Correlation is not causation. But one has to wonder about the shift from starting pitchers pitching deep into games to one in which teams regularly use four, five and six pitchers a game.
There was a time in baseball when pitchers regularly finished what they started — not every pitcher, of course, but the best pitchers would in more than half their starts. Up through the early ’70s, in fact, one in four or one in five starts resulted in a complete game and the best pitchers would regularly finish more than half their starts. (I’m using National League figures to avoid the issues raised by the designated hitter.)
 |
| Tom Seaver had 231 CGs in his career. |
Today, however, the complete game is rare. So far this year, there have been five complete games — or one every 80 starts. There were 39 last year — one every 60 starts. Johnny Cueto had five complete games last year — which led the National League. Go back 30 years — to 1986 — and the league leader, Fernando Valenzuela — had 20.
At the same time, league ERAs have been higher over the last decade than they had been in the past. National League ERA has exceeded 4.00 20 times in the last 25 years, but only twice in the preceding 25 years.
Again, correlation is not causation. The rise in ERA coincides with other factors — an increase in both homeruns and strikeouts even as hits and walks have held relatively steady, the return to smaller ballparks, steroids, a change in strategy — but the drop off in complete games and the increase in the number of pitchers being used can’t be ignored.
One of the arguments favoring the use of more pitchers, of more relievers, is that it has been driving down late-inning scoring. This piece from 2014 from Slate offers some data on this, though comparing percentage of a games’s runs scored per inning obscures that scoring overall, while experiencing some ups and downs over the years, has actually remained rather stable.
This calls the pro-reliever argument into question — as well as arguments in favor of pushing starters as deep into games as possible. The game, it would appear, exists at an equilibrium, scoring staying within a consistent range regardless of the broader changes that might be happening. One pitcher, five pitchers — teams are still giving up around four runs a game, so maybe it doesn’t matter.
There are other issues — old-school pitchers believe that more throwing makes for better pitchers long-term and prevent injuries, and that may be correct. The number of big-name starters who have missed significant time over the last few years is rather large, and highlighted by what has happened to the Mets’ staff over the last four seasons (each of its big five has now spent time on the DL). Six pitchers last year exceded 200 innings compared with 25 pitchers in 1992, with Greg Maddux throwing more than 260. Compare that to Max Scherzer’s league-leading 228 in 2016, which would have placed him ninth in the league in 1992.
What I find interesting, in our age of pitch counts and innings restrictions is that younger pitchers were carrying those big work loads. Some did have arm troubles later in their careers, but many managed to go through their careers consistently throwing high-innings totals — guys like Maddux, Tom Glavine, Curt Schilling and so on. Glavine pitched until he was 42, threw 200-plus innings 15 times — and that does not account for the 218 innings he through in 12 post seasons. Scherzer — today’s prototypical workhorse — has pitched eight full seasons, the last four of which he has topped 200.
I don’t know if the change in workload or workout routine has contributed to the seeming injury spike. I’m not a player, manager, coach or front-office guy. I’m not a mathematician. I’m not an analytics guy. I respect the use of new stats, but I think we over rely on them — not just as fans, but as team-builders and managers. As a fan, I can only consider what those close to the game have to say. Both Tom House, a well-regarded former pitching coach, and long-time Major Leaguer Jim Kaat (24 years in the league, 14 with 200-plus innings — twice with 300-plus) believe “developing pitchers should throw more, not less.”
The modern industry believes the opposite. Yet pitchers continue to break down.
“What happens in today’s game is kids pitch too much, but they don’t throw enough,” House said. “That’s the simplest way to explain it. They haven’t created a broad enough throwing foundation to handle the pitching workloads.“My brother and I wore out three garage doors throwing tennis balls against them. We lived at the beach. I bet you I threw a million sea rocks at sea gulls. Not very environmentally friendly, but we were throwing all the time.”Kaat worked under the renowned pitching coach Johnny Sain, who believed that pitchers should throw at least a little every day. Two of Sain’s pitchers, Kaat and Tommy John, would go on to throw more than 4,500 innings apiece. No active pitcher has worked even 3,300 innings.“The single most important exercise that I did during my career was throwing the baseball,” Kaat said. “Whenever they would say, ‘You sure you’re not throwing too much?’ I would say: ‘Well, this is how I make my living. I’m just spinning the ball. I’m trying to figure out what makes it move, how can I make it do this and do that?’ So my arm always stayed very flexible.”
These are the same arguments you can hear Ron Darling make on Mets’ broadcasts everytime Manager Terry Collings or Pitching Coach Dan Warthen come to the mound in the sixth or seventh inning to pull a starter because of the 100-pitch limit.
Are these old-school guys right? I’d like to think so — I’m a bit of an old-school fan. Few contemporary games compare with the 1985 duel between Fernando Valenzuela and Dwight Gooden in 1985. Valenzuela threw 11 innings of scoreless ball, Gooden nine and the Mets won it in the 13th on a two-run double. (Another Mets-Dodger duel took place in 1976 — Craig Swan tossed 10 innings of scoreless ball for the Mets, while Don Sutton tossed nine in a 1-0, 14-inning Mets win. I don’t remember this one; it’s mentioned in the LA Times coverage of the 1985 match-up.) Tension and drama still occur, but there is something about seeing starters battle like this, as if it were personal.
This is not where we are today. The game changes and the changes become ingrained. The numbers support some of the changes, though other numbers make it seem a wash. We may see a move back to more complete games and letting starters go deep — at least the top ones — because a tired Scherzer is better than most fresh middle-inning guys, and because it would allow teams once again to carry more position players — and shorten game times, which is sorely needed.
It won’t happen this year, or anytime soon. The thinking would have to change first, and then it would need to trickle down into the training.
I have no illusions, however. I’m old-school when it comes to baseball, but I still love baseball. And while I’d rather watch a tired Jacob deGrom on the mound than a fresh Sean Gilmartin, I have no illusions that it is going to happen anytime soon.
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 