Bundy and the third time through

[chpettit19]

Just now, TwinsDr2021 said:

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.

Of guys averaging less than 3 innings a start there have been 31 total starts made. Of starters averaging 1 or fewer innings (Dauri Moreta of the Reds made 1 start and got 1 out in it), there have been 11 total starts. You're drastically overestimating the sort of effect those starts would have on the 6 inning a start stat. 

[chpettit19]

11 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

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.

And for the Rays specifically...

Average innings per start:
McClanahan 6.13 in 16 starts
Kluber 5.07 in 15 starts
Springs 4.92 in 10 starts
Baz 4.84 in 5 starts
Rasmussen 4.78 in 13 starts
Yarbrough 4.03 in 6 starts
Fleming 3.5 in 2 starts
Feyereisen 2 in 2 starts
Beeks 1.84 in 5 starts
Wisler 1.55 in 4 starts

Their 4 top starters average 5.225633013 innings per start. So there's the number 1 offender of non-traditional starters still coming in far below 6 innings a start even with their traditional starters. The stat isn't lazy, it just doesn't follow your narrative.

[TwinsDr2021]

54 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

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.

I will just use the Yanks, I am only really seeing three starts that qualify for has been said, the three by Montgomery.

James Taillon lowest pitch count for 5 innings was 72 (1st start), Lowest for 6 was 71
Luis Severino lowest pitch count for 5 innings was 83 (2nd start), Lowest for 6 was 77
Nestor Cortes lowest pitch count for 5 innings was 82 (4th start), Lowest for 6 was 91
Jordan Montgomery lowest pitch count for 5 innings was 71 (2nd start and 4th start), Lowest for 6 was 71
Gerrit Cole lowest pitch count for 5.2 innings was 85 (2nd start), Lowest for 6 was 91

All average over 5.5.

The only reason Cole isn't over 6 is two terrible starts., Montgomery has two starts less than 5 and if you remove those he is a 6, Cortes has two games of 4.1 with 4 runs, without that he would be a rounding error at 6. They generally don't allow him to start an inning with over 85-90 pitches. Taillon is generally limited to less than 90 pitches but still is at 5.6, Severino is at 5.57 and has pitched in 7 games since the end of 2018 prior to this year and 8 of his 14 games he has pitched 6 inning,

So using the Yanks as an example of everybody is doing it is not a good example at all, most are just a few bad starts from averaging 6 and besides a few early starts they generally are only limited by how efficient they are with pitches.

Looked at the braves and the only reason Anderson isn't above 6 is because he has 4 short terrible games, when he is not bad he is over 5+ and in the 90 pitch count. Morton who is 38 is only below 6 because of the games he was bad (2) and not very efficient with his pitch count (102 in 5, 92 in 5, 95 in 5.1, 95 in 5) but in his last 5 games he has pitched 6, 7, 7, 5,2, 7. The rest of their games have been started by people I don't know, except the moved Strider from the pen to starting and 4 of his last stars are 6, 6, 3.2 (6 ER), 5.1 (106 pitches)

Mets, Bassit is one bad game 3.1 (7 earned runs from 6), Carrasco (5.45) but 5 terrible games less than 5 innings (4.1, 2,1, 4.2, 4.1, 3.2), still under 6 but to 5 2/3. Taijuan Walker is under 6 but his last 11 starts have been 6, 7.1, 6, 6.2, 6, 6, 5.2 (94 pitches), 5 (88 pitches), 7, 5 (94 pitches, 7, And Scherzer only has 8 starts but 49.2 innings (That is over 6).

 

So while you stats are 100% true, looking a little deeper kind of tells a different story.

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

And for the Rays specifically...

Average innings per start:
McClanahan 6.13 in 16 starts
Kluber 5.07 in 15 starts
Springs 4.92 in 10 starts
Baz 4.84 in 5 starts
Rasmussen 4.78 in 13 starts
Yarbrough 4.03 in 6 starts
Fleming 3.5 in 2 starts
Feyereisen 2 in 2 starts
Beeks 1.84 in 5 starts
Wisler 1.55 in 4 starts

Their 4 top starters average 5.225633013 innings per start. So there's the number 1 offender of non-traditional starters still coming in far below 6 innings a start even with their traditional starters. The stat isn't lazy, it just doesn't follow your narrative.

As for Kluber you could say he might be similar because they don't like him run up his pitch count, but in his last starts were he hasn't been terrible, 5.1 (63 pitches), 6(92 pitches), 6(93 pitches), 5 (80 pitches), 6 (69 pitches), 6 (80 pitches), 6 (90 pitches), 6(64 pitches), 6 (71 pitches) In between those were 3 starts of 3 innings.
Springs moved from the pen to the starter and has went 6 in three of his last 7, one he wasn't good 4.1 (4ER and 86 pitches), The other three were good 5.1 (94 pitches)and 5 inning (2ER 85 pitches), 5.2 (1 hit 80 pitches, but 4 walks)
Baz is 23 and has 8 major league starts, 2 of his 5 starts he has went 6, one with 5.2(95 pitches), one was 4.2( 78 pitches) and the other was bad 2.1 (5 ER)
Rasmussen has generally been up and down, if he is good and keeps his pitch count down he pitches longer,  he isn't the most efficient pitcher out there.
Yarbrough has an ERA of 5.82 so no surprise he doesn't average many innings per start, with that said he last four games are 5.1, 1.2, 6.2 and 5.1.

So again, I am not sure your are proving your point, unless your argument is that bad starts bring down your average inning per start, or unless you are trying to say running up your pitch count can contribute to short starts.

[chpettit19]

10 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I will just use the Yanks, I am only really seeing three starts that qualify for has been said, the three by Montgomery.

James Taillon lowest pitch count for 5 innings was 72 (1st start), Lowest for 6 was 71
Luis Severino lowest pitch count for 5 innings was 83 (2nd start), Lowest for 6 was 77
Nestor Cortes lowest pitch count for 5 innings was 82 (4th start), Lowest for 6 was 91
Jordan Montgomery lowest pitch count for 5 innings was 71 (2nd start and 4th start), Lowest for 6 was 71
Gerrit Cole lowest pitch count for 5.2 innings was 85 (2nd start), Lowest for 6 was 91

All average over 5.5.

The only reason Cole isn't over 6 is two terrible starts., Montgomery has two starts less than 5 and if you remove those he is a 6, Cortes has two games of 4.1 with 4 runs, without that he would be a rounding error at 6. They generally don't allow him to start an inning with over 85-90 pitches. Taillon is generally limited to less than 90 pitches but still is at 5.6, Severino is at 5.57 and has pitched in 7 games since the end of 2018 prior to this year and 8 of his 14 games he has pitched 6 inning,

So using the Yanks as an example of everybody is doing it is not a good example at all, most are just a few bad starts from averaging 6 and besides a few early starts they generally are only limited by how efficient they are with pitches.

Looked at the braves and the only reason Anderson isn't above 6 is because he has 4 short terrible games, when he is not bad he is over 5+ and in the 90 pitch count. Morton who is 38 is only below 6 because of the games he was bad (2) and not very efficient with his pitch count (102 in 5, 92 in 5, 95 in 5.1, 95 in 5) but in his last 5 games he has pitched 6, 7, 7, 5,2, 7. The rest of their games have been started by people I don't know, except the moved Strider from the pen to starting and 4 of his last stars are 6, 6, 3.2 (6 ER), 5.1 (106 pitches)

Mets, Bassit is one bad game 3.1 (7 earned runs from 6), Carrasco (5.45) but 5 terrible games less than 5 innings (4.1, 2,1, 4.2, 4.1, 3.2), still under 6 but to 5 2/3. Taijuan Walker is under 6 but his last 11 starts have been 6, 7.1, 6, 6.2, 6, 6, 5.2 (94 pitches), 5 (88 pitches), 7, 5 (94 pitches, 7, And Scherzer only has 8 starts but 49.2 innings (That is over 6).

 

So while you stats are 100% true, looking a little deeper kind of tells a different story.

Here's all I need to know about your argument: You're suggesting taking out 36% of Carrasco's starts to fit him into your narrative. If you take out his top 5 starts he's at 4.4 innings a start. Crazy how taking out all the numbers that don't fit your narrative really changes the numbers, huh? In fact Carrasco only has 5 starts all season that he went 6 innings. If I take Bundy's 5 worst starts out of his numbers he's at 5.7 and suddenly the Twins look like they let him get 2 outs in the 6th every time out.

