Tom Brennan - CAN JAKE STRETCH HIS INNINGS PER START?

pitching dominance in action

One of our readers wrote an article himself recently about his wish that, among other things, Jake deGrom could lengthen his starts.

I have often expressed the same wish. So I thought I would take a fresh look at it.  I mean, why not? 

I decided to compare Jake from 2017 through 2019 to another great Met hurler, Tom Seaver, spanning 1969 through 1971. I decided to do that comparison adjusting for, and in light of, the two stars pitching in very different eras.

I often wondered if there being a greater amount of double plays and perhaps more "caught stealings" back in Seaver’s day, as compared to Jake’s current day, might account for fewer pitches and longer Seaver-era outings.  

Turns out that in those three years from 1970 to 1971, there were on average 15 more double plays per team and 15 more guys were caught stealing on average each year, indeed saving pitches. 

However, the defense in today’s game is demonstrably better than back then. In 1969 to 1971, each team averaged 138 errors as opposed to just 95 errors per team in 2017 through 2019, leading to more pitches in Seaver’s era due to errors.

So to me, all of the above seemed like a wash in terms of whether or not DPs, SBs, and errors would save either Seaver or deGrom a number of pitches per game. Overall, those 3 factors together seemingly would have little to no net effect on pitch count.

One factor seemingly favoring Seaver was that baseball as a whole was lower scoring back in Seaver’s time.  Smaller ball, close, low-scoring games. 

In the three Seaver years, 1969-71, the average team scored 4.1 runs per game. In 2017 through 2019, the average team scored 4.64 runs per game, or slightly more than a half run per game. Much of that was due to the long ball. Back in those three Seaver years, MLB teams averaged 131 home runs, while in Jake’s three years, teams averaged a much higher 205 home runs.

I think, very simply, higher scoring zeroes in on the reason why Jake throws less innings per start than Seaver. More runs, and greater fear of giving up the long ball. 

Seaver in those three years averaged eight innings per start, while Jake averaged just 6.6 innings per start, nearly an inning and a half less per start. In the same timeframes, Seaver averaged “just” 8.26 strikeouts per nine innings, while Jake averaged a much higher 11.04 strikeouts per nine innings. 

It doesn't take a team of analysts to understand that it takes a lot more pitches to strike out 2.8 more guys per nine innings than to retire those hitters in a non-K fashion. 

I believe it all comes down to Jake's efforts to avoid the long ball, with dingers being a clearer and more present danger to pitchers in the current era than it was back in the early Seaver days. Jake calculates that with the stronger hitters today, the best strategy is to fan as many of them as possible, not allowing them to put the ball in play.  Can't hit a HR when you fan, man.

There was of course clearly a major league mindset back in Tom’s day that complete games from a starter was a desirable outcome, because Seaver in those three years averaged 35 starts while completing 19 of them. Jake on the other hand averaged 32 starts while averaging one complete game. The increased dependence on a parade of bullpen “specialists” in the current day’s game clearly factors in as well.  Pitchers are just not expected to complete games anymore. Too much starter arm mega-investment to protect.

That said, Jake has inarguably lost many many games due to the failings of his bullpen.  We've all seen it, we've all felt it.  

I just have to wonder if Jake were able to increase his average innings per start modestly, from 6.6 to 7.0, thereby eliminating on average about a half inning of bullpen use per start, how many more games he and the Mets might win, since in my mind a tiring pitcher of Jake’s brilliance is clearly superior to almost any bullpen arm that might be brought in to replace him.  ("Hey, Jake is getting the ball up in the zone just a little bit, and I'm a manager genius, so let's bring in Paul Sewald.  Whaddya think?")

It seems that all it would take would be for Jake to pitch more to contