Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, April 28, 2020

Introducing Baseball’s Premier Research Tool: Stathead

Stathead subscriptions provide access to a suite of tools that allow users to run customized searches through 100+ years of career statistics, season statistics, game statistics, splits and play-by-play. These tools are omnipresent in every press box, broadcast booth, agency and front office in Major League Baseball. We’re happy to offer access to these professional tools for the low cost of $8/month. Even better, for a limited time we’re offering the first month FREE. For more info on Stathead subscriptions, please click here.

Here’s a rundown of some of the tools you’ll have access to as a Stathead subscriber:

SEASON/CAREER FINDERS
GAME FINDERS
SPLIT FINDERS
STREAK FINDERS
EVENT FINDERS
BATTER vs PITCHER
NEUTRALIZED STAT FINDERS
PLAYER COMPARISON FINDERS
AD-FREE BROWSING: Every Stathead subscription comes with ad-free browsing on the equivalent Sports-Reference site (so the Baseball Stathead subscription will come with ad-free browsing on Baseball-Reference.com). Pages will load faster and cleaner this way. We would love if one day we can completely remove ads from the sites and focus entirely on providing users with the statistics, tools and experience they most desire.

First attempt at playing around with it has been good for me.  At $8 a month the price has gone up a bit but to me it is well worth it.  I use BBRefPI a lot and I know I’m not the only one.

Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: April 28, 2020 at 10:17 AM | 35 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball reference, media

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: April 28, 2020 at 12:52 PM (#5945448)
So...Play Index is going bye-bye, and we have to sign up for another service that does the same thing but costs more money?
   2. Itchy Row Posted: April 28, 2020 at 03:17 PM (#5945514)
I'll probably subscribe, but I've been having some problems with bb-ref lately. A lot of times, I get an ad on the left side of the page that covers some of the content and apparently won't close except if you reload the page. Today the team history & encyclopedia pages haven't been opening. The first few sections saying "Loading" and Franchise History shows the last 20 seasons but then "Wird geladen..." (apparently German for "Loading") instead of the rest of the team's history.
   3. Walt Davis Posted: April 28, 2020 at 05:15 PM (#5945587)
#1: You also get ad-free. I used to have 2 subs, now I have one. I haven't bothered to check, I assume the money is about the same. They're also giving away a few weeks free plus you get additional rollover months if you had both subs.

If it does anything the old PI didn't do, I haven't noticed it yet. I haven't ever used the player comparison tool though, I'll have to check that out sometime.
   4. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: April 28, 2020 at 06:44 PM (#5945628)
The money is a bit more. $8 a month is $96 a year where the PI ($36) and ad free ($20?) is $56. It seems a bit more robust (you can get more fields into the search category). From what Sean and his team have written over time I suspect this is the best option for generating income that doesn’t involve ads. It’s certainly worth it to me, I use it a lot, it’s a fun little tool.
   5. cardsfanboy Posted: April 28, 2020 at 07:06 PM (#5945634)
all play index has been converted, I wonder what that means, do I get stathead until my pi subscription ends? if so, then I'm fine with this, although I don't see me paying $8 a month for this... $30-40 a year was fine... but at the same cost of a streaming service, is a bit extreme.
   6. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: April 28, 2020 at 08:15 PM (#5945655)
all play index has been converted, I wonder what that means, do I get stathead until my pi subscription ends?

that's what it says on the site
The Play Index will soon be shutting down. But don't despair!
We've launched new and improved offerings at Stathead! All Play Index subscriptions have been converted,



   7. cardsfanboy Posted: April 28, 2020 at 09:24 PM (#5945674)
We've launched new and improved offerings at Stathead! All Play Index subscriptions have been converted,


But it doesn't say what that means... In theory you hope it means you get Stathead until your subscription runs out... but in theory they could do plenty of things, including just prorating your pi spent to Stat head, meaning I have 9 months left on my pi, that is 27 dollars, so I get Stat head for 4-5 months instead. (free month plus the 27/8)

Generally business usually take the loss on these type of transfers, but without a clear wording, it's left for limbo.
   8. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: April 29, 2020 at 09:02 AM (#5945768)
The money is a bit more.

Er, more than a bit, son: $96 is nearly triple $36 (I don't mind the ads).

