Brewers to try "inverse starts" in Minor Leagues

The one question though is what happens if the starter just doesn’t have it that day? I guess a manager would be leery of using his long guy in the first few innings just in case the starting pitcher gets in trouble by the 5th or 6th.

Relievers very rarely go beyond 2 innings. This system requires a “reliever” to go 3 innings. If more than 1 “reliever” is used in the first 3 innings, then a team would be on its third pitcher at the start of the 4th inning. If a starter is coming back from an injury, “starting” him in the 4th inning is not a crazy idea. Generally speaking, I don’t like the idea.

I don’t think I’ll get a chance to see AA Huntsville visiting Jackson, TN, or AAA Nashville visiting Memphis, use the “inverse start” system. The idea won’t get beyond the class A level.

No problem with trying it, but it won’t work. We see starts like this whenever there is a “rehab start” by a big leaguer in the minors, and it doesn’t seem to make much of a difference either way.

One thing that occurs to me, in the conspiracy side of my brain, is Melvin thinking “if this works, pitchers won’t get as many saves, and I won’t have to pay closers nearly as much.”

Start batting the pitcher 8th and catcher 9th?

(I know they already did this in the ML level)

DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER??!

This might work a little better in the AL where you don’t have to worry about pinch hitting and things like that. What if you need to pull your ‘starter’ in the 6th or 7th for a PH? You’d have some very rested ‘starters’ and tired ‘relievers’ it seems…why not just say you are using your starters 3 innings and then having ‘long releivers’ work next?...very confusing lol…AND what about arbitration its possible that the 3 inning starters would never get credit for anything…no win, no hold, no save. The union may not like that plan at all.

...for changing up things that have been said “tradition” for a hundred years, but this seems like an idea that isn’t going to go very far. Even so, props to changes in thinking.

Dan

Back when he was the manager of the Rays?

I love seeing people challenge tradition wisdom. If it works out it could be interesting, but I have a hard time seeing how it could.

That said, my first thought is that it seems inefficient because you’re capping your starter’s work at 6 innings. Since starters might go more than that sometimes, you’re just insuring that your best pitchers may not always get the maximum amount of innings possible.

Besides, in the grand scheme of things runs scored in the 1st count as much as those scored in the 9th, so the notion that the last 3 innings are more important than the first 3 seems misplaced.

I remember reading something many years ago about an idea Chuck Tanner had about doing away with starting pitchers as we know them. He thought it would be interesting to use four or five pitchers for a couple of innings each. I can’t remember his exact line of reasoning, but I think it had something to do with keeping hitters off balance by making them adjust to a different pitcher almost every at bat. In a way, it makes sense and I wonder if it was ever tried in the minors.

this could work. If a reliever could get through the lineup 1 time w/o little or no damage, this could make the starter more effective. Seems like most good offenses have to get through the lineup twice before they get good hacks at a good starting pitcher.

In any case, this would overwork the bullpen and teams would have to carry way more pitchers and would deplete the bench. This would be much more possible in the AL with the DH and bench players not as necessary.

I see the intrigue in trying it but it doesnt make good sense. Every team goes into every game hoping their pitcher will go 9. They ride him as long as they can until they have to bring in a RP. At that point, it can be one RP the rest of the way, or 5 of them.

Reversing things completely limits your ability to use your pitchers since you don’t know when it’s too soon to pull a RP in the early innings. Ofcourse this whole time your SP will be able to finish it out. Let’s say he can’t…then what? It’s too risky for games that matter and so it will never make it to the big leagues.

What about a tag team of 2 SP? A team stocking up on SP and throwing two out there per game with a rotating schedule so they each get enough rest between outings. Still a dumb idea, I know.

we can have our OF take turns pitching the innings and then our pitching staff can play the field and hit. Hey better yet, lets have all the coches play the game, and have the players manage. Wait, how bout the fans take turns playing the game, the players manage us, and the coches sit in the stands.

I like where this is going. Soon enough we won;t even be able to recognize this game! I’m sure Hank Steinbrenner will be happy though. Welcome to the 21st century Hanky boy!

LaRussa tried a 9-man starter/reliever/reliever rotation back in 1993 with Oakland. Three different pitchers scheduled to pitch per game over a three-game stretch. The A’s finished last in the AL West at 68-94. The system did not work so well.

“I heard it can’t be done but it don’t always work”.

I like thinking outside the box as much as anybody but, for reasons already stated, this sounds like it’ll be right up there with a “college of coaches” that I heard some team once tried.

Impressive.

Here’s a GM that has enough confidence and/or job security that he’s willing to try something radical and he’s going about it the right way, starting down at Class A and if it works there, then it can spread over time throughout the system and eventually get up to the majors.

Only problem is, he has the wrong idea. Instead of inverse starts, he should try to bring back the 4 man rotation. Obviously it’s not the type of change that can happen at once at the major league level, but I really think it could be successful if you did your homework, scout and draft horses, and have confidence in your pitching coaches at all levels.