There's a reason you don't just pick the elite pitchers like Cole and Scherzer and instead go off team averages. Because, as has been said multiple times, the quality of pitcher is one of the big factors in the decisions of replacing a starter with a reliever. The Twins have let pitchers go 6, 7, 8 innings in starts when the game isn't close or when it's a Ryan quality pitcher on the mound.

3 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

As for Kluber you could say he might be similar because they don't like him run up his pitch count, but in his last starts were he hasn't been terrible, 5.1 (63 pitches), 6(92 pitches), 6(93 pitches), 5 (80 pitches), 6 (69 pitches), 6 (80 pitches), 6 (90 pitches), 6(64 pitches), 6 (71 pitches) In between those were 3 starts of 3 innings.
Springs moved from the pen to the starter and has went 6 in three of his last 7, one he wasn't good 4.1 (4ER and 86 pitches), The other three were good 5.1 (94 pitches)and 5 inning (2ER 85 pitches), 5.2 (1 hit 80 pitches, but 4 walks)
Baz is 23 and has 8 major league starts, 2 of his 5 starts he has went 6, one with 5.2(95 pitches), one was 4.2( 78 pitches) and the other was bad 2.1 (5 ER)
Rasmussen has generally been up and down, if he is good and keeps his pitch count down he pitches longer,  he isn't the most efficient pitcher out there.
Yarbrough has an ERA of 5.82 so no surprise he doesn't average many innings per start, with that said he last four games are 5.1, 1.2, 6.2 and 5.1.

So again, I am not sure your are proving your point, unless your argument is that bad starts bring down your average inning per start, or unless you are trying to say running up your pitch count can contribute to short starts.

You're literally proving my, and other's, point here. I mean look at the range of inning totals you just presented and then the reasons (excuses?) you make to try to explain away why so many of the starts aren't 6+ innings. The point is that there's a lot of factors that lead to league wide average starts being under 6 innings. But when the Twins do it all some people want to do is yell that the Twins are terrible at managing pitchers and won't let starters go even though every other team would supposedly do it differently. 

But in those 2 posts you have both suggested getting rid of guy's lowest inning starts so they fit your narrative while providing reasons why some guys shouldn't be expected to go 6+ innings. So you've openly tried to manipulate stats to fit your narrative and then agreed with those of us who say there's reasons the Twins take guys out before they hit 100 pitches or 7 innings or whatever. Manipulating stats and agreeing it's sometimes justified is a questionable strategy for proving the point you're trying to prove.

[TwinsDr2021]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

But in those 2 posts you have both suggested getting rid of guy's lowest inning starts so they fit your narrative while providing reasons why some guys shouldn't be expected to go 6+ innings. So you've openly tried to manipulate stats to fit your narrative and then agreed with those of us who say there's reasons the Twins take guys out before they hit 100 pitches or 7 innings or whatever. Manipulating stats and agreeing it's sometimes justified is a questionable strategy for proving the point you're trying to prove.

That is not at all what I am saying, I saying when pitcher pitches good and efficient their average inning per start is higher than you and others are expressing. I showed you example from 4 teams (that you listed) and didn't find any examples of a pitcher being pulled after 5 innings with 58 pitches (or something close to that), and this what you are saying everybody in baseball is doing, correct? taking pitchers out early and with low pitch counts because the math says there is a higher percent chance of winning? Is that not what you are saying every team in baseball is doing?

And if it wasn't obvious I am not removing games to fit my narrative, I am saying when a guy pitches like crap they get pulled early or if it is early in the season and they haven't been stretched out., and if you remove those games, MOST of the time are getting pulled because of a high pitch count.

Based on what I just pointed out some or more teams would have let a starter like Ryan start the 8th in his last game with only 89 pitches (Since he is a 90 - 100 pitch count type of pitcher)

Now, I am not saying the Twins should have, I kind of thought it was a good idea with how inefficient he was the prior game and leaving on a good note was important. But based on what I posted above, for anybody to say well they had to take him out that is what all teams do, is a lazy statement.