But if that's what Sean needs to keep the thing going, fine.
   9. Hank Gillette Posted: April 29, 2020 at 06:09 PM (#5945968)
It’s probably just me, but I can’t find a way to change my password. Anyone know how?
   10. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: April 29, 2020 at 06:59 PM (#5945977)
On the Stathead site? Go to “Your Account” (next to where it says when your account renews), then choose the “Edit” option next to your Account Info. There is a change password button there.

On BBRef for some reason I get stuck in a loop every time I try to get into my account it asks me to login but it says I’m logged in when I’m on the site.
   11. Hank Gillette Posted: April 29, 2020 at 07:55 PM (#5945994)
Thanks.

On BBRef for some reason I get stuck in a loop every time I try to get into my account it asks me to login but it says I’m logged in when I’m on the site.


Same here.
   12. Walt Davis Posted: April 29, 2020 at 08:23 PM (#5945999)
Oh ... I need to go to the "stathead" tab ... but Play Index is still there (at least for now), I assumed clicking on PI would just take me to the new thing. Anyway...

CFB, you should have received an email. Here are some quotes from mine:

As a Play Index subscriber you are automatically subscribed to Stathead. ... Stathead is currently in a free trial period, so we have automatically extended your Play Index subscription's expiration date (free of charge) by 3 weeks (we previously automatically extended your subscription by 2 months, as well). On top of this, we have also added half of your remaining ad-free subscription length to this. As an example of how this works, if you had 6 months left on your Play Index subscription and 6 months left on your ad-free subscription, you now have 9 months left as a Stathead subscriber (plus the 3 extra weeks). You will continue to be ad-free on all Sports Reference sites during this time, as well. In the future, ad-free will be strictly on sites corresponding to the sports you are a Stathead subscriber for. So a Baseball Stathead subscriber will have an ad-free experience on Baseball Reference, but not on Basketball Reference, for instance.

When your subscription expires, our new price will take effect. Stathead subscriptions will be $8/month.


There is some discussion on the increased price here
   13. Walt Davis Posted: April 29, 2020 at 08:32 PM (#5946001)
Holy crap, my earliest saved report is from 2008. I think I was exploring the notion that although elite modern starters got fewer decisions, they had higher win %s ... presumably around whether we'd see a 300-game winner again. I don't see much in it now, don't think I saw anything in it then.
   14. Born1951 Posted: April 29, 2020 at 10:22 PM (#5946025)
I am very disappointed with the interface of the new site. Don't like that the search form is on the side instead of on top. And it's visible all the time, and there's no way to hide it. The results are sometimes cut off on the right side because of this. There are now many many options hidden under dropdowns that were previously visible. This causes additional clicks to get a report. One report I checked that took 5 clicks in the old site takes 9 clicks in the new one. This is progress? I'm okay with a price increase, but $60 a year is a bit much, especially for something that in my opinion is harder to use.

On the positive side, I do like the opening screen better, the choices are more clear. And I like that a "Get Results" button appears in the middle when you make a change, so you don't have go to the bottom for that every time.
   15. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 30, 2020 at 07:16 PM (#5946374)
There are two things I'm seeing as upgrades on PI. One of them is very helpful, which is an unlimited number of statistical filters. The other, which can doesn't affect me but might help others, is that it is mobile friendly. On the downisde, however, I can't search for a player directly from Stathesd like I could from a PI page. I will still fork over the money. PI has been ridiculously cheap for such a long time, and I use PI FAAAAAR more often than I use any of my entertainment subs (but that's just me).

Sean, if you are listening, could you consider one or both of these features:
-more than 200 entries per results page
-being able to download the results for all results of the search at once into excel so we don't have to copy/paste a whole lot of screens worth of data.

Thanks!
   16. cardsfanboy Posted: April 30, 2020 at 08:04 PM (#5946387)
CFB, you should have received an email. Here are some quotes from mine:


I did, but didn't see it until you told me to look for it. Thanks. And looking at the dates of my current subscription, it looks like it works.

Holy crap, my earliest saved report is from 2008. I think I was exploring the notion that although elite modern starters got fewer decisions, they had higher win %s ... presumably around whether we'd see a 300-game winner again. I don't see much in it now, don't think I saw anything in it then.


