For whatever reasons, the Mets were dumped by two Triple-A affiliates in Norfolk and Buffalo. After those cities chose other teams, the Mets were left in the less-than-ideal position of having their top affiliate in the PCL, first in New Orleans and then in Las Vegas. And then the Mets did something really smart. They bought a Triple-A franchise. The Mets now know that Syracuse will be the home for their top affiliate and they don’t have to worry about getting stuck in a place they don’t want to be.
Now it’s time for the Mets to make another move in this vein. They need to purchase their own Independent League franchise. MLB is using the Independent Atlantic League as a guinea pig – trying out various potential new rules in this loop. And the Mets can use an Independent League team in the same way, experimenting with ideas they may have that perhaps aren’t best tried out with guys you hope will be playing in the majors in the next few years.
If Steve Cohen hired me as an advisor, one of my first pitches would be buying an Independent League franchise – the Atlantic League would be ideal but there are others out there that could also work – sign some late-20s, early-30s pitchers with some MLB experience – hey it looks like soon-to-be 30 Corey Oswalt is available – and then run a four-man rotation.
My opinion has been that there’s no reason that if you’re going to be a slave to the 100-pitch boogeyman, that you couldn’t run a four-man rotation. When MLB last had four-man rotations, pitchers were throwing 300 innings in a season and 175 or more pitches in individual games. There’s never been a four-man rotation with 21st Century pitch count limits.
It’s one thing to have this theory. But, when there’s so much money at stake, you can’t expect MLB teams to buck convention, just because a blogger has an idea. But that’s the beauty of owning an Independent League franchise. You can try it out with guys that you have little invested monetarily and see what happens. If it fails – so what? If it works, you have proof of concept to try in the majors.
The last time an MLB franchise gave serious run to a 4-man rotation was in 2012 when the Rockies did it. There’s little wonder that the Rockies were the team to give it a shot. After all, the Rockies have tried various things since being an expansion team in 1993 and essentially none of them have worked in the pitching department.
In an article dated June 20, it was announced that the Rockies were going to a 4-man rotation with a limit of 75 pitches. Here’s the SP they used, starting with June 1:
Outman, Nicasio, White, Friedrich, Guthrie
Outman, White, Francis, Friedrich, Guthrie
Outman, White, Francis, Friedrich, Guthrie
Then, starting on June 19, we saw this:
Outman, White, Francis, Friedrich
Outman, White, Francis, Friedrich, Cabrera
Outman, Francis, Friedrich, Pomeranz
Outman, Francis, Guthrie, Friedrich
Pomeranz, Francis, Guthrie and then All-Star break
Friedrich, Guthrie, Pomeranz, Francis
Friedrich, Guthrie, Pomeranz, Francis
Friedrich, Sanchez, Cabrera, Francis, Pomeranz
Friedrich, Sanchez, Francis, Pomeranz
White, Sanchez, Francis, Chatwood
Pomeranz, White, Francis, Chatwood
Pomeranz, White, Francis, Chatwood
Moscoso, White, Francis, Chatwood
And then it gets tough to tell, with the Rockies using multiple different pitchers. At the very least, they used a four-man rotation 10 times in 12 turns, not counting the one interrupted by the AS break. From 4/6 to 6/17, using strictly a five-man rotation, the Rockies had a 5.35 team ERA. Then from 6/19 to 8/18, using mostly a four-man rotation, they had a 5.56 ERA. That’s not really a huge dropoff. And it’s possible that the bullpen played a bigger role in the difference than the starters. Aw shoot – let’s check. Overall in 2012, here’s how Rockies pitchers did:
3 days of rest – 100 IP, 5.49 ERA
4 days of rest – 344 IP, 5.57 ERA
5 days of rest – 181.2, 6.79 ERA
So, not only was there no drop in efficiency whatsoever going to a four-man rotation, the pitchers did even better pitching on three days of rest compared to four or five days. And that was with changing to a four-man rotation in the middle of the year, with no time for the pitchers to train and adjust.
My opinion is if you ask MLB players to do reasonable things, they can adjust. Furthermore, it’s my opinion that asking MLB pitchers to switch to a four-man rotation – with a hard cap on pitches – is a reasonable thing. We can debate what that hard cap should be. The Rockies went with 75, partly because they were doing it in the middle of the season. My opinion is that with notice before Spring Training, allowing pitchers an offseason to train for it, you could do 95 or so pitches.
