The short answer is: there is strong evidence that pulling starters earlier has changed the game, but much weaker evidence that it has either reduced injuries or increased wins overall.
Here's what the research and MLB data suggest:
The evidence is surprisingly weak.
Teams began aggressively limiting starter workloads in the 2010s because they believed fatigue increased injury risk.
The logic is reasonable:
Velocity tends to drop with fatigue.
Mechanics can deteriorate.
Tired pitchers may place more stress on the elbow and shoulder.
However:
Rates of major elbow surgeries (especially Tommy John surgery) have not declined.
In fact, Tommy John surgeries have generally increased over the past two decades.
Even as starters throw fewer innings than ever, pitching injuries remain historically high.
Researchers think several factors may matter more than innings:
Maximum effort on nearly every pitch
Higher average fastball velocity
More breaking balls with high spin
Year-round throwing
Pitching at younger ages
So reducing a starter from 110 pitches to 90 hasn't clearly translated into healthier pitchers.
This is where the answer is more nuanced.
This is the biggest reason managers remove starters.
Across MLB:
Hitters perform worse the first time through.
Better the second.
Better still the third.
A typical increase looks something like:
Time through lineup OPS:
First ~ .700
Second ~ .700
Third ~ .770-.790
So statistically, an average pitcher becomes less effective.
If you have:
an elite bullpen
several fresh relievers
favorable matchups
then removing the starter often improves expected run prevention.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
The short answer is: there is strong evidence that pulling starters earlier has changed the game, but much weaker evidence that it has either reduced injuries or increased wins overall.
Here's what the research and MLB data suggest:
The evidence is surprisingly weak.
Teams began aggressively limiting starter workloads in the 2010s because they believed fatigue increased injury risk.
The logic is reasonable:
Velocity tends to drop with fatigue.
Mechanics can deteriorate.
Tired pitchers may place more stress on the elbow and shoulder.
However:
Rates of major elbow surgeries (especially Tommy John surgery) have not declined.
In fact, Tommy John surgeries have generally increased over the past two decades.
Even as starters throw fewer innings than ever, pitching injuries remain historically high.
Researchers think several factors may matter more than innings:
Maximum effort on nearly every pitch
Higher average fastball velocity
More breaking balls with high spin
Year-round throwing
Pitching at younger ages
So reducing a starter from 110 pitches to 90 hasn't clearly translated into healthier pitchers.
This is where the answer is more nuanced.
This is the biggest reason managers remove starters.
Across MLB:
Hitters perform worse the first time through.
Better the second.
Better still the third.
A typical increase looks something like:
Time through lineup OPS:
First ~ .700
Second ~ .700
Third ~ .770-.790
So statistically, an average pitcher becomes less effective.
If you have:
an elite bullpen
several fresh relievers
favorable matchups
then removing the starter often improves expected run prevention.
Bullpens today throw around 40% or more of all MLB innings.
That creates new problems:
More relievers means more opportunities for someone to have a bad outing.
Bullpen variance is enormous.
Managers often remove starters who are cruising because "the book says so."
Fans see this constantly:
Starter:
6 innings
82 pitches
1 run allowed
Bullpen:
gives up 4 runs in the seventh.
Those losses are memorable because they happen frequently.
League-wide winning percentage must always total .500, so the better question is whether this strategy gives an advantage over alternatives.
Analytics departments generally believe:
Yes, in many situations, especially in the postseason or with deep bullpens.
But the advantage is often small—perhaps a few runs or wins over an entire season rather than a dramatic improvement.
Interestingly, several organizations have started moving back toward longer outings for effective starters.
Reasons include:
Bullpen fatigue over a 162-game season.
Elite starters are often still the best option.
Better pitcher monitoring (velocity, spin rate, biomechanics) allows managers to make more individualized decisions instead of relying on fixed pitch counts.
The current consensus is closer to:
Don't remove a pitcher simply because it's the third time through the lineup. Remove him when there are signs he's becoming less effective.
That includes:
declining velocity
loss of command
increasing hard contact
elevated pitch count
matchup considerations
rather than an automatic rule.
0
Bullpens today throw around 40% or more of all MLB innings.
That creates new problems:
More relievers means more opportunities for someone to have a bad outing.
Bullpen variance is enormous.
Managers often remove starters who are cruising because "the book says so."
Fans see this constantly:
Starter:
6 innings
82 pitches
1 run allowed
Bullpen:
gives up 4 runs in the seventh.
Those losses are memorable because they happen frequently.
League-wide winning percentage must always total .500, so the better question is whether this strategy gives an advantage over alternatives.
Analytics departments generally believe:
Yes, in many situations, especially in the postseason or with deep bullpens.
But the advantage is often small—perhaps a few runs or wins over an entire season rather than a dramatic improvement.
Interestingly, several organizations have started moving back toward longer outings for effective starters.
Reasons include:
Bullpen fatigue over a 162-game season.
Elite starters are often still the best option.
Better pitcher monitoring (velocity, spin rate, biomechanics) allows managers to make more individualized decisions instead of relying on fixed pitch counts.
The current consensus is closer to:
Don't remove a pitcher simply because it's the third time through the lineup. Remove him when there are signs he's becoming less effective.
Reduced injuries? There is no convincing evidence that routinely pulling starters earlier has significantly reduced major arm injuries.
More wins? There is moderate evidence that strategic earlier removals can improve win expectancy in specific situations, largely because of the third-time-through-the-order effect and bullpen matchups. However, there is no evidence of a dramatic increase in overall wins, and many observers believe some teams have become overly rigid, taking out effective starters too soon and exposing themselves to volatile bullpens.
Many front offices now favor a more flexible approach that combines analytics with real-time observation rather than following a strict pitch-count or inning limit.
0
Reduced injuries? There is no convincing evidence that routinely pulling starters earlier has significantly reduced major arm injuries.
More wins? There is moderate evidence that strategic earlier removals can improve win expectancy in specific situations, largely because of the third-time-through-the-order effect and bullpen matchups. However, there is no evidence of a dramatic increase in overall wins, and many observers believe some teams have become overly rigid, taking out effective starters too soon and exposing themselves to volatile bullpens.
Many front offices now favor a more flexible approach that combines analytics with real-time observation rather than following a strict pitch-count or inning limit.
It is ridiculous to watch this as a fan. It is absurd to watch it as a bettor.
It is tough enough to overcome the natural variance in a game and a season.
But now you have to overcome incompetent managing and GM oversight with starters.
Teams continue to change out pitchers until they 'find' one the other team can hit.
You have starters (by definition, elite hitters) eventually going against sub-par pitchers (by definition, they are not starters or closers or even setup guys).
So, naturally hitters will win out in the long run.
Teams consistently are losing games they were winning because of this mismanagement of pitchers.
My rant of the day.
0
It is ridiculous to watch this as a fan. It is absurd to watch it as a bettor.
It is tough enough to overcome the natural variance in a game and a season.
But now you have to overcome incompetent managing and GM oversight with starters.
Teams continue to change out pitchers until they 'find' one the other team can hit.
You have starters (by definition, elite hitters) eventually going against sub-par pitchers (by definition, they are not starters or closers or even setup guys).
So, naturally hitters will win out in the long run.
Teams consistently are losing games they were winning because of this mismanagement of pitchers.
Hot Forum Topics