That is definitely a discussion we had around here, and I was on the side arguing that the standard 9 innings per decision that we are used to, probably still exists(for starters), but that pitchers were having a higher win percentage simply because they were being pulled earlier to either save the win, or that better bullpens made it likely to not lose the lead as frequently. Ultimately it's a theory, but I don't think the data really matches up, although I think there might be a subset of type of pitchers that this would be true for, but not entirely sure if that really matters.

Ultimately I do think 300 win pitchers will continue to be a possibility for another 20 or so years, but without some major changes to the game, that might be it. It's possible that openers might be the way to go with getting another 300 game winner, since the credit of the win for those type of pitching is up to the official scorer (at least for now... I'm pretty certain that the definition of a win will change as openers become more popular) and if they really do start increasing the number of double headers, a team could help it's ace pitcher get a win or two by choosing which game he comes into in the third, if the team has a lead, you bring in your best pitcher to pitch hopefully 5-6 innings. If the team is behind you save him for the second game. Imagine being able to choose may 3-5 times a year to bring in a Verlander with a 1-2-3 run lead and how many more wins he'll pick up over the course of a career?


   17. cardsfanboy Posted: April 30, 2020 at 08:18 PM (#5946390)
There are two things I'm seeing as upgrades on PI. One of them is very helpful, which is an unlimited number of statistical filters. The other, which can doesn't affect me but might help others, is that it is mobile friendly. On the downisde, however, I can't search for a player directly from Stathesd like I could from a PI page. I will still fork over the money. PI has been ridiculously cheap for such a long time, and I use PI FAAAAAR more often than I use any of my entertainment subs (but that's just me).


Fan of the first, don't care about the second.

But it's currently very annoying, which I imagine will be fixed relatively rapidly.... right now you go to it, and you get the category options, which is nice and bigger look than before, so that is good... and let's say you click player batting under the category of season and career batting, it takes you to the page already doing a search based upon single season homeruns. You have decided to come here for career stats, you click career stats and you get "you have edited your search criteria" and a button for click for results or keep editing your search or cancel... (the second isn't an option, it's just to tell you that you probably should cancel, edit all your criteria then hit the career option.---it's annoying to be honest... I just want to click all my criteria, hit the button one time, and then get options and I want to have that ability to do in any order)

   18. Walt Davis Posted: April 30, 2020 at 08:58 PM (#5946395)
CFB, I think you just ignore that and keep editing your search then click get results. I agree it's kinda ugly, I'd prefer it didn't plug in a default table but it doesen't seem to matter what order you click things in. I did email them about what looks like a couple of bugs around filters for things like ISO > 1.0*BA. I suspect the easiest way to fix that is to have separate filter boxes for HR>100 searches and compare two stats searches.

I agree that visually it's not there yet but we'll get used to it and fucntionality around adding an additional filter seems to work better.
   19. Walt Davis Posted: April 30, 2020 at 09:24 PM (#5946398)
On the pitcher thing, I might have been the one pushing the notion that win %s were going up because it did seem to me that we were seeing very high ones. But that table suggests thre's not much going on which hopefully is what I concluded at the time. Another pet theory of mine is that reducing the seasonal workload does make it more likely a good starter will still be going at 42-45.

As to openers -- I don't expect to ever see them for the sort of stud pitchers who would ever have a shot at 300 wins so I don't think it's going to matter. Scherzer doesn't need an opener, he's a much, much better pitcher than whatever guy you'd bring in as an opener and you're going to push him close to 3 times through the order anyway so you don't really gain anything. Openers make logical sense for #4/5 starters.

Now we might see something more radical like back to 4-game rotations but pitching only 4-5 innings per or even splitting the first 5 innings across 2 pitchers every game then who knows what happens to "wins." Until then, 300 wins is gonna have to come the "old-fashioned" way of pitching about 200 good innings a year for 20 years.

Among active guys, Verlande has a decent shot but losing this year will probably cost him. He's at 225 and 15 wins a year through 41-42 was not unreasonable but that's all pushed back a year now. Still, Colon just finished off 94 wins from age 38 on ... even more promising, he was 80-59 for 38-43 before finally turning into a pumpkin. Greinke is 20 wins behind and one year younger than Verlander so fairly similar chances and if I can see anybody pulling a Colon junk-style 40s it's him. But Scherzer is a whopping 55 wins behind Verlander while only being 2 years younger. Rick Porcello, of all people, probably has the next best shot with 149 wins through age 30. No, he's not a very good pitcher so it's unlikely he'll last long enough but the closest younger guy is Bumgarner at just 119 wins through 29 so he's got plenty of work to do just to catch up to Porcello's pace. Gerrit Cole is the first guy younger than Bumgarner and while he's clearly on the upswing, he's 25 wins behind Bumgarner while being just one year younger. The winningest active pitcher through is Michael Wacha at a measly 59. Nola (53) and E Rodriguez (51) aren't far behind at age 26 -- even 15 years of 15 wins still leaves them more than a season short.

