Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

Say you've decided to build a 4 man rotation featuring 3 top of the line SP*'s and 1 budget SP* (think ATG where 4 man rotations are much more common).

What are your thoughts of slotting the "Dud" as the #1 starter in your rotation?

Obviously this gives the "Dud" an extra start (41) during the regular season and forces him to pitch against your opponents #1 Starter, while reducing your second best SP* to 40 starts, but will this maximize your pitching match-ups of the top 3 SP*'s enough to compensate for these dis-advantages?

I have no proof, but it does seem to me that you increase your winning chance by putting your #1 against opponent #2, #2 vs #3 ...and your dud vs opponent #1. You got three games out of 4 where you have the edge...worth trying in any case.

I might just do that Luckyman! :D

Sure hope my "Dud" doesn't go 0-41 though! :roll:

A quick study of two pitching staffs with an equal total RA between its 4 starters :

[b:34dce77e0d]Scenario #1[/b:34dce77e0d]
4.00 RA vs. 4.00 RA (41 times)
4.25 RA vs. 4.50 RA (41 times)
4.50 RA vs. 4.75 RA (40 times)
5.75 RA vs. 5.25 RA (40 times)

Pythagorean wins with these 4 match-ups: 81.31

[b:34dce77e0d]Scenario #2[/b:34dce77e0d]
5.75 RA vs. 4.00 RA (41 times)
4.00 RA vs. 4.50 RA (41 times)
4.25 RA vs. 4.75 RA (40 times)
4.50 RA vs. 5.25 RA (40 times)

Pythagorean wins with these 4 match-ups: 81.37

You're obviously favored in 3 of the 4 games when you create the pitching match-up advantage. But your opponent's #1 is favored 2/3 of the games in Scenario #2 while you're only favored to win 55-57% of the games in the other 3 match-ups.

[url=http://www.brewcrewball.com/2009/4/2/820445/geeking-out-on-suppan-as-1-starter]Interesting article[/url], that suggests matching up your worst SP against their best SP (if you play against the same team over and over and over again, that is.)

Of course, as you might expect, the effect ends up being extremely small, at least once you've played enough games, anyway.

This all seems consistent with the earlier posts here.

There is one reason why I never start my best pitcher in a 4 man rotation in game 2 of the regular season.
The #2 pitcher will pitch the last game of the regular season, which makes him ineligible for game 1 of the first round of the playoffs. In a 5 game series, I want him available to pitch games 1 and 5 if necessary.
I understand that getting to the playoffs should be the first priority, but the guy who makes the playoffs and gets ousted in round 1 gets the same thing as the guy who finishes last.

Well... decided to give it a try... season began last night and I went 0-3
at home. Vuke pitched game 1 and he and a reliever gave up 6 runs...
probably an acceptable rate. Maddux and Pete gave up 8 runs combined
in their 2 starts, but my bats were rather impotent and I lost both in 1 run
losses.

I'll keep you guys in the loop on how it works out.

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=226855

Interesting article [b:4dc24a4c63]Dean[/b:4dc24a4c63]. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I wonder if/how the old four man rotations would factor into this?

Also a good point about playoff implications [b:4dc24a4c63]Voovits[/b:4dc24a4c63]. I'm thinking that with my team however, should I happen to make the playoffs, the fact that Maddux (#2 starter) and Pete (#3 starter) are so closely matched, that it won't matter if Pete were to get the nod in game #1 and Maddux game #2 of the playoffs?

And finally [b:4dc24a4c63]Maligned[/b:4dc24a4c63]... I'm not sure of the math you used to work out those pythogorean projections? Seems to me that what this info is telling me is that the effectiveness of this strategy may be based upon the difference in the quality of the opposing SP's that I will match up with?

With that in mind I've got the following ratios to guide me:

My #1 SP: $1.04 mil vs AVG #1 SP: $8.15 mil - $7.11 mil
My #2 SP: $12.50 mil vs AVG #2 SP: $6.06 mil + $6.44 mil
My #3 SP: $12.32 mil vs AVG #3 SP: $5.07 mil + $7.25 mil
My #4 SP: $11.30 mil vs AVG #4 SP: $3.78 mil + $7.52 mil

Actually, (I guess I should I have said this before), the strategy of going with 3 STUDS and 1 DUDE (by DUDE, I mean SP of 2M or less), regardless of who starts game #1, is not an optimal one, not one I would advise.

