Modifications to the World’s #1 Starting Pitcher System

              For the first time since we introduced the system five or six years ago, we are making some small changes to the system for ranking starting pitchers.   There are four or five changes, depending on what you define as a "change".   The changes are:

              1)  We have changed the weight given to the last start from 3% to 3.5%,

              2)  We have changed the "Entry Point" for a new pitcher from 300.00 to 325.00,

              3)  We have increased the "decline rate" for inactive older pitchers (will explain shortly), and

              4)  We have amended the "start" concept so that it counts a relief appearance in which the reliever enters the game in the first four innings and pitches 4 innings or more as if it were a start.

              The first two points. . .the system as it has been was a little too slow to move a young pitcher up to the top ranks, a guy like Luis Severino or James Paxton or Jose Berrios.  

              I was sort of aware of this anyway, while I was developing and testing the system, but I just decided that I liked it that way.   I like seeing a young pitcher work his way through the pack, and I like to force him to sustain his performance for 40-50 starts. I still do, actually.

              But at the same time, it was sort of self-indulgent of me to design the system that way because I personally like to see it that way.  I recognize that it is more realistic the other way.   As of June 18, 2018, we still had Chase Anderson (5-6, 4.54 ERA) ahead of Blake Snell (8-4, 2.58).   We still had Masahiro Tanaka (7-2, but a 4.58 ERA and on the DL) ahead of Charlie Morton (8-1, 2.94, and a fine season last year as well.)   That’s not really realistic. 

              If you start pitchers out at a higher platform (325 rather than 300) and move them up a little bit faster, young pitchers on the way up pass older pitchers on the way out more quickly.   They pass pitchers who are just kind of on idle—a couple of good starts followed by a couple of not so good starts—more quickly.  Most pitchers most of the time are really just idling.  On the other hand, the big cluster of pitchers who start the season in a tie at the bottom of the system will be even larger, which I do not like, but. . .you gotta do what you gotta do.   In the system as it was, 60% of a pitcher’s score was based on his last 30 starts, and 40% was what he had done before the last 30 starts.  Now, 66% of a pitcher’s score is his last 30 starts, and 34% is based on what he had done before the last 30 starts.

              The fourth change is to count a 4-inning relief appearance starting in the first four innings of a game as a start, and score it by the Game Score System as if it was a start.  This is necessitated by the Rays’ "opener" experiment, which may spread to other teams.   If the "starter" pitches one inning and the first reliever pitches 7, we treat the first reliever as the starter. I’m guessing you see the point?   It’s screwy to credit a one-inning reliever as a "starter" because he pitches the FIRST inning.

              The final thing, which we could call the R. A. Dickey adjustment, is that we are going to move OLDER pitchers out of the system more rapidly when they retire.  R. A. Dickey, who is 43 years old and has not pitched all year, is still in the system; he still shows as the #132 pitcher in the system (as of June 18).  That’s not TOO bad, but early in the season he still ranked in the top 35 or something, which was kind of embarrassing.   The system was that when a pitcher was inactive for seven days or more, he would lose 0.25 points per day due to inactivity.   He lost 0.25 points for day until day 200 of his inactivity, at which point it increased to 1.00 points per day. 

              We have modified that in two ways. . .not sure whether that makes this four or five changes.   Anyway, we changed the 200 days inactivity to 190.   It’s dicey either way.  A lot of times a pitcher isn’t quite ready to start the season in April, but he’s still fine; he just need a little more time to get ready.   This adjustment will hurt us on THOSE guys, but it will help us on the pitchers who retire; it will help us get them out of the system faster.   Well. . .ten days faster.

              The other thing is, for an OLDER pitcher, a pitcher who is 35 years old or more, we increased the decline rate after the pitcher has crossed the 200-day threshold (now a 190-day threshold).   For a pitcher aged 35 or older, that 1 point per day decline in his score is now 1.50 points.   If a pitcher is good enough to hold a job and isn’t pitching at age 34, we’ll assume that he may be coming back; if the same thing happens at age 35, we’ll assume he may be retired.   And either way, we may be wrong, but it’s a better percentage bet. 

              Thank you.