 

 

[chpettit19]

Stats pulled from Fangraphs with 10 innings pitched as the qualifier for making the list. Then took out guys who haven't made a start and broke down to innings pitched per start based on "Start-IP" (innings pitched as a starter) divided by "GS" (games started). If you feel that's a bad way to break this down let me know.

Number of pitchers averaging at least 6 innings a start: 22
Average ERA of pitchers averaging at least 6 innings per start: 2.76

Number of pitchers averaging 5-5.946667 innings per start: 101
Average ERA of pitchers averaging between 5 and 5.9... innings per start: 3.77 

Number of pitchers averaging 4-4.95 innings per start: 84
Average ERA of pitchers averaging between 4 and 4.95 innings per start: 5.11

Dylan Bundy average innings per start: 5 (70 innings in 14 starts)
Dylan Bundy ERA: 4.5

Bad pitchers throw fewer innings. Comparing Bundy (or anyone the Twins staff) to Cole and Scherzer types is crazy. Dylan Bundy is directly in line with the number of innings he should be throwing based on his ERA/performance. That's the point some of us are trying to make.

The Twins are trying to optimize their pitching staff. They think the market inefficiency they can take advantage of is getting more out of a worse staff by using them for the optimal amount of innings/pitches/times through the order/type of hitters they face/leverage of game situation/etc. This topic is so complicated and nowhere near as straight forward as just pitch counts, just times through the order, or just anything. There's a lot of factors that go into these decisions. But Bundy sure seems to be being used the same way the league says he should be used. Average 5th guy in a rotation type should get 5ish innings a start.

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

But based on what I posted above, for anybody to say well they had to take him out that is what all teams do, is a lazy statement.

Nobody is saying he "had" to come out. We're saying there's a legit reason to take him out. It was a 1 run game. Leaving a guy you know isn't great in there against the top of their order in that type of game is more of a risk than bringing in your 2nd best relief arm. Playing the "well wait til he gives up a baserunner" game puts your pen in a worse spot then. It's about maximizing your chances. It doesn't always work, but over the course of 162 games it gives you the best chance to win the most games. There's reasonable arguments to be mad to leave him in, and I'm sure some other teams would have while some would've taken him out. I have no problem with people thinking he should've stayed in or that the Twins in general pull guys to early. You're smart and make solid arguments. But the argument that the average innings per start stats thrown around are lazy is lazy in itself. The best pitchers throw the most. The worse pitchers are pulled too early to lower the risk of them going bad and blowing up a good game. That's the strategy and it's pretty sound if you ask me. Doesn't always work out, but it's a good strategy over 162 games.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

14 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Nobody is saying he "had" to come out. We're saying there's a legit reason to take him out. It was a 1 run game. Leaving a guy you know isn't great in there against the top of their order in that type of game is more of a risk than bringing in your 2nd best relief arm. Playing the "well wait til he gives up a baserunner" game puts your pen in a worse spot then. It's about maximizing your chances. It doesn't always work, but over the course of 162 games it gives you the best chance to win the most games. There's reasonable arguments to be mad to leave him in, and I'm sure some other teams would have while some would've taken him out. I have no problem with people thinking he should've stayed in or that the Twins in general pull guys to early. You're smart and make solid arguments. But the argument that the average innings per start stats thrown around are lazy is lazy in itself. The best pitchers throw the most. The worse pitchers are pulled too early to lower the risk of them going bad and blowing up a good game. That's the strategy and it's pretty sound if you ask me. Doesn't always work out, but it's a good strategy over 162 games.

I also think the Twins subscribe to the theory: relievers are more effective coming in to a clean inning/firemen give up a disproportionate number of inherited runners scored.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Nobody is saying he "had" to come out. We're saying there's a legit reason to take him out. It was a 1 run game. Leaving a guy you know isn't great in there against the top of their order in that type of game is more of a risk than bringing in your 2nd best relief arm. Playing the "well wait til he gives up a baserunner" game puts your pen in a worse spot then. It's about maximizing your chances. It doesn't always work, but over the course of 162 games it gives you the best chance to win the most games. There's reasonable arguments to be mad to leave him in, and I'm sure some other teams would have while some would've taken him out. I have no problem with people thinking he should've stayed in or that the Twins in general pull guys to early. You're smart and make solid arguments. But the argument that the average innings per start stats thrown around are lazy is lazy in itself. The best pitchers throw the most. The worse pitchers are pulled too early to lower the risk of them going bad and blowing up a good game. That's the strategy and it's pretty sound if you ask me. Doesn't always work out, but it's a good strategy over 162 games.

This. NO ONE is saying they had to pull him....we are saying that's how the league rolls these days, that it isn't a Twins "problem", but how MLB works. Mediocre pitchers are given less room for error than they used to be. 

[Riverbrian]

24 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Mediocre pitchers are given less room for error than they used to be. 

This sentence alone says an awful lot. 

[Nine of twelve]

4 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

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.

Why shouldn't using a non-traditional starter be taken into account? If anything it's actually more important (IMHO) to include that because using an opener or scheduling a bullpen game is a significant part of the short-start trend.

[Nine of twelve]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

 Leaving a guy you know isn't great in there against the top of their order in that type of game is more of a risk than bringing in your 2nd best relief arm.

The general case is the question of which pitcher is more likely to succeed: a tiring starter facing batters who have seen his pitches in two at-bats already, or a fresh-armed reliever who has different pitches than those to which the opposing lineup has become acclimated.

[Vanimal46]

The White Sox are a really sloppy baseball team. Mental blunders all series long. 

[Riverbrian]

3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Mediocre pitchers are given less room for error than they used to be. 

He hit the nail on the head. Other than the odd addition of "be" at the end of his sentence. ? 

Quality starting pitching became too scarce and too expensive. Trying to find 5 starters to put together a quality rotation was incredibly hard to do, there were not enough of them to go around, the demand far exceeded the supply. Remember the term innings eater? We don't hear it much these days but that label really wasn't as charming or flattering as we romanticize it to be. However, it was reality because teams were forcing pitchers to do what they could not do just to adhere to a traditional structure that worked in a different era. 

Now add to this the injuries. The frequency of pitchers getting hurt and the lengthy downtime of the average pitching injury and the traditional staff was being held together with duct tape. 5 effective starters isn't close to what was needed to get through 162 games when in reality you need 8,9 10 of them and teams were lucky to find 3 to start with. Innings eaters all over the place.  

The Rays solved this problem. They stopped asking pitchers to do what they couldn't do. They stopped with the inning eating mediocrity and replaced those mediocre innings with guys who were more effective throwing 2 or 3 or 4 innings and they were also less expensive. 

It worked... other teams noticed that it worked and it has spread like best practices do in any industry worth it's salt and it's here in Minnesota now.  

If you were not watching the Rays, the Dodgers and other teams implementing successfully while you were watching Terry Ryan lose traditionally, it just might be a little confusing to you. 

In the nutshell that Mike laid out succinctly. Mediocre pitchers are given less room for error than they used to

[TwinsDr2021]

14 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Nobody is saying he "had" to come out. We're saying there's a legit reason to take him out. It was a 1 run game. Leaving a guy you know isn't great in there against the top of their order in that type of game is more of a risk than bringing in your 2nd best relief arm. Playing the "well wait til he gives up a baserunner" game puts your pen in a worse spot then. It's about maximizing your chances. It doesn't always work, but over the course of 162 games it gives you the best chance to win the most games. There's reasonable arguments to be mad to leave him in, and I'm sure some other teams would have while some would've taken him out. I have no problem with people thinking he should've stayed in or that the Twins in general pull guys to early. You're smart and make solid arguments. But the argument that the average innings per start stats thrown around are lazy is lazy in itself. The best pitchers throw the most. The worse pitchers are pulled too early to lower the risk of them going bad and blowing up a good game. That's the strategy and it's pretty sound if you ask me. Doesn't always work out, but it's a good strategy over 162 games.

This started out as

19 hours 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. 

My response was -

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

I pointed out that nobody did something similiar last weekend and in other messages pointed out 4 teams that haven't done anything similiar with their starters after their initial start or two.

And has turned into I am not even sure what, but I know it hasn't turned into proving other teams do this on a regular basis or even much if any at all. 