*****
After making my pitch for a four-man rotation above, it’s my belief that the 2023 Mets would benefit by going to a six-man rotation once Jose Quintana returns. They already bend over backwards to give Kodai Senga an extra day. David Peterson has done much better since his recall that it might not be awful to continue giving him starts. And it probably wouldn’t hurt the other three pitchers, all at least age 36, to get additional rest.
Coming into the year, my preference was to utilize a five-man rotation. But you have to be willing to change on the fly. My original thinking was that a five-man rotation made more sense, because that’s how you were going to maximize the starts for the two aces. But as neither ace has necessarily pitched up to their previous levels, there’s no reason to actively prefer a five-man rotation right here, right now.
My preference would be for the Mets to remain open to using a four-man rotation one day when all of their pitchers aren’t quite so long in the tooth. We already have some proof of concept with the results of the Rockies in 2012. And the Mets can add to that with their Independent League team that Steve Cohen is convinced to purchase by some middle-aged wunderkid blogger.
Seems the starting staffs from the late last century were primarily about 4 man rotations and it seems, at least anecdotally, that they went deep into games and the instances of injuries were less. Did some pitchers retire early vs having TJ surgery? Sure. But what has really changed from the days of Bob Gibson having 18 plus complete games a year? Pitchers are babied and not trained to go the distance or even half the distance of a complete game. Many don’t even make it to the 6 inning “quality start” level. A 75 pitch limit seems to be where modern day pitchers go down. Good pitchers managed to go through an order for the third time by mixing up their approach, not throwing the same pattern they had previously used. Much like batters must change their approach to different pitchers or hitting situations, so must pitchers. Now switch the conversation to relievers that can’t go more than an inning or god forbid throw more than 2 games in a row. Is it about the vast amount of money that they are being paid that makes them fragile?
I agree with the observation of gong to a six man rotation given the age and fragility of our starters. It’s a novel approach worth a try. Look how well the Rays have done with their crazy use of a game full of relievers. So let’s shake it up a bit but let’s pick up some fresh and effective BP arms at the deadline, one more impact starter and one solid bat to get back into contention. And buying an independent team for second and third chances for one time MLB players/prospects certainly can’t hurt.
What’s changed from the days of Bob Gibson?
The quality of hitters that pitchers have to face. Go back and check the OPS+ numbers for the lineups these guys faced. We get upset because Starling Marte has a 79 OPS+ and wonder how the Mets can play him. The 1969 Mets regularly played Wayne Garrett with a 56 OPS+. And it’s not like it was Garrett and a bunch of MVP candidates. It was Grote (84) and Kranepool (87) and Harrelson (82) and Swoboda (91). And this was a team that won 100 games! Just imagine how poor the second division clubs were.
If we look at the number of triple-digit OPS+ teams had in the NL East in 1969 in their regular lineup, this is what we have:
Cubs – 3
Expos – 4
Mets – 3
Phillies – 4
Pirates – 6
Cardinals – 4
Here are the 2023 numbers:
Braves – 8
Marlins – 6
Mets – 5
Phillies – 7
Nationals – 4
Pitchers in 1969 for the vast majority of times faced teams with the relative offensive punch of the 2023 Nationals.
And OPS+ doesn’t take into account the improvement in players today. Ken Boswell had a 103 OPS+ and if Boswell had to face pitchers with diverse repertoires who weren’t coasting half the time he was batting, it’s crazy to think he would have a triple digit OPS+. And, sure, he would have the benefit of nutrition and training that he didn’t have previously. But he’d also face much-better competition for a job in the first place along with sliders and splitters that he never had to see or relievers coming in and throwing 95+
Finally, Gibson and his era-mates had the advantage of facing expansion teams that had draconian rules in place with how they populated their rosters. The Mets and Astros were lousy for most of the 1960s and while the Mets took a massive leap forward in ’69, they were replaced by the Expos and Padres. Here was the OPS+ for the Padres’ lineup:
127 – Nate Colbert
124 – Al Ferrara
103 – Ollie Brown
94 – Ed Spiezio
68 – Chris Cannizzaro
67 – Cito Gaston
50 – Jose Arcia
42 – Tommy Dean
And compared to just the other pitchers in the league, the hurlers for the Padres had a 58 OPS+. So, when pitchers faced the Padres they were facing – on a relative basis – five spots in the lineup significantly worse than 2023 Marte.
