IF I was a major league manager, and I was going to set my pitching rotation up for a seven-game World Series, and I could arrange them any way I wanted to (regardless of how they had pitched in the previous series), here's how I'd do it:
First, I'd only use my best three pitchers. The 1987 Minnesota Twins (http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?search=1987+Twins) won the World Series using only three starters (Frank Viola, Bert Blyleven and the immortal Les Straker.) This minimizes the use of my two worst starters, and gets the greatest number of starts for my three best pitchers. It runs the risk of fatigue, but it's the World Series.
The next part is what I have been doing some thinking about: How best does one arrange the top three starters in a seven-game series. Instinctively, you'd think it would be Number one guy in games one, four and seven, number two guy in games two and six and number three guy in games three and seven.
Noe that no matter how you do it, the top guy pitches three games, and next two pitch two each. However, I don't want my number three starter starting game six or game seven. If I get that far (and many series do) I want my best guys at the end, and I want my worst guy to start the least meaningful games. Can this be achieved?
Yes! The rotation would go like this: 1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1.
Why does this work? The ace gets three starts (games one, four, and seven). The second best guy gets his starts in game three and game six. This means the third-best pitcher pitches games two and five.
Why is this an advantage? Well, assuming the ace wins game one, there isn't as much pressure on the number three pitcher to win game two. It's not a bad start to a seven game series to split the first two games, especially with your best two pitchers coming up. Even if he loses, you are down 2-0 with the best two pitchers in the next two games.
In the worst game five situation, team is down three games to one. In that case, things are pretty bad anyway.
The best case, it's up 3 -1, and that means it doesn't really matter how well the third starter pitches, because your two best pitchers are coming up and they only have to win one game between the three of them.
Any other combination of wins and losses at game five merely continues the series with the best two pitchers left for the last two games.
What about the 1987 Twins? They followed a 1-2-3 sequence. They used Viola (their ace), Blyleven (their number two) and Straker (their number three) in sequence. They won anyway. Viola was the loser in game four, but he won games one and seven. Blyleven won game two, but lost game five. Straker wasn't around for any decisions, but the Twins split his starts, losing game three but winning game six.
So, each pitcher lost a game, but the Twins won the World Series because Viola won twice. Therefore, the most important piece of the puzzle may be having a dominant pitcher and making sure he pitches as much as possible. The rest is all scraping around for a small matchup edge.
What got me to thinking about this -- a long time ago -- was Pete Schourek. He started game four of a five game playoff series in 1998 between the Boston Red Sox (his team) and the Cleveland Indians. Facing elimination, manager Jimy Williams could have pitched Pedro Martinez, one of the most dominant starters that year, instead of Schourek, whose record was below .500 for the season.
He picked Schourek, using the logic that the team had to win both games anyway, and Schourek was going to have to pitch in one or the other. Williams was going to save Martinez for game five when he would have an extra day of rest.
It didn't work. Schourek lost, and Martinez never got the chance to win the decisive game
I always thought this was kind of silly. In a short playoff, a manager should go with the best pitcher he has today and worry about tomorrow's game tomorrow. So, the logical question is: What is the best way a manager could use his pitchers to avoid a dilemma like that and (here's the key) have the two best starters available for key games?
My solution may not be perfect, but it's a plan. I promise to use it the next time I am managing in the World Series.
No comments:
Post a Comment