Pointing out the average innings per start isn't lazy it is true when comparing the Twins to the league and backs up completely what the Twins and the league are doing with the pitching staff on average. And if this was a general discussion on how the Twins are managing their starters compared to the rest of the league, then it is great and all and I would have been pointing out all the stats you were to proving the Twins aren't much different than the rest of the league, and then would have compared the Twins starters to the other teams and we wouldn't be having this conversation because we would be on the same page. 

But it is lazy to throw out a statement like this when comparing ONE start, because not one person has even attempted to show another team has done this even once. 5 innings and 58 pitches. Now, maybe this is my fault for changing the initial conversation from Bundy and the third time through to pulling him from this game.

You may want to save all the good research you did because it could come in handy later.

 

[by jiminy]

Back to the original point -- I think it's very astute to say you can't document the third time through the order effect just by ERA. Since most don't see the bottom of the order. The fair way would be to calculate batter by batter, then aggregate. Look at batters who faced the same pitcher three times, and compare the first two at bats to the third.

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

7 minutes ago, by jiminy said:

Back to the original point -- I think it's very astute to say you can't document the third time through the order effect just by ERA. Since most don't see the bottom of the order. The fair way would be to calculate batter by batter, then aggregate. Look at batters who faced the same pitcher three times, and compare the first two at bats to the third.

 

The batter by batter view is likely the data used by Rocco and Pete to determine whether to roll with Bundy (or whomever) another inning or start the inning with a reliever. If the starter would likely not make it through the inning, go to the pen

[Riverbrian]

24 minutes ago, by jiminy said:

Back to the original point -- I think it's very astute to say you can't document the third time through the order effect just by ERA. Since most don't see the bottom of the order. The fair way would be to calculate batter by batter, then aggregate. Look at batters who faced the same pitcher three times, and compare the first two at bats to the third.

 

I think the original point is a very interesting consideration and probably has a high level of correctness and I'll admit it was something that I hadn't thought of. 

However, that top of the order that skews the data will be the same top of the order that the starting pitcher must face after going through the order twice. So while the data may be skewed, those top of the order guys who skew the data are still holding a bat in their hands ready to skew the data some more. 

 

 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

This started out as

My response was -

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

I pointed out that nobody did something similiar last weekend and in other messages pointed out 4 teams that haven't done anything similiar with their starters after their initial start or two.

And has turned into I am not even sure what, but I know it hasn't turned into proving other teams do this on a regular basis or even much if any at all. 

Pointing out the average innings per start isn't lazy it is true when comparing the Twins to the league and backs up completely what the Twins and the league are doing with the pitching staff on average. And if this was a general discussion on how the Twins are managing their starters compared to the rest of the league, then it is great and all and I would have been pointing out all the stats you were to proving the Twins aren't much different than the rest of the league, and then would have compared the Twins starters to the other teams and we wouldn't be having this conversation because we would be on the same page. 

But it is lazy to throw out a statement like this when comparing ONE start, because not one person has even attempted to show another team has done this even once. 5 innings and 58 pitches. Now, maybe this is my fault for changing the initial conversation from Bundy and the third time through to pulling him from this game.

You may want to save all the good research you did because it could come in handy later.

 

Has another team had that situation come up? As I said a few times, the decision of taking the starter out is far more complicated than any 1 variable (times through the order and pitch count included). You're trying to break down 1 start to 1 variable. Game score, hitters due up, velo readings, spin readings, extension readings, pitch count, bullpen availability, next off day/immediate future schedule, guys coming off IL, minor league arms ready to replace a pen guy so you're willing to run him into the ground knowing he's getting DFA'd the next day (say hi to Tyler Thornburg), and more variables that I'm not thinking about this early.

Calling others lazy for not wanting to spend the time looking up every start and the circumstances surrounding taking a pitcher out to disprove the point you yourself haven't taken the time to look up the actual information to prove seems a little hypocritical. You have a hypothesis but don't want to do the work to prove it. Don't call others lazy for providing information to back up their hypothesis when you're not willing to do the same. I use the averages precisely for the reason that comparing ONE start is rather meaningless, because there's far too many variables to make it a worthwhile exercise.

