I read last evening that once again, Blake Snell may wind up on the IL. First thought was the Yankees were wise in passing on him. After that, I began to think about the state of starting pitching in MLB overall. We had just watched Clarke Schmidt have an effective outing for five innings, only to give up three quick runs in the sixth, turning the game over to the bullpen. Five-inning outings are becoming more common, and us Yankee fans tend to look at this as having less than stellar pitching. But, we also see a plethora of starters on the IL, including our own Gerritt Cole.

i looked up some stats on pitchers’ innings per start, and to no one’s surprise, innings per start has steadily fallen over the years. Many articles on the subject were from 2016, 2019, or even older, but the trend was the same. The most recent article I found was from Sports Illustrated in May 2023.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2023/05/22/starting-pitching-decline-pitch-count-timer-injuries

Whether from injury, less effective pitchers, the modern idea to remove the starter after two turns through the lineup, or other factors, it is plain to see that starters going beyond six innings is becoming increasingly rare. The trend is heading downward toward five innings per start. As the referenced article states, the days of getting 6-7 from the starter and having a designated set-up guy and a closer are gone. Today, managers try to piece together four innings from a crew of one inning relievers, hoping to end up with the closer for the ninth.

I think that a revision of the overall pitching staff may be in order. Today we see five starters, one, maybe two multiple-inning relievers and five or six one inning pitchers including a mix of righty/lefty, and hopefully an eighth-inning guy and a closer. Often, one of those pitchers is ineffective, requiring mid-inning changes and overuse of the pen.

Seeing that the trend is toward five-inning starts, it would seem prudent to have perhaps four long relievers on the staff of thirteen, with the remaining four being the more traditional one inning specialists. PLAN to remove most starters after five (like Schmidt) knowing they will get in trouble after that whether due to fatigue or batter familiarity. Instead of then going to four guys for four innings, rotate the long relievers to hopefully finish the game. Perhaps even pair up starters and these long relievers. If a pitcher throws five great innings with a low pitch count, sure, leave him in, but get ready. If they are not needed, so much the better.

So, who are these long relievers? Michael King is an example, and they tried to make him a starter. With the role of these long relievers not valued as much as I am suggesting, moving an effective reliever to the rotation because he has shown ability to be "stretched out" may not be uncommon, but I suggest it is a mistake. This guy is gold in a new scheme. Years ago, the Yankees had a long reliever named Ramiro Mendoza who made a living relieving starters who failed to go deep into the game. Mendoza was invaluable to the team and won or saved many a game.

I believe that minor league prospects with perhaps less than A grade potential as a starter might fill this role. This role will become much more valuable when one team has success using the concept. (Tampa Bay, perhaps?) instead of treating such players as "failed starters," highlight the long relief (second starter?) role as something to aspire to. Imagine having five from the starter and a long reliever sent in with a plan to finish the game. Less wear on the starter and today’s one inning pitchers. MLB might even institute a method whereby rosters could change and allow a team to "deactivate" a pitcher who has thrown a couple long outings and replace him with a fresh arm from AAA.

Obviously, a team still needs good starting pitching. I hate the opener concept, always have. It seems like a bait and switch technique. But with quality starting pitching becoming more scarce, I believe the long reliever concept could be effective.