The Six-Inning Starter

When MLB instituted new rules to speed up the game, no one knew what the reaction would be.  The pitch clock, especially, fundamentally changed the game.  For the most part, though, it's been well-received.  It's also accomplished one of its goals, as the average game is significantly quicker than just a few years ago.

Most people would agree that the pitch clock has turned out to be a positive thing, and I think it's safe to say it isn't going anywhere.  That doesn't mean things can't still be improved, though.  And pitching is one area where MLB definitely thinks improvement can be made.  Particularly how long starting pitchers are staying in the game and how many relievers end up getting used as a result.

Arm and shoulder injuries among pitchers have become more and more prevalent in recent years.  It's a concerning trend, obviously, and the reason why isn't really a secret.  It's the emphasis on velocity and strikeouts, wanting guys to throw as hard as they can in short spurts.  That trend has trickled down to the lower levels, too, which is the cause for not just the injuries, but for the shorter starts and abundance of relievers.

The days when starting pitchers finished what they started are long gone.  The complete game is such a lost art that you're only seeing two or three a year per team!  Unless he has a no-hitter going (and sometimes even then), the chances of seeing a starter pitch into the ninth are slim to none.  It's rare to even see a starter go beyond six innings.  In fact, the average start is just 5.25 innings this season.  In the Minors, it's less than five innings!  Meaning teams are averaging more outs per game from their bullpen than their starters!

Meanwhile, top-line starting pitchers are among the highest-paid players in baseball.  The five highest-paid players in baseball are Aaron Judge and four starting pitchers.  Those four starters (Shohei Ohtani, Max Scherzer, Justin Verlander, Jacob deGrom) have combined to make a grand total of 18 starts this season.  Ohtani and deGrom haven't pitched at all.  Stephen Strasburg is the 10th-highest paid player in the game in terms of annual value.  He just retired!

Major League Baseball is aware of this and not really a fan of it.  They know who the fans want to see on the mound.  It's not a parade of mediocre relievers.  It's the starters.  The guys making big bucks who are, theoretically at least, the best pitchers on the team.  People want to see them pitch deeper into games and more frequently.  So, MLB wants to do something about that.

Several different potential rule changes have been discussed that would "restore the prestige of the starting pitcher."  The most recent one to gain traction would go a long way towards doing exactly that.  It would also go a long way towards reducing those arm injuries that sideline way too many pitchers for extended periods of time.  A six-inning minimum for starters. 

Instituting a six-inning mandate would serve multiple purposes.  The first is obviously strategic.  A manager couldn't yank his starter at the first sign of trouble in the third inning, starting the parade of relievers that puts a strain on the bullpen that's felt for multiple days (and usually requires making a move to bring up another reliever from the Minors).  Nor could he take him out as soon as the leadoff hitter comes up for the third time simply because the analytics say he should. 

Perhaps most importantly, the pitchers would have to work on their full repertoire and figure out ways to work deeper into games.  They wouldn't be able to simply overpower hitters for as long as they can before the next guy who throws 100 comes in.  And, by using finesse instead of all maximum velocity all the time, that would be less of a strain on the arm and, thus, fewer arm injuries.  (It's not a coincidence that the soft-tossing Jamie Moyer was a Major League starter until he was almost 50 and was rarely injured.)

It would also do away with another one of the trends that emerged gradually before becoming more and more prominent.  No more openers, a reliever who "starts" the game and pitches to the first few hitters before either another reliever or the "bulk" guy (aka, the actual stater) comes in.  These openers rarely go more than an inning.  Thus, a six-inning minimum would eliminate the opener the same way the LOOGY (left-handed one-out guy) has been done away with as a result of the three-batter rule.

There would be exceptions to the six-inning rule.  An injury is obviously one.  A pitcher could also be taken out before six innings if he reaches 100 pitches, which has become the unofficial maximum threshold for starters.  Likewise, they won't be required to stay out there if they're getting absolutely shelled.  Four or more earned runs allowed has been thrown around as the number, but I'd also like to see a consideration for unearned runs (which sometimes extend innings even longer).  Maybe four earned runs or six total runs allowed?  Other than those three situations, though, your starter's got to go at least six.

While I love the idea behind this rule, I do think there are other scenarios where the shorter start should be allowed.  Sometimes, for whatever reason, you need to do the bullpen game.  Whether that's because you had a doubleheader or you need an emergency starter or another reason.  If you declare a bullpen game ahead of time (maybe by listing the probable starter as "TBA?"), there's still a minimum length the starter must go, but it's shorter than six.  Three innings perhaps?

Likewise, if a regular starter is returning from injury, it might be a little too much to ask for him to go six innings or throw 100 pitches his first time out.  So, maybe you lower the threshold to say 80 pitches in a starter's first game back from a stint on the injured list.  It would be the same thing the other way, too.  If they come out of a game early due to injury, a required IL stint would immediately follow.

A six-inning minimum for starters would trickle down to the bullpen, too.  The more outs you get from your starter, the fewer you need from your bullpen.  Too many teams rely too heavily on their bullpens, which leads to overuse and more injuries.  So, if starters go longer, you don't need to use your relievers as much or as often, which would keep them healthier, fresher and, theoretically, more effective.

This isn't the first time a rule change placing a greater emphasis on starting pitching has been considered.  The "double hook," a rule that ties your ability to use the DH to how long your starting pitcher stays in the game, had some support, but probably not enough to gain the necessary traction.  This one does, though.  And that's why I think there's a chance it may actually be implemented down the line.

We're several years away from this change coming to the Major Leagues, assuming it's even approved at all.  First, it would have to be implemented at the lower levels, which is obviously a good thing.  That way, younger pitchers will actually fully develop as pitchers rather than hard-throwing fireballers.  And maybe that would mean fewer young pitchers need to have multiple Tommy John surgeries as a result.  Sounds like a win, win to me.