And if you want an example of a pitcher being pulled "early" with a "low" pitch count later in a season because the numbers said the pen was the right choice you can go ahead and look at Blake Snell in game 6 of the 2020 World Series. He was at 5 1/3 and 73 pitches, but was doing even better than Bundy the other night and was a higher quality starter. There's your research that at least 1 other team is willing to pull a pitcher with a low pitch count before they get through 6 innings because the odds say the pen is the better choice. And, yes, I'm aware the Rays lost that game. And when people point that out and say Cash should've "managed with his gut instead of his spreadsheet" I'll point out Terry Collins "managing with his gut" in game 5 of the 2016 World Series and leaving Matt Harvey in to lose the game when he should've used his spreadsheet and taken Harvey out. See how going off of 1 game can "disprove" whatever stance you want to take and why many of us choose to use leaguewide trends and averages to come to conclusions instead?

[Linus]

I believe there is in game monitoring of all the Statcast data. Could it be this data is used to determine when to pull a pitcher?

[chpettit19]

45 minutes ago, by jiminy said:

Back to the original point -- I think it's very astute to say you can't document the third time through the order effect just by ERA. Since most don't see the bottom of the order. The fair way would be to calculate batter by batter, then aggregate. Look at batters who faced the same pitcher three times, and compare the first two at bats to the third.

I can promise you teams have far more in depth data than any of us can find on the internet. And they're using historical data mixed with comparison data to determine what kind of pitchers do well in more scenarios than we could even imagine. They're not just going off the shortened starts of the last handful of years and using that skewed data. It's the challenge with these sorts of online debates. We're arguing over freshman calc data while teams are doing doctoral level math. Well maybe the spread isn't that big, but I think it'd blow a lot of minds if people got a look at the data teams have and use.

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, Linus said:

I believe there is in game monitoring of all the Statcast data. Could it be this data is used to determine when to pull a pitcher?

It is absolutely part of the determination. Teams are watching velo numbers (both pitch and exit velo numbers), extension numbers (how far pitcher is striding and extending arm each pitch), spin numbers, contact numbers (are guys fouling more balls off as the guy goes through the order multiple times into the game?), etc. It's only part of the equation as the manager and pitching coach also have to take into consideration the game situation, what arms are available out of the pen, the upcoming schedule, get feedback from the pitchers on how they're feeling, etc. But it is part of in game and pre-game decision making and planning.

[ICTwin25]

Teams are absolutely using statcast data during games. To answer some of the earlier posts, no it's not just a Twins thing and I am not saying it's just a Rocco thing. What I am saying is our starters have a top 5-7 team ERA, but rank near the bottom for starters innings pitched and pitches thrown. The Twins relievers have blown many games, so it's very simple to look at that and say it would make sense to try and get another out or two from your starter.

[Vanimal46]

I don’t have ESPN+ so I can only see what Passan shared in this thread. Seems like a very relevant article to share in this discussion. 

[TwinsDr2021]

47 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Has another team had that situation come up? As I said a few times, the decision of taking the starter out is far more complicated than any 1 variable (times through the order and pitch count included). You're trying to break down 1 start to 1 variable. Game score, hitters due up, velo readings, spin readings, extension readings, pitch count, bullpen availability, next off day/immediate future schedule, guys coming off IL, minor league arms ready to replace a pen guy so you're willing to run him into the ground knowing he's getting DFA'd the next day (say hi to Tyler Thornburg), and more variables that I'm not thinking about this early.

Calling others lazy for not wanting to spend the time looking up every start and the circumstances surrounding taking a pitcher out to disprove the point you yourself haven't taken the time to look up the actual information to prove seems a little hypocritical. You have a hypothesis but don't want to do the work to prove it. Don't call others lazy for providing information to back up their hypothesis when you're not willing to do the same. I use the averages precisely for the reason that comparing ONE start is rather meaningless, because there's far too many variables to make it a worthwhile exercise.

And if you want an example of a pitcher being pulled "early" with a "low" pitch count later in a season because the numbers said the pen was the right choice you can go ahead and look at Blake Snell in game 6 of the 2020 World Series. He was at 5 1/3 and 73 pitches, but was doing even better than Bundy the other night and was a higher quality starter. There's your research that at least 1 other team is willing to pull a pitcher with a low pitch count before they get through 6 innings because the odds say the pen is the better choice. And, yes, I'm aware the Rays lost that game. And when people point that out and say Cash should've "managed with his gut instead of his spreadsheet" I'll point out Terry Collins "managing with his gut" in game 5 of the 2016 World Series and leaving Matt Harvey in to lose the game when he should've used his spreadsheet and taken Harvey out. See how going off of 1 game can "disprove" whatever stance you want to take and why many of us choose to use leaguewide trends and averages to come to conclusions instead?

