carries an ERA of 4.50 should be lauded.  Bundy historically is prone to giving up home runs, and against a fairly powerful, free swinging team like Chicago I have no problem with him being pulled, especially considering the score.  If the Twins were up 4 or 5 to 1, I would have bet that Bundy would have trotted out and at least started the 6th.  

So it a nutshell, yes it worked out last night.  Even if the Twins would have lost 3-2 in extras last night, it still wouldn't have been on not letting Bundy go deeper into the game, it would have been on the offense's failure to score runs. 

You are correct, I typed a zero instead of an eight, and I missed the run in the 10th was unearned, I forgot the ghost runner doesn't count as earned.

I would argue if Bundy can't be trusted to throw more than 5 unless it is a blow out one way or another(which he has at least 4 other times) a better philosophy would been for Jax to start and throw his two innings and then bring Bundy in, but whatever.

It is terrible baseball to watch a starter dominating a lineup for 5 innings (58 pitches, 6 K's, 1 BB, and 3 hits) and being pulled and the bullpen blowing the lead within 2 innings, but that is just my opinion.

I do find it laughable that if the offense save the team the philosophy works, but if the offense don't save the team it is on them.

I also find it funny that a week ago bringing in Pagen was a terrible call, but bringing him in today was the right call.

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

You always say that, but was there another team that pulled its starter after 58 pitchers, in just 5 innings yesterday, recently?

There wasn't any yesterday or Sunday, people could claim the Rays and Boston did something similiar yesterday, but both went with a starter and let the second pitcher go 5 inning and  82 and 93 pitches.

Also, just because others "are doing it" does that mean that fans can't complain about it?

Maybe the Twins told Bundy no matter what today the most innings you are going is 5, we need to get some work from Jax, Duffey, and Pagan; seems like kind of a weird plan and one that is almost conceding the game or the next days game, Which is confusing since the three previous starters went 6,5,7, but at least it would be a plan.

Fans are always allowed to complain about things, and they always will complain about things. Doesn't automatically mean their complaints are well thought out, informed, accurate, or relevant. Not saying there aren't well thought out, informed, accurate, and relevant complaints about pitcher usage, but just because people are allowed to complain about things doesn't mean people should listen to the complaints. We're all entitled to opinions, but opinions aren't entitled to being right.

[TwinsDr2021]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

I'm not sure what one piece of data has to do with what the entire league has been doing for several years now. Which remains my point.  Complain all you want, you have that right.  Asking one team to do what everyone in baseball has decided is a bad idea seems like a losing fight that will lead to unhappiness. 

I am asking you to show examples (which should be easy since the entire league has been doing it for years)

I understand it does happen and it for sure happens early in the season quite a bit before the starters are stretched out. But I would argue by looking at the box scores the last month or so, teams aren't pulling starters with that low of pitch count that early in the game, unless they pitcher is terrible or a rain delay. The starting pitchers that the managers don't trust to pitch 80 plus innings are being inserted after a starter goes an inning or two and then pulled to give the fireballers in the pen the last inning or two.

[SwainZag]

10 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

You are correct, I typed a zero instead of an eight, and I missed the run in the 10th was unearned, I forgot the ghost runner doesn't count as earned.

I would argue if Bundy can't be trusted to throw more than 5 unless it is a blow out one way or another(which he has at least 4 other times) a better philosophy would been for Jax to start and throw his two innings and then bring Bundy in, but whatever.

It is terrible baseball to watch a starter dominating a lineup for 5 innings (58 pitches, 6 K's, 1 BB, and 3 hits) and being pulled and the bullpen blowing the lead within 2 innings, but that is just my opinion.

I do find it laughable that if the offense save the team the philosophy works, but if the offense don't save the team it is on them.

I also find it funny that a week ago bringing in Pagen was a terrible call, but bringing him in today was the right call.

Honestly, what difference does it makes when Bundy and Jax throws?  Why is terrible baseball to watch a guy throw a very solid 5 innings and then get pulled to go the bullpen?  I would rather see a guy throw 5 great innings and get pulled, than throw 5 1/3 innings, leave runners on the corners and leave it on the bullpen to get out of a jam or worse. The days of leaving starters in way too long is past us.  If the Twins could get 5 innings of 1 run ball out of Bundy everytime out regardless of pitch count it would be fantastic.

IMO if the Twins lose with 2 or less runs, the game is on them regardless of how well the game is pitched.  It's obviously not always the case, but in a game like last nights where they had base runners almost every inning and failed to come through....it would have certainly been on the offense.