That’s a lot of dead weight.
Starting pitchers in 2023 average 5.1 innings, 2013 averaged 6,0 innings, 2003 averaged 6.0 innings, 1993 averaged 6.1 innings, 1983 averaged 6.1 innings , 1973 averaged 7.0 innings and 1963 averaged 7.1 innings. The trend of the last 60 years is that starters are pitching less and less innings. Realize it and embrace it. The theory of a four-man rotation with 75-80 pitch limit is innovative and forward thinking. The starter should be followed up with a middle reliever that has a limit of 45 to 50 pitches, followed by the one inning relievers. The pitching staff would comprise 4 starters, 4 middle relievers and 5 short relievers. For example for the 2023 Mets:
Scherzer, Verlander, Senga and Carrasco starters, Quintana, Peterson, Megill and Lucchesi in middle relief, Gott, Smith, Raley, Ottavino and Robertson as short relief.
In theory there are many advantages.
I have long thought a 4 man rotation could indeed work. However, it would be harder to lure top free-agent pitchers. If a team with a 5 man and a team with a 4 man make roughly equal offers to a desired hurler, good chance the pitcher goes with the 5 man team, they are used to it and frankly it is more work to pitch for the 4 man team.
I think you’re right that it would be a turnoff for some players – hard to imagine that Verlander would have signed up for that this past offseason.
Still, it’s hard for me to believe that no one would want to do it. It would probably be an easier sell for a pitcher in the prime of his career. I could see Marcus Stroman not being afraid of it when he was a free agent two years ago. It’s not hard to imagine pre-injury Matt Harvey being a fan, too.
My guess is that once pitchers saw that it worked in MLB, that more would be open to the idea.
I like your idea of your 4-4-5 pitching staff; but not for this 2023 Mets staff. If the personnel was different, I would run the 4 starters one week (5+ to 6+ innings each), followed by the 4 middle (1+ to 2 innings each). Then the next turn in the rotation, the middle relievers would be the starters, and the previous starters would be the middle relievers. One would have to assume that none of these 8 pitchers are front line aces of course, but are (at least) competent ML pitchers that could go through a lineup 2 to (sometimes) 3 times.
I know it would be a scheduling nightmare to implement, and we are talking about athletes with egos to always be starters; but one has to adjust to the new realities of the game and the pitchers one has. For example, could Senga really work well in a pure 4 man rotation?
Oh, and Brian, thank you for the reminder of how different hitters are today as opposed to the 60s and 70s. I remember a conversation that Jerry Grote had about Seaver. That Seaver was tough because he knew when he had to bear down, and that most of the time for most hitters, he didn’t have to. Tom was terrific, but he and his ilk would not have had the same gaudy numbers today.
You can only face the teams and batters that the schedule and opposing managers throw your way. But it’s simply more impressive the 10 guys that Aaron Nola struck out in a row than the 10 that Seaver did.
We can and should recognize the greatness of the players from 50-plus years ago. At the same time, we should recognize that they accomplished their feats against worse competition. Sandy Koufax was 31-4 with a 1.67 ERA against the expansion Mets and Astros. Hey, other pitchers from that time frame got to face those two squads, too, and didn’t put up the numbers that Koufax did. But you can’t tell the story of Koufax without mentioning the impact of the switch from Ebbets Field/L.A. Coliseum to Dodger Stadium and the fact that he put up otherworldly numbers against two expansion teams that were vastly inferior.
But to me, learning about the game’s history and the conditions that Bob Feller and Warren Spahn and Bob Gibson and Steve Carlton and Greg Maddux and Pedro Martinez pitched in is part of what makes baseball so special. How would Maddux fare if he had to play all day games, while traveling by train and working a real job in the offseason?
Each era has its advantages and challenges. The main challenge pitchers face today is the quality of players they pitch against.