If Verlander and Greinke don't make it, it will be at least another 20 years before we see a 300-game winner. Not necessarily that big of a deal -- there were very few between the dead-ballers and the 70s studs and we had that "lost generation" of starters that gave us Jack Morris.
   20. cardsfanboy Posted: April 30, 2020 at 11:22 PM (#5946408)
Another pet theory of mine is that reducing the seasonal workload does make it more likely a good starter will still be going at 42-45.


Fully agree there, some people like to say that the large amount of money that they made would prevent someone from doing that, but at 42 years old, you are only half way through your life (average life expectancy for someone who has reached 42 is 82 years old) so you probably would want to continue doing something, and something that you have a passion for and are pretty good at.

As to openers -- I don't expect to ever see them for the sort of stud pitchers who would ever have a shot at 300 wins so I don't think it's going to matter. Scherzer doesn't need an opener, he's a much, much better pitcher than whatever guy you'd bring in as an opener and you're going to push him close to 3 times through the order anyway so you don't really gain anything. Openers make logical sense for #4/5 starters.


I don't think we'll see it for the generation that exists now, but 20 years from now, when openers might have become the norm, that might end up being the path to getting to 300 wins.

Now we might see something more radical like back to 4-game rotations but pitching only 4-5 innings per or even splitting the first 5 innings across 2 pitchers every game then who knows what happens to "wins." Until then, 300 wins is gonna have to come the "old-fashioned" way of pitching about 200 good innings a year for 20 years.

Agree, I think we'll see numerous changes on handling pitching rotations going forward, it's hard to predict what will end up being chosen, but I do think it will change radically... I've pushed the concept of using your starters as a reliever on their "throw" days, which would probably result in another 10-15 appearances a season for a good starter, adding more chances at saves/wins/holds etc.

If Verlander and Greinke don't make it, it will be at least another 20 years before we see a 300-game winner. Not necessarily that big of a deal -- there were very few between the dead-ballers and the 70s studs and we had that "lost generation" of starters that gave us Jack Morris.


probably, but who knows if we have a Moyer in our midst already and don't recognize it (Porcello is always an interesting name here) but my bet at someone being a Moyer is Lance Lynn. Obviously this season threw him a big curve ball, but ultimately I think that the future 300 winners is going to be the guys who can stay healthy for a decade more than the guy who owns the league.
   21. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: May 01, 2020 at 11:37 AM (#5946522)
I think as far as 300 game winners go if the game doesn't change back to what it was we may see an explosion in win totals for individual pitchers. With "openers" and all that I won't be shocked if we won't start to see the best pitchers used as floaters. Imagine a Mariano Rivera or a Pedro Martinez, not as we saw them but instead floating and pitching somewhere in the 3rd to 6th innings every few days in close games. 50-60 games, 130-150 innings. They could rack up win totals with a lot fewer innings/win. Look at Bill Campbell's 1976 season. He entered games in the 4th (2 times), 5th (4), 6th (9), 7th (18), 8th (20), 9th+ (25) and won 17 games. Now imagine a truly great pitcher in that role.
   22. Walt Davis Posted: May 01, 2020 at 07:51 PM (#5946812)
Campbell provides one reason you might not see that. Heavy usage relievers have pretty much never been able to stay healthy. From 74-77 Campbell averaged nearly 140 innings and 65 appearances a year (and 10-11 wins). From 78-81 he never topped 55 innings. He had two more years of heavy usage but not particularly good pitching. Another issue is pitchers batting in the NL.

