RealGM

One of the things that's highly overlooked for us is the importance of having multiple inning eating pitchers.

Last year 5 teams had 3 or more pitchers who threw 200 innings -Angels, Phillies, Brewers, Giants and Diamondbacks. They averaged 93 wins and won all 3 NL divisions. The Rangers were 2 Derek Holland innings from being in that group. The next closest team was the Rays with 2 players who pitched 220+ and 2 who pitched 180+ and they won 91 games. Detroit had similar figures.

In fact having 3 or 4 pitchers throw 180+ innings is the single most thing last year correlated to making the playoffs. Every team that did make the playoffs except the Yankees had 3 or 4 guys throwing 180+ innings.

Besides the obvious that they're getting those innings because they're effective but also it makes the bullpens much more effective because the guys can get regular rhythms of appearances and the managers can play the left/right % more effectively.

If you look at were we are, we have Romero and likely Morrow that are there. This is the single biggest thing stopping us from contending.

There are only 2 innings eaters on the FA market right now: Saunders & Jackson. They're only 3rd/4th type pitchers at this point but it's imperative that we get one of those guys or make a trade. Otherwise we're looking at another long season & a 4th place finish.

Yea the thing that became annoying last year was that every 3/5 games seemed like they were experiments/tryouts with different starting pitchers, rather than having a consistent rotation all year.

Quick trivia.

Last time we had 3+ innings eaters it was 1998 and they were Roger Clemons (234), Woody Williams (209), Pat Hentgen(178) & Chris Carpenter(175). We won 88 games that year, the most since our World Series years.

We also had it every year from 1985 to 1993 but prior to 1988 you really only had 4 starters and the 5th starter was just to give the guys a break so 200 innings from your starters was automatic barring injuries.

*edit* Snap, in 2003 we had Roy (266), Cory Lidle (192) and Escobar (180) and we won 86 games. Missed that.

Anyways you get the point.

baulderdash77 wrote:

Last time we had 3+ innings eaters it was 1998 and they were Roger Clemons (234), Woody Williams (209), Pat Hentgen(178) & Chris Carpenter(175). We won 88 games that year

I remember the parade.

(The point is: there is no easy formula.)

(Mike Maroth ate some innings...)

Great observation. We should be onto that shortly. Romero consistently throws 200IP. Morrow (barring injury) should get his innings raised to over 200. Hopefully Cecil can hit the 200 mark too.

I'm not sure if they should attack the role in free-agency but I do think they recognized the need to fill it via the draft. They've been collecting big-bodied pitchers with strong frames and smooth motions (that suggest durability), for a few years now and have done so pretty early in the draft. I think of a Chad Jenkins, Joe Musgrove and Deck Maguire. All have been described as potentioal 2nd and 3rd starters. Workhorses with less than spectacular stuff, but guys who'll eat innings.

Getting inning eaters through the draft a much easier way to do it - they will give you a consistent 200 innings pitched and don't have to necessarily overpay for them which allows the Jays to allocate the money to more premium players.

Well I don't buy that you want a guy who can give you 200 IP no matter what. If he's bad, lots of consistent bad isn't a good thing.

Looking at consistent innings eaters with at least solid performance, there are/were quite a few of these guys in FA and reportedly available through trade. Looking at 550+ IP in the last 3 years with at least 3 WAR average (9 WAR total) there were 15 who I think could be had or could've been before someone got them.

Wilson, Buehrle, and now Danks are all off the table so that leaves us with a dozen guys I think you could still get:

G.Floyd
E.Jackson
J.Shields
R.Nolasco (not so sure about this one really)
R.Oswalt
R.Dempster (might be hard to pull now)
C.Pavano
M.Garza
C.Billingsley
J.Vazquez
J.Lackey
W.Rodriguez

Now some of these guys I would immediately cross off for proven AL East incompatibility (Pavano, Lackey, and Vazquez), leaving us 9 guys available through FA or trade.

So Jackson and Oswalt can be had for money and if I could have Oswalt on a 1-year, I almost don't care how much he wants, that'd be where I went with my money.

Of the tradeable guys (potentially): Garza, Shields, Nolasco, Dempster, Floyd, Billingsley, and Rodriguez, I'd be interested in any of them depending on what the other team wanted for them. There are 4 on this list of availables that I still find highly unlikely for the Jays: I think you can forget Shields as I just don't see Friedman and AA trading inside the division and finding a match they both like for a large asset. I think another GM is going to overpay the Cubs for Garza. And the price for Floyd and Nolasco is probably too steep for what they are if they're even truly available.