[TwinsDr2021]

7 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Fans are always allowed to complain about things, and they always will complain about things. Doesn't automatically mean their complaints are well thought out, informed, accurate, or relevant. Not saying there aren't well thought out, informed, accurate, and relevant complaints about pitcher usage, but just because people are allowed to complain about things doesn't mean people should listen to the complaints. We're all entitled to opinions, but opinions aren't entitled to being right.

?

I would also add that fans complaining about fans complaining because "the entire league is doing it" without backing that up with examples is the same possibly as "aren't well thought out, informed, accurate, and relevant "? NO?

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I am asking you to show examples (which should be easy since the entire league has been doing it for years)

I understand it does happen and it for sure happens early in the season quite a bit before the starters are stretched out. But I would argue by looking at the box scores the last month or so, teams aren't pulling starters with that low of pitch count that early in the game, unless they pitcher is terrible or a rain delay. The starting pitchers that the managers don't trust to pitch 80 plus innings are being inserted after a starter goes an inning or two and then pulled to give the fireballers in the pen the last inning or two.

Examples? The data is out there.  Not one staff averages 6 innings per start.  Less than 30 pitchers are doing so this year ( that's from a few weeks ago, there may be some changes since). There have been numerous links provided to the data. 

I also don't get why it is bad to watch a guy throw 5 great innings and leave? You've decided you don't like it, but that's your own feeling, but intrinsically true.  Like I said, you can decide you don't like how everyone plays the game, and decide to be unhappy. Or, just watch the game and enjoy it for what it is.  That's the beauty of things that are only entertainment, everyone gets to decide how to feel about it and not be wrong. 

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

?

I would also add that fans complaining about fans complaining because "the entire league is doing it" without backing that up with examples is the same possibly as "aren't well thought out, informed, accurate, and relevant "? NO?

I think the difference in the current debate is that pitch count isn't the factor the Twins were going on. Pitch count is a big topic because it's been talked to death over the last decade. There's certainly still a top (100ish) limit to pitches teams are comfortable letting their guys throw due to arm health concerns, but the driving factor in the short starts now isn't about pitch count, but times exposed to hitters and that sort of thing. So it's sort of 2 different debates.

[TwinsDr2021]

16 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I think the difference in the current debate is that pitch count isn't the factor the Twins were going on. Pitch count is a big topic because it's been talked to death over the last decade. There's certainly still a top (100ish) limit to pitches teams are comfortable letting their guys throw due to arm health concerns, but the driving factor in the short starts now isn't about pitch count, but times exposed to hitters and that sort of thing. So it's sort of 2 different debates.

Well I guess I am looking at different box scores than the rest of people, because I am not seeing starters that aren't terrible, rain delay, injury or relief pitchers starting that aren't going 80 - 100+ plus pitches be it any inning amount, some 5, 6, 7, 8, The Red Sox on Sunday did pull Connor Seasbold after 4 innings and 74 pitches (3 major league game and second this year)

It would be interesting if somebody (namely baseball reference or something) took out all the rain delay, relief pitchers starts, and injuries and figured out what the average start was by month. So we could quit using the lazy stat that no team averages  6 innings a start.

 

[TwinsDr2021]

20 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Examples? The data is out there.  Not one staff averages 6 innings per start.  Less than 30 pitchers are doing so this year ( that's from a few weeks ago, there may be some changes since). There have been numerous links provided to the data. 

I also don't get why it is bad to watch a guy throw 5 great innings and leave? You've decided you don't like it, but that's your own feeling, but intrinsically true.  Like I said, you can decide you don't like how everyone plays the game, and decide to be unhappy. Or, just watch the game and enjoy it for what it is.  That's the beauty of things that are only entertainment, everyone gets to decide how to feel about it and not be wrong. 

Is there? I haven't ever seen anybody post examples of pitchers being pulled similiar to what the Twins have done but maybe I have missed that I don't read everything on here. Sure I have seen the lazy stat that pitching staff don't average 6 innings or X amount of pitchers average X amount of innings without context on how stretched out they are or if they were terrible in a few games thus bringing their average start down.

 

And it isn't bad watching a guy dominant for 5 great innings that isn't the problem, it is that he is being pulled and not allowed to dominant for 6 or possibly more. Being a former pitcher and seeing a pitcher that is pitching that well being pulled and turning the game over to the unknown isn't great to me, but to each their own.