Taking a look at those 17 wins (inning he entered and what happened)

8th, blew the save, picked up the win
9th, picked up the win in the 14th(!)
5th, already ahead 4, finished the game giving up 3 runs
6th, blew the save, picked up the win (pitched well)
9th, tied, won in the 11th
9th, tied, won in 10th
4th, a1, pitched great
8th, d1
7th, blew save, win
5th, already ahead 4, finished the game giving up 3 runs (history repeats!)
6th, d1, pitched well
10th, gave up 3 runs in 3 innings
10th
12th
8th, got out of a huge jam
7th, blown save, win
8th, tied

Not sure how many of those we'd see Pedro in. The two with a 4-run lead definitely not. Unless we've seen the end of the closer/specialist or possibly the strategy is that Pedro comes in for saves when available, he probably doesn't get the late game wins. Or, being a better pitcher, Pedro doesn't blow the saves before ending up with the win. I think there are 6 where we'd clearly use our Pedro, two where we clearly wouldn't and then it's save vs. wins.

Hader is of course the closest thing we have to this idea although he doesn't come on in the 6th and he doesn't throw 140 innings a year. He's 11-9 for his career so even if we doubled his innings, he'd have maybe 22 wins through 2.5 years. The previous closest was Andrew Miller who did make it to 10 wins one year in 74 innings ... with a 1.45 ERA. It's possible our Pedro could do that for 150 innings now and then and pick up 20 wins on occasion.

The classic example of course is Mike Marshall 1973-74 (his only really crazy years) when he did pick up 52 decisions ("only" 29 wins). The second of those 2 seasons though was for a 102-win Dodger team and he still went just 15-12 -- limit a guy to close games and even a really good pitchers is going to pick up a number of losses most years.

For his career, Marshall ended up with just over 700 appearances and just under 1400 innings. Call that 10 full seasons and assume our Pedro stays healthy and doubles that. Marshall's career record was 97-112 so maybe our Pedro gets just over 400 decisions (and 400 saves). A better pitcher than Marshall, I can see 250-150, hard to see 300.

Now that guy is a HoFer -- his name is Hoyt Wilhelm. :-) He ended up at 143-122 in 2250 IP at a 147 ERA+ (Pedro 154). Add another 30% to bring him up to about Pedro's innings and he's at 185-158 wins. Wilehlm probably pitched for worse teams than Pedro so the win %age could have been better. Actual Pedro had 2827 IP, 219-100 ... 24 fewer decisions than pretend Wilhelm of which Pedro wins 16, getting to 235.

So pitch like Pedro/Wilhelm for about 3600-3700 innings of relief and he might make 300 wins. That's 25 years of 140 innings almost all for good (and clutch) teams. Per PI, there have only been 133 seasons of at least 120 innings and 2 or fewer starts. Borbon leads with 6, Quiz 5, Campbell, Wilhelm, Fingers and Radatz with 4. Duane Ward 1990 was the last to do it. (Across his 5 seasons of 100+ innings, Ward went 29-31 with a 130 ERA+.)

Eyeballing it, it does seem that IP/decision is lower for these guys but maybe not dramatically so -- Wilhelm was at 8.5 (incl his starts), Gossage's great 1975 was a bit over 8, Campbell's 1976 was about 7.5 ... and impressively, Marshall's career number was 6.6. Probably with a lower win %age though. Even at Marshall's rate, getting to 500 decisions (60% win %age) is 3300 innings.

Since no pitcher has ever been able to withstand consistent heavy relief usage, why would you risk this with your best pitching prospect? I think Gossage's 75 was the greatest relief season ever and that was 8 WAR. (Huh, WAR now agrees, I think Hiller's 73 used to be higher.) If you doubled Hader's WAR last year, it's just 5.5; double Miller's 2016 and you get to 7.5 WAR.

Granted, Pedro the reliever at his best would easily beat Hader's 170 ERA+, probably Gossage's 212, probably even Miller's 304 once or twice. But actual Pedro had 4 seasons of 8+ WAR and 2 more of 7. And teams aren't trying to maximize a pitcher's chance at 20+ seasons and, even if they were, the evidence that we have is that pitchers can't hold up under 50-70 appearance, 140 inning workloads. Let's see a Josh Hader put up 40-50 WAR over 10 seasons before we start experimenting with Pedro's usage.