So Dempster, Billingsley, and Wandy all kind of intrigue me if you can get them without giving away the farm, which isn't to say, oh just go do it already. LAD may be in a bit of a holding pattern as far as transactions go because of ownership, but with his ups and downs it wouldn't surprise me if his fairly large salary was dumpable. Wandy is obviously available, it's just how little will the Astros take and how likely is he to succeed in the East. Dempster picked up his player option and is probably not leaving CHC until the trade deadline, but he's a guy I'd definitely have my eye on and Canadian to boot.

So, if you believe that a 200 IP type is the top priority, the offseason has barely been scratched on this market as of yet and AA has plenty of options remaining. No CJ, Buehrle, Danks, or Darvish, but that's a quarter of the list of guys that can be targeted and acquired this offseason that fit the category.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think your evidence is more of a sign that teams with good pitching win games. Good pitchers don't get pulled, and therefore pitch more innings. We don't need an "inning eating" pitcher as much as we need a "good" pitcher.

Correlation does not prove causation. I think the underlying factor is that "innings eaters" are almost always good, healthy pitchers. Doesn't help much if you get a bunch of bad, healthy pitchers, who could also eat a lot of innigns while compiling a 6 or 7 ERA.

Tyrone Slothrop wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think your evidence is more of a sign that teams with good pitching win games. Good pitchers don't get pulled, and therefore pitch more innings. We don't need an "inning eating" pitcher as much as we need a "good" pitcher.

I agree with Rocketman here, which is why we have to define terms a little better. I'd call an "innings eater" a pitcher who with an ERA of between 4 and 4.5, who is just good enough to avoid the big inning and stay in the game. Any better than that, and they're an unattainable ace. Combined with a decent offence, one or two of those will help the club win over the course of a season.

Our SPs have to stay in the game longer. Everyone knows that. Their inability to do so destroyed our bullpen in 2011, which was actually supposed to be pretty strong going into the season, and wasn't bad in the first month or so.

Historical note, but Jack Morris fit the bill in 1992 (if you forget his horrible WS start): 240 innings with a 4.04 ERA. Now, the previous year in Minny he had a 3.43 ERA, so he didn't really qualify as a mere "innings eater" when the Jays signed him. OT, but look at his yearly stats - http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players ... =morrija02. The guy was an moose. In nine consecutive years with the Tigers, he averaged - averaged! - 250 innings pitched, with a <4.0 ERA for the most part. That's not a mere innings eater, that's a freak of nature.

There is still a benefit to an innings eater, even if he's not pitching at a super high level. It allows your bullpen to rest, and use pitchers in a conventional manner. Don't underestimate the impacts of over using your bullpen during a 162 game schedule.

Definatly true that you need the top portion of your rotation to go deep into games all year to save your pen. And the jays havent been deep in the rotation in an awful long time.

baulderdash77 wrote:Quick trivia.

Last time we had 3+ innings eaters it was 1998 and they were Roger Clemons (234), Woody Williams (209), Pat Hentgen(178) & Chris Carpenter(175). We won 88 games that year, the most since our World Series years.

We also had it every year from 1985 to 1993 but prior to 1988 you really only had 4 starters and the 5th starter was just to give the guys a break so 200 innings from your starters was automatic barring injuries.

*edit* Snap, in 2003 we had Roy (266), Cory Lidle (192) and Escobar (180) and we won 86 games. Missed that.

Anyways you get the point.

Doing that thou set back Roy nearly two years. His '04 as a disaster. That's why I want to stay away from someone like James Shields (254 IP).

The one guy who intrigues me, and would likely be a cheap option would be Javier Vazquez. He's pretty consistent as a 200 IP guy, with an era around 4.00. I'd give him a 1/8 deal as some insurance. We right now are really gambling on 1) Cecil turning it around 2) Drabek finding it and 3) McGowan's arm holding together. I think best case scenario is 2 of those happening... all 3? Probably no chance. Villy and Perez should be kept as spot starters.

We are all familiar with what happens when a pitcher can't pitch 3 innings thanks to Jo-Jo Reyes.

kwamebargnani wrote:We are all familiar with what happens when a pitcher can't pitch 3 innings thanks to Jo-Jo Reyes.

Who we all had to watch for four months for absolutely no reason at all. People who say this team can't win 85-90 games in 2012 need to remember how many terrible players were on the roster during the first half of last season.