I didn’t believe for 1 second that the competition against pitchers is better today than yesterday. My eyes see a *major* change in approach. In the past, hitter went to the plate to hit the ball every time. Now, we praise preposterous 10-11-12-13 pitch ABs where the sole purpose is to foul the ball off. Ive advocated for the 4th could ball being an out (sort of like in bunting with 2 strikes). It’s so prevalent, it should be another tracked metric in BBRef. Pitch counts are rising because of this, thus reducing the numbers of outs (IP) pitchers go. Add the baby-ing of starters and well…
What you are proposing also would represent a major shift in the need of *quality* arms. In theory, and in practice, it’s hard enough getting enough quality pitching to staff a starting rotation and the typical hodge-podge of relievers. Im not at all sure there would be enough good arms to spread out fewer innings to more pitchers, and coordinate this approach with pitching salary structures. No quality starter will take less money to pitch less and what mid-level reliever giving you 6-9 outs would take 1/4 of the salary of a starter giving the near the same amount of outs.
You can talk about expansion team competition, but it’s no different than today’s A’s or Royals, both throwing up serious expansion year records. There’s always dumpster fires to rack up wins against (unless you are the Mets).
I’m not sure I buy the “quality arms” theory. And the main reason is that the number of pitches that starters would throw in my proposed four-man rotation would not be substantially less than what they throw now in a five-man rotation. And you have an extra pitcher with the guy who no longer is a starter. It’s certainly a possibility that you would have to pay more to a SP. But would you rather pay more for prime deGrom and less to the guy who used to be your fifth starter who’s now a reliever? I know I would.
We saw the OPS+ numbers for the expansion Padres. Here they are for the 55-win 2022 Nationals:
159 – Juan Soto
153 – Josh Bell
108 – Yadiel Hernandez
102 – Luis Garcia
95 – Keibert Ruiz
90 – Nelson Cruz
84 – Cesar Hernandez
72 – Maikel Franco
70 – Victor Robles
That’s significantly better than the ’69 Padres or ’62 Mets. And while Bell and Soto weren’t there a full year, they still had 873 PA. And they were replaced by Joey Menesses (165) and Lane Thomas (103) – so still at least league average hitters. The 2023 A’s are on pace to be almost as bad but let’s see what how they rank when the season is over.
Finally, I have no idea what to tell you if you think that hitters from 50 years ago are as good as they are today. There are things that reasonable people can disagree upon. This is not one of them.
Edit: There were 6 more teams in 2022 than there were in 1969. Yet there were over 3X as many players with at least 500 PA who were under the Galvis Line in 1969.
Most of the indy leagues I think have followed the restructured minor league schedule of every Monday off as a travel day and 6 straight games Tues to Sun, so a true 4 man rotation experiment wouldn’t really be possible. It’s good for their travel schedule but now no league emulates the majors where teams play at times 20+ consecutive games.
In fact, 5 man rotations is impossible these days in the minors unless teams are employing man bullpen days to actually keep them mostly on 4 days rest, haven’t actually investigated game logs to see what orgs are doing
I checked both the Atlantic League and the Frontier League and both of those are still playing traditional 3-game series.
Regardless of series length, there’s always going to be days off (and doubleheaders) to screw with a strict rotation. You just work around it as best as you can.
I just checked the schedule for both leagues and neither play on Mondays. They play 3 game sets from Tuesday-Thursday and then Friday-Sunday and have off on Monday.
A 4 man rotation would thus result in alternating 3 days and 4 days between starts, kinda like a 4.5 man rotation.
And this would be different from any other 4-man rotation in MLB history how?
The two 4-man rotations that I always think of are the 1966 Dodgers, with 3 Hall of Famers, and the 1971 Orioles that had 4 20-game winners.
The 1966 Dodgers had Koufax, Drysdale, Sutton and Osteen make 154 of the team’s starts. Their SP pitched on 3 days rest in 90 games that year and 4 days rest in 46 games.
The 1971 Orioles had Palmer, Cuellar, McNally and Dobson make 142 of the team’s starts. Their SP pitched on 3 days rest in 73 games that year and 4 days rest in 42 games.
The 2022 Mets had 2 games where their starting pitcher had 3 days of rest, both by Trevor Williams and both had doubleheaders factor in.
The percentage of starts with 3 days rest is much smaller than i would have thought and so i guess a 50/50 split of 3/4 days in the minors wouldn’t be that different.