Anyway, Pedro in his best relief years might win 20 games ... or as I suggested, he might win 15 but add 7 more saves that Campbell might have blown ... and Pedro the reliever is still a HoFer if he makes it to 2000 innings or so. But 300 wins? Nope.
   23. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: May 01, 2020 at 08:28 PM (#5946818)
well, tonite (about 10 minutes ago) was the first time I was shunted to the new "Stathead site" when I clicked on BRef PI. When I pressed the login link I get a 404 page not found error--this is going to be a disaster for a while.
   24. cardsfanboy Posted: May 01, 2020 at 09:42 PM (#5946825)
Pedro is not a good example, I think it was an imagine if example... but the issue is that to get a 300 game winner going forward, you need a guy with a solid 18+ seasons of pitching and gathering decisions. There is no reality in this universe that Pedro becomes a 300 game winner... so let's ignore that. Heck the 219 wins he got was probably over expectations...

But beyond that, a Verlander, Greinke type of elite pitcher, who has actual stamina and longevity, could benefit from the opener concept maybe 5 times a year and rack up 2-3 wins that they normally wouldn't.. over the course of a 20 year career that is probably about 30-40 wins... and that is how you get a 260 win pitcher to 300 with new strategies. And once a pitcher reaches 280 or so wins, we know that a majority of them (Mussina excluded) will stick around to try and reach that magical number, even though it isn't necessary for their hof case.

Again this is of course hypothetical analyzing on how it's potentially possible for future 300 game winners to exist, without redefining the definition of a win for pitchers (which is also something I do think will happen over the next 20 years....just a minor tweak, but rules to limit the ability of the official scorekeeper to determine the winner, and potentially including the possibility of the opener being eligible for the win... as of now, from my memory, the opener is not eligible for the win, but I could be wrong here) (I'm drinking and don't feel like looking up the official rules for winning pitcher, but my memory says that the starter who leaves while having the lead in a game before the fifth inning is not eligible for the win, and the win is to be given to the most effective pitcher deemed by the official scorer.... but at some point in time, there is going to be a game where the opener pitches 2-3 innings, leaves and nobody else pitches more innings, and they give the win to one of the relievers)
   25. cardsfanboy Posted: May 01, 2020 at 09:46 PM (#5946827)
well, tonite (about 10 minutes ago) was the first time I was shunted to the new "Stathead site" when I clicked on BRef PI. When I pressed the login link I get a 404 page not found error--this is going to be a disaster for a while.


yep it was annoying...kept trying and eventually ended up at the pi site, which is much more comfortable to me for a simple search.
   26. TJ Posted: May 01, 2020 at 11:25 PM (#5946840)
I can see elite arms like Verlander get to 300 wins if they wish to become the “follower” once they lose their ability to go deep in games. Pitchers of that type who get to the age where they still have quality stuff but can only hold it for 3-4 innings would still have great value as the guy who comes in after the opener a couple of times a week...
   27. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: May 01, 2020 at 11:41 PM (#5946842)
yep it was annoying...kept trying and eventually ended up at the pi site, which is much more comfortable to me for a simple search.

I have already sent an email demanding that they keep the old PI active for the remainder of my contract. That's what I paid for
What logic is responsible for the bizarre notion from web gurus that essentially takes the order of "we have a perfectly functional website, everyone is happy with it--I KNOW let's change it"
   28. Walt Davis Posted: May 02, 2020 at 12:05 AM (#5946845)
#26 ... but it won't be a couple of times a week, he won't be able to handle that load. It will at best be once every 5 games, same rotation he's on now -- i.e. if he can't handle 5 innings every 5 games then he can't handle 3-4 innings every 3-4 days. It's also not clear why you'd use him as the "bridger." The point of the opener is to continue to limit your 4/5 starter to about 20-22 batters while allowing him to face the bottom not the top of the order for the 3rd time. But if Verlander still has good stuff but not the durability, you're not pushing him to 22 batters but he can still get the top of the lineup out twice. Since he's still a better short-term pitcher than the opener, it's not clear what you gain by holding him back.

CFB ... I think you're under-estimating how easy it is to limit a pitcher to situations where your team has the lead, the pitcher is rested, using him today won't mess up anybody eles's schedule, he's the best guy for the job, he pitches well enough and the official scorer gives him the win. Most of the time after the opener leaves, the score's going to be 0-0. Sure, you could play BS games like bringing in a particular pitcher every time your team leads after 4 and hope you hold on and the scorer gives him the win but there's no point in a team doing that.