[Schmoeman5]

I'm not going to do any data searching, but I'd be willing to bet that arguably the 4 or 5 best teams in MLB  this year, Astroles, the evil empire, Dodgers, Mets, and I'll just say Hotlanta starters go longer than the rest of the league. Thereby less taxing on their bullpen. If team A is averaging 6.1 per outing and team B is averaging 5 2 per outing. Nor a huge difference, right? That equates to 108 extra innings per year out of the bullpen. And if that team isn't solid top to bottom then pitchers that arent capable are exposed to high leverage situations.

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Well I guess I am looking at different box scores than the rest of people, because I am not seeing starters that aren't terrible, rain delay, injury or relief pitchers starting that aren't going 80 - 100+ plus pitches be it any inning amount, some 5, 6, 7, 8, The Red Sox on Sunday did pull Connor Seasbold after 4 innings and 74 pitches (3 major league game and second this year)

It would be interesting if somebody (namely baseball reference or something) took out all the rain delay, relief pitchers starts, and injuries and figured out what the average start was by month. So we could quit using the lazy stat that no team averages  6 innings a start.

 

Again, the pitch count thing wasn't the driving force on the decision about Bundy last night. It was a close game and the math said they had a better chance of not giving up runs by using Jax than letting Bundy attempt a 3rd time through the order. It had nothing to do with his pitch count. Him having been efficient through 5 was nice, but didn't play a role in the decision last night. 

I don't know why you call that stat lazy. There are currently 64 starting pitchers qualified for the ERA title. Sandy Alcantara is averaging 7.19 innings per start. Only guy over 7. There are only 19 other starting pitchers in baseball averaging at least 6 innings a start. 20 out of 64 qualified starters are averaging 6 innings a start. If I drop the innings qualifications down to 70 innings pitched there are 113 pitchers. Keegan Thompson of the Cubs joins Alcantara over 7 (he's made 10 starts out of 18 appearances). But the total number of pitchers averaging 6 innings a start goes up to just 25. There haven't been enough rain delays or injuries to change those numbers drastically. There are 25 pitchers who have thrown at least 70 innings that average 6 innings a start. And 3 of those have only made 9 or 10 starts. 

[howeda7]

3 hours ago, Linus said:

I have no idea but that narrative gets repeated often. This should be something that can be nailed down without grey areas. 
I think they should allow pitchers to try and take on the 3rd time but have someone getting ready and be ready to make a move at the first sign of trouble. 

This. Give him one base runner and then pull him. Plus not all outings are created equal. There have plenty of Dylan Bundy outings where I'd take the 5 innings and run, but he was pretty locked in last night.

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Schmoeman5 said:

I'm not going to do any data searching, but I'd be willing to bet that arguably the 4 or 5 best teams in MLB  this year, Astroles, the evil empire, Dodgers, Mets, and I'll just say Hotlanta starters go longer than the rest of the league. Thereby less taxing on their bullpen. If team A is averaging 6.1 per outing and team B is averaging 5 2 per outing. Nor a huge difference, right? That equates to 108 extra innings per year out of the bullpen. And if that team isn't solid top to bottom then pitchers that arent capable are exposed to high leverage situations.

I did the data searching for you:

Atlanta currently has 2 starters who average 6 innings a start (Fried and Wright). The Yankees have 0. Mets have 0. Astros have 3 (Verlander, Javier, Valdez). Dodgers have 1 (Tyler Anderson). That's of pitchers who've thrown at least 70 innings this year to give us a decent sample size. For the record 70 innings pitched wouldn't even qualify them for the ERA title so it's a pretty low standard.

[TwinsDr2021]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't know why you call that stat lazy.

To clarify I am calling the stat that no staff averages 6 inning a start as lazy. Because that doesn't take into account a team like the Rays (as one example) have had close to 25% of their stars being made by non-traditional starters.

[SwainZag]

41 minutes ago, howeda7 said:

This. Give him one base runner and then pull him. Plus not all outings are created equal. There have plenty of Dylan Bundy outings where I'd take the 5 innings and run, but he was pretty locked in last night.

Does the base runner matter? Could they reach on an error?  A dinky grounder that finds it's way through the IF?  A bloop single that barely finds grass? Or does it need to be a hard liner to the gap?  How does a bloop single or fielding error signify he should be pulled?  

If you are eager to pull him at the first sign of a base runner, why not just start the inning with a fresh arm?