However, i decided to look at the current usage in the minor and majors leagues for 5 man rotations, and it looks like the difference is much greater. The 2022 Mets had about 40% of their starts be on 4 days rest. I took a look a guy who has been healthy all year in the minors – Dom Hamel – and of his 16 starts just 2 (12.5%) have been on 4 days rest.
My question would be is if the new minor league schedule is set up sets SPs up for failure because it doesn’t give them a chance to properly prepare for what they would experience in the majors?
I looked at Jacob deGrom. In his last full season in the minors he had 26 starts. Throwing out the first and last games of the season, here were his days off between starts for the other 24:
2 days of rest – 1
4 days of rest – 11
5 days of rest – 8
6 days of rest – 1
8 days of rest – 2
9 days of rest – 1
That’s certainly different from what you show with Hamel. I checked Blade Tidwell, who has the following rest:
4 days – 2
5 days – 5
6 days – 4
7 days – 1
8 days – 2
How important is it for minor league pitchers to go on 4 days of rest? I dunno. Certainly, I want them exposed to it and if I’m being honest, more than Hamel and Tidwell have been exposed this year. At the same time, there’s nothing wrong with keeping IP totals down for young pitchers. Tidwell threw 39 IP in college last year and then 9.1 more in pro ball. How much of an increase year-to-year should he have? He already has thrown 70.1 IP this year. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Mets cut his season short and kept him under 100 IP. The innings situation is better with Hamel, who threw 119 last year, after throwing 94.2 IP between college and pro ball in 2021.
And maybe the same thing applies to Senga. They’re exposing him a tiny bit to pitching on four days rest this year. And hopefully that makes them more confident to use him on normal rest more in 2024.
I agree with both your 4 man proposal and a 6 man proposal for the 2023 teens in H2. But, I don’t pitch no less pitch on a big league level. Those dudes are strange birds, with routines developed over decades. It would certainly need to be done in an organization where the pitchers were controllable for years. I also thinks there are many guys who still cherish that “win” on their record.
The debate over old school pitchers vs current day pitchers is one for hours in a bar. But, there is just no way Gibson or Seaver would be regularly throwing 250+ innings regularly if they played now. The batter today clearly is more dangerous from the power perspective. Yes, there is too much emphasis on velocity, right down to high school, but very very few guys can pitch regularly in the bigs without power. The modern hitter, guided by statistical probability and financial reward, is looking to crush every pitch regardless of count and situation. Soft rosters are nearly extinct as a result.
Thanks Brian for this really fun article. In 1968, there were eight fewer years than there are now. In 1968, all you had to do to get to the World Series was to win the pennant for the league, not fight through three rounds of playoffs.
I will make the argument that the starting pitchers were better in the 60’s. 22 teams x 4 starters = 88 pitchers. 30 teams x 5 starters = 150. So against the Dodgers you faced Koufax and Drysdale half of the time.
When I was growing up in the late 60’s and 70’s, the mantra of a pitch count was rarely if ever spoken about. If starters like Seaver were pitching well or were even in a tight game, they pitched a complete game.
When Nolan Ryan first got traded to the Angels, he was wild. Ryan frequently pitched complete games. I can only imagine how many pitches he threw. And Ryan for his whole career threw as hard as he could for 27 years.
So, yes, let’s go to a four man rotation.
Brian, we need to get you more exposure. I have been a fan for well over 50 years and you have the most insight I have ever seen.
Thanks for the kind words!
As for your pitching math, you also have to factor in that there are more international pitchers today than there were in the 1960s. Keeping with 1969, the Mets had Les Rohr from Great Britain and Ron Taylor from Canada. Those two combined for 77.1 IP. The 2023 Mets have Kodai Senga from Japan, Carlos Carrasco from Venezuela, Edwin Uceta from the Dominican, Jose Quintana from Colombia, Edwin Diaz from Puerto Rico, Jose Butto from Venezuela, Dennis Santana from the Dominican, Denyi Reyes from the Dominican and Elieser Hernandez from Venezuela. Thru the All-Star break, this group has combined for 181.2 IP and would be even greater if not for the injuries to Quintana and Diaz.
We’re using more pitchers but we’re drawing from a greater population base.
Valid point.