The best strategy when going with extremely good studs (8M+) is to limit the investment in bullpen (which will mostly come in for a losing cause anyway), just like you did for your team. But this tactic leaves your team with basically no reliever of quality to sustain the work of the dude. The lack of good relievers seriously curtails your chances of winning games with your dude. This case is well illustrated with game #1, when your dude was taken away with your team still having the lead, only to lose the game with the performance of your not-very-good reliever.

The other alternative, buying a good bullpen to support your dude, will be a waste of investment considering that such bullpen is not needed when the three other SPs are pitching.

So it's basically a lose-lose situation.

At the very least, if I went with three allstar SPs, I would go with a #4 of quality that perfectly fits the stadium (in your case, this would be choosing a 4M-6M SP who yields lots of BP HR vs lhp and no BP HR vs rhp). This way, at least when you're playing at home, you have the equivalent of a 7M/9M-quality starting pitcher that almost matches the other all-star pitchers.

Another possibility, which I would perhaps more consider appropriate in 200X-STRAT, is to go with three 6M starters, and a fourth one in the 3M zone, which fits your stadium, and buy a premium closer. A 6M starter, especially if he is a S(6) pitcher, is not strong enough to finish most games. So there will plenty of opportunities for your big reliever to come in and have impact in significant games, including those started with the less-capable starter.

[quote:e4486ae6eb]The #2 pitcher will pitch the last game of the regular season, which makes him ineligible for game 1 of the first round of the playoffs. In a 5 game series, I want him available to pitch games 1 and 5 if necessary.[/quote:e4486ae6eb]

This argument applies when your #1 is head and shoulder beyond the three other guys, but this wouldn't apply in a case like here, where the #2 (and even #3) are almost of same quality than #1. Even if Maddux pitches game #162 (which applies only if you need to win that game---in most cases, game #162 will have no significance), you still have Alexander to start the playoffs and game #5.

[quote:e4486ae6eb]Scenario #1: Pythagorean wins with these 4 match-ups: 81.31
Scenario #2: Pythagorean wins with these 4 match-ups: 81.37
[/quote:e4486ae6eb]

Well, I guess it shows how small this effect would have anyway.

This said, I would be skeptical that this comparison applies to all roster set-ups. One assumption of this comparison is that bullpens are uniform and the quality of the bullpen won't change across games. This is the case for coffee's team, but this would not be the case if the bullpen has a stellar reliever. This stellar reliever would likely come in games with high-leverage situations, mostly games where you have a 50%-55% chance of winning, but would mostly sits in games where you have a 25% chance of winning.

I believe that, by tilting the usage of relievers to be optimal, the strategy of starting with your dude in game #1 could buy your team perhaps a couple of wins.

I apologize. I didn't explain the assumptions or objectives for my example above at all.
First of all, I'm curious as to whether this rotation strategy can give an advantage over time, completely independent of all other strategies or considerations. Obviously, there is a lot that goes into building a roster and managing a team with this particular design.
What I wanted to know was simply this: Will my team that has a small but significant Runs Scored advantage in 3 games and a very significant Runs Scored disadvantage in only 1 game gain a wins/losses advantage over a team of equal team runs scored over time?
I assumed in my math that 3 Studs equals a weak bullpen and a weak accompanying defense, thus leaving final team runs allowed in the "Stud" games at below normal, but not astounding results.
My numbers, then, were relatively arbitrary except for the fact that they demonstrate the match-ups we wanted to analyze (3 games with an advantage and one game with a big disadvantage).

Here's a more extreme example, which actually reveals healthier results that correspond with others' ideas above:

[b:a2d3ea150a]Scenario 1[/b:a2d3ea150a]

Match-up 1: 3.75 RA vs. 4.00 RA
Match-up 2: 3.75 RA vs. 4.25 RA
Match-up 3: 3.75 RA vs. 4.75 RA
Match-up 4: 6.75 RA vs. 5.00 RA

Pythagorean wins (using Total Runs Scored^.287 as the variable): 82.9

[b:a2d3ea150a]Scenario 2[/b:a2d3ea150a]
Match-up 1: 6.75 RA vs. 4.00 RA
Match-up 2: 3.75 RA vs. 4.25 RA
Match-up 3: 3.75 RA vs. 4.75 RA
Match-up 4: 3.75 RA vs. 5.00 RA

Pythagorean wins: 83.1

Very interesting stuff. Of course some teams use 5 man rotations. In fact I do most of the time. I can't remember the last time I used a 4 man rotation.