But sure, they may (probably will) change the definition of a win ... which just means that 300 "wins" aren't 300 wins anymore. They could conceivably change a walk to 3 balls or get sick of 240 BAs and go back to counting walks as hits or redefine BA as BABIP. I do agree that if 5-inning starts become increasingly rare things that they'll do something but whether that will be "the pitcher with the most innings, effective, left with the lead" or "whoever was pitching when the lead was taken" or "whoever completed the 5th or later with the lead" of "just pick one" is not clear to me.

Anyway, if we reach some hell where standard pitcher usage for a game is 2/3/1/1/1/1 then I'll be more concerned about the 18-man staffs that's gonna require than about whether somebody can manipulate it such that some 3-inning guy that lasts for 25 years racks up 300 wins.
   29. Walt Davis Posted: May 02, 2020 at 12:51 AM (#5946847)
Some recent history of 3rd time through, 2000-2019 AL

There were about 15,000 such PAs in 2000, actually going up in the low offense stretch of 2013-15 (probably just first half) but was still around 15,000 in 2016. Since then, they have shaved off about 3700-3800 of those, so about 25%. If anything, raw performance is slightly worse but possibly it's stable or even better if adjusted for overall performance.

I don't know if that seems like a lot or not but it's 1.5 PA per team-game. Hopefully most of those are getting taken from the 4/5 starters so the Verlanders of the world have probably lost 0-1 such PA per start. We are still a long way away from starters only going 18 batters. We're probably getting close for 4/5 starters.

Where we've seen drastic and regular reduction is in 4th-time PAs. These were already pretty rare in 2000 (just over 1), we dropped below 1 in 2003, were down to about .75 then almost got back to 1 in 2010-11 for some reason, dropped below half in 2016 and were down to just 428 in 2019 AL. Anyway 4th-time PA have been reduced by about 85%, they've obviously taken those away from basically every pitcher now. You can add those two together and SPs have lost about 6300 PAs since 2000, about 2/3 of those in the last 3 years. Possibly deep cuts will continue but we also saw SP/RP results hit equilibrium in 2019 so if that continues there's no reason to see further deep cuts.
   30. Walt Davis Posted: May 02, 2020 at 01:17 AM (#5946851)
On Verlander-Pedro -- it doesn't particularly matter. Verlander probably is more likely to survive 20 years, 1200 games, 2800 innings than Pedro. But

(a) we have no evidence any pitcher can withstand that

(b) that still leaves Verlander 200 innings short of where he is already so unless he has a drastically higher decision/IP rate or a drastically higher win % (he's already at 636), he'd still not be close to 300 wins

(c) I assume Pedro was chosen because of his awesome rate stats. Verlander the reliever might put up better rate stats than Pedro the starter but Wilhelm didn't; Marshall and Fingers didn't come close; peak Gossage did but peak Gossage had only 3 seasons over 100 relief IP. So I used the Pedro example to show that even if that 20 years, 1200 games, 2800 inning reliever is possible, he probably has to substantially out-pitch Pedro's rate stats to have a shot at the extra 81 wins. So ...

(d) if we want to pretend that Mo could have done what he did while pitching 2-3 innings per game for 25 years, then sure. As an example, his 1996 with 61 games and 108 IP at 240 ERA+ and a FIP better than his ERA ... he went 8-3 on a 92 win team. Given him another 50ish innings with no drop-off and get him to 12 wins ... just needs to do that for 25 years. So if Gossage could have done peak Gossage for 25 years instead of 4 or Campbell for 25 years instead of 1 or Mo for 3 times as many innings as he actually pitched, then we might have seen a 300-game winner. Now Verlander is more likely to do that than any of those guys were but it can't be very likely.

(e) The more realistic idea is the one you have where Verlander (or whoever) cuts back about 1 inning per start and pitches a relief inning on his throw day. So in a perfect year, he loses 30 IP of starts and gains 30 IP of relief and throwing for real on his throw day does no extra harm over a bullpen session. His total IP comes out the same but if relievers pick up decisions at a higher rate and/or wins at a higher rate (I really doubt this one) then he might pick up one extra win per year which might be exactly what he needs to get over the hump. But realistically it won't always work out that he'll get 30 relief innings -- blowout games, he went deep in his most recent start, some other reliever needs work, etc. -- so losing 30 innings of starting for 20 innings of relief is more realisic in which case it all comes out the same.