Got it everybody doing this means one playoff game three years ago, going forward I will be sure to remember that everybody doing somethings could mean a unique scenario three seasons ago.

And yes it is lazy to make a broad statement that everybody is doing something, but then not being able to back it up or refusing to back it up. And again I am talking about Bundy's latest game.

If this conversation was about Winder being pulled after 5 and 77 pitches and somebody complained it was too soon and you or me responded with too bad that is way the everybody is doing it, you know what that would be OK and not lazy, why? because we could point out numerous games every damn day by just about every team that it was happening.

I have looked at hundreds of box scores in the last 24 hours and I found 2 similiar games to this one. Bundy's 6 inning 60 game (which he did give up the lead and his only run in the 6th, so maybe that is what the Twins were looking at, but that is vastly different than everybody is doing it), Archer's 5 inning 57 pitch game which the twins lost when Pagen blew a save to Detroit. Maybe I missed some, but if everybody is doing it, it shouldn't take hundreds of box scores to find 3?

[TwinsDr2021]

21 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

I don’t have ESPN+ so I can only see what Passan shared in this thread. Seems like a very relevant article to share in this discussion. 

I agree, I was reading some on facebook (not a good source) but it was pointing out that the 300 win club is pretty much done adding pitchers, none of the active one are really all that close, will 200 be the new standard and if so after the current projected HOF starting pitchers retire, will that be the end of Hall of Fame starting pitchers?

The youngest guys with 100 wins are Bumgarner (32, 131), Cole (31, 124),

The youngest guy with 90 is Carlos Carrasco( 35, 98),

The youngest guy with 80 is Trevor Bauer (31, 83), but he might be done, so Sonny Gray (32, 86)

The youngest guy with 70 is Aaron Nola (29,72)

The youngest guy with 60 is Jose Berrios (28, 66)

The youngest guy with 50 is German Marquez (27, 58)

Even if you drop down to between 40 and 50 wins you have three guys younger than 28 years old. Giolito (27, 47), Walker Buehler (27, 46), Shane Bieber (27, 44),

 

These pitchers would have to average at least 12 wins a year each and every year until they are 40 just to get around the 200 mark and that is for the youngest guys. Cole seems like a decent bet to get to 200, but would anybody bet on any of the others?

[wsnydes]

24 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

And yes it is lazy to make a broad statement that everybody is doing something, but then not being able to back it up or refusing to back it up. And again I am talking about Bundy's latest game.

Between @chpettit19and the article @Riverbrianlinked last week here (linked once again), plenty of back up has been provided to you against your point.  You keep dwelling on pitch count when pitch count isn't even the determining factor of when a guy is pulled.  It is a factor, but it's not THE factor anymore.  

If anyone is lazy here, it's me for simply referring you to someone else's post from last week linking to an article written by someone else!

[big dog]

3 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

But it is lazy to throw out a statement like this when comparing ONE start, because not one person has even attempted to show another team has done this even once. 5 innings and 58 pitches. Now, maybe this is my fault for changing the initial conversation from Bundy and the third time through to pulling him from this game.

 

 

So you want people to find examples where a pitcher has through 58 pitches through 5 innings and was taken out? How about if instead of expecting other people to prove your point, you slog through a whole bunch of game logs and prove it yourself?

[edit- ninja'd by chpettit19 but at least I was succinct ]

[big dog]

20 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

 will 200 be the new standard and if so after the current projected HOF starting pitchers retire, will that be the end of Hall of Fame starting pitchers?

 

 

Agreed. In 15 years people will be asking how on earth it took so long for pitchers like Blyleven to get into the Hall. I'm not a fan of putting Jack Morris in the Hall, but if wins matter at all 254 looks like a really impressive total in this era.

And if wins don't matter, then put Santana in. Or else just don't have any new pitchers.