RealGM

The Rockies have been pulling starters after 75 pitches and using a "piggyback" reliever as part of Project 5,183.

The plan is called Project 5,183 because that is the altitude at Coors Field.

The Rockies could become the first team in baseball history without a single pitcher logging at least 100 innings due to the unorthodox plan.

It was implemented in mid-June when the season was already a lost cause and things have only gotten worse.



Read more: http://baseball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_ ... z230iXMNnE

the season is pretty much over, come september i hope we can see deck mcguire and more of chad jenkins in the starters role.

why not? since the season is over, why not put in Romero as the piggyback reliever on multiple days, so when he does pitch the game might not matter as much and he can work on his mechanical and mental issues for next season.

no, the rockies have the worst rotation in MLB history

No, I think starting pitchers are babied enough as it is.

Injury risk occurs when a pitcher gets tired and stops repeating their normal mechanics. I think we should consign pitch count to the dustbin of history, and instead focus on whether a pitcher is repeating his normal mechanics. If he tires and starts cheating in his mechanics, that's the time to get him out of there asap.

Of course, if your mechanics suck to begin with, you have a higher probability of being injured at any time.

I'd say no, we're talking about a 25-pitch difference, basically an inning or two, from the 100 pitch cutoff the team works with most of our guys already. It might be interesting to try it in a minor injury situation where a starter is out for one game (as opposed to a long DL stint). Designate two long relievers to throw three innings each. We've seen Lincoln go 3.1 innings (scoreless) in a blowout. We can certainly do that with a few of our guys. But as a regular part of the rotation? No. What happens in crucial series or playoffs? We're going to pull Brandon Morrow after three innings of shutout ball because we're on Project 5183?

I think at this point the Jays should just stop caring about pitch counts and innings. Their starters get hurt regardless and have been getting hurt at a rapid rate since 2008. As mentioned by Lateral Quicks, a closer eye should be paid to if/when a pitcher is tiring on the mound and whether their mechanics are being repeated. That could be at 75 pitches one night and 125 pitches the next. Regardless, use that to determine when to pull a starter. Pitchers get hurt when they throw while tired and I’m not sure if I trust Farrell determining that (his use of Drabek in particular was dubious), but at this rate babying starters has not lead the Jays anywhere and throwing pitchers off their routine is asking for trouble. Didn’t Syndergaard mention how he hated coming in relief? And that’s a kid in low-A ball.

Follow whatever routine the Rays have going. I don’t care what it is, just follow it.

dagger wrote:I'd say no, we're talking about a 25-pitch difference, basically an inning or two, from the 100 pitch cutoff the team works with most of our guys already. It might be interesting to try it in a minor injury situation where a starter is out for one game (as opposed to a long DL stint). Designate two long relievers to throw three innings each. We've seen Lincoln go 3.1 innings (scoreless) in a blowout. We can certainly do that with a few of our guys. But as a regular part of the rotation? No. What happens in crucial series or playoffs? We're going to pull Brandon Morrow after three innings of shutout ball because we're on Project 5183?

clearly you never read the wiretap or my statement. the rockies are doing this because of injuries and want to see what their young guys can do. something we can do as well since the playoffs are a longshot. obviously in the playoffs you aren't gonna implement this process.

Lateral Quicks wrote:No, I think starting pitchers are babied enough as it is.

Injury risk occurs when a pitcher gets tired and stops repeating their normal mechanics. I think we should consign pitch count to the dustbin of history, and instead focus on whether a pitcher is repeating his normal mechanics. If he tires and starts cheating in his mechanics, that's the time to get him out of there asap.

Of course, if your mechanics suck to begin with, you have a higher probability of being injured at any time.

This is a 10 year old theory, and the point of it isn't to baby the pitchers. They throw about the same number of pitches overall by throwing every 4 days instead of 5. The point is that a pitcher's performance degrades each time they go through the order, a bit more from batter familiarity than fatigue.

It is a strong enough effect that you are generally better with an average reliever than a #2 starter by the 4th time through. Bad starters shouldn't even see a 3rd time. Pulling a pitcher after 75 pitches is normally somewhere between 2 and 3 times through the order.

It's an interesting idea. Do you need more pitchers on the roster?

Modern_epic wrote:

Lateral Quicks wrote:No, I think starting pitchers are babied enough as it is.

Injury risk occurs when a pitcher gets tired and stops repeating their normal mechanics. I think we should consign pitch count to the dustbin of history, and instead focus on whether a pitcher is repeating his normal mechanics. If he tires and starts cheating in his mechanics, that's the time to get him out of there asap.

Of course, if your mechanics suck to begin with, you have a higher probability of being injured at any time.

This is a 10 year old theory, and the point of it isn't to baby the pitchers. They throw about the same number of pitches overall by throwing every 4 days instead of 5. The point is that a pitcher's performance degrades each time they go through the order, a bit more from batter familiarity than fatigue.

It is a strong enough effect that you are generally better with an average reliever than a #2 starter by the 4th time through. Bad starters shouldn't even see a 3rd time. Pulling a pitcher after 75 pitches is normally somewhere between 2 and 3 times through the order.

I do think we'll start to see more experimentation in this direction going forward because it relies on fewer premium guys (very hard to come by) and handles injuries a bit better (your relievers are potentially far closer to be re-trained as starters). Making pitching staff parts closer to interchangeable can only help with the rise of like 50% injury rate on pitching staffs.

That being said, I would be 100% against doing something like this midseason. IMO if you want to head in this direction you spend years ramping up to it and planning. If you want to experiment first before starting that process, do it in the minors. Don't mess with your major leaguers on a whim, that's total madness. At most I could see a team taking the 4th and 5th spot, splitting them up and using 3-4 guys for it in the short term at the major league level.

Still, in the long run, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if pitchers become 3+ times through the lineup, 2 times through the lineup, 1 time through the lineup, and OOGY's. It won't do away with pitch counts, but IMO where through the lineup you are and the number of 20+ pitch innings is more important than 90 or 100 or 110 pitches.

limegameboy wrote:no, the rockies have the worst rotation in MLB history

We don't?