(f) Now if you think he can pick up 20-30 innings of full-effort relief without losing any SP innings/performance ... then good luck with that.
   31. TJ Posted: May 02, 2020 at 01:09 PM (#5946894)
Walt, what you point out makes logical sense, and I agree with you on those logical points. But we are talking about baseball players here. Say a veteran pitcher is around 280 wins or so and wants to make it to 300. He can’t go a good six innings anymore, but he can still get you through the lineup one time. A team says to him, “We know you don’t have the stamina like you used to have, but we would still love to sign you for the quality innings you can provide.” The pitcher says, “Great! Where do I sign?” Then the team says, “Oh, and we think we will use you as a starter to get through the lineup once and then go to the pen.”

The pitcher will surely say, “I can’t get the win in my starts? You’ve got to be kidding!” as he walks out the door to sign with someone who will give him chances for the wins.
   32. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 02, 2020 at 01:58 PM (#5946898)
This causes additional clicks to get a report. One report I checked that took 5 clicks in the old site takes 9 clicks in the new one. This is progress?

This is my biggest peeve with many site/app redesigns and I wonder whether the designers actually use the sites in question on more than one UI. On a touchscreen, for example, scrolling is easy, but typing or clicking on buttons / links is often hard. (Also, you can scroll before a page fully loads, but forms often require a fully loaded page to work properly).
   33. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: May 02, 2020 at 02:28 PM (#5946901)
I wonder how many of the complaints about the changes will go away in six months due to familiarity. As an accountant Excel is my world and every time Microsoft updates it I spend about 3 weeks ######## and moaning to everyone within earshot of how horrible the update is and I miss the old version and why did they have to change it and ####### software engineers who don’t actually work with it this is the worst thing ever.

Then I get comfortable, it turns out to be better and I’m happy until the next update when I start the process over again. I wouldn’t be surprised if the discomfort we have with the new version of PI is like that and once we get used to it we will find it much better.
   34. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 02, 2020 at 11:08 PM (#5947018)
I still think many aspects of the newer Excel versions are bad...and get off my lawn.
   35. Moeball Posted: May 06, 2020 at 02:10 PM (#5948391)
I haven't checked out Stathead yet so I have a question for those who have: one of the things that annoys me about PI is that when I want to search and sort based on splits, it doesn't include filtering by position like it does on other requests. So, for example, if I want to look up which catcher hit best on the road last year, I can't. Does Stathead allow filtering by position when doing searches on splits? Would be useful if it did.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog31 MLB players, 7 staff test positive for COVID-19, or 1.2%
(14 - 9:12pm, Jul 04)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogCleveland Indians look into changing name amid pressure
(44 - 9:12pm, Jul 04)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogYankees’ Masahiro Tanaka hit in head by Giancarlo Stanton line drive
(3 - 9:10pm, Jul 04)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(6488 - 9:08pm, Jul 04)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogMLB teams can't identify players who test positive for coronavirus
(43 - 9:07pm, Jul 04)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogWith baby on the way, Trout unsure if he'll play
(17 - 9:04pm, Jul 04)
Last: never forget: the pee tape is 57i66135

NewsblogBill James: Why We Need Runs Saved Against Zero
(178 - 7:54pm, Jul 04)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogDodgers pitcher David Price opts out of 2020 MLB season
(3 - 7:43pm, Jul 04)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogAthletics To Trade Jorge Mateo To Padres
(10 - 7:35pm, Jul 04)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Spring 2020
(359 - 7:00pm, Jul 04)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogOT – NBA Revival Thread 2020
(461 - 3:27pm, Jul 04)
Last: never forget: the pee tape is 57i66135

NewsblogRob Manfred admits MLB never intended to play more than 60 games
(20 - 1:16pm, Jul 04)
Last: Sunday silence: Play Guess How long season lasts

NewsblogCubs' Jose Quintana hurt washing dishes, has surgery
(24 - 10:24am, Jul 04)
Last: Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert

NewsblogAubrey Huff Says He Would Rather Die From Coronavirus Than Wear a Mask
(155 - 10:42pm, Jul 03)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

Newsblog'I got crushed': Chicago Cubs pitching coach Tommy Hottovy details harrowing COVID-19 battle
(21 - 8:56pm, Jul 03)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

-->

Page rendered in 0.5193 seconds
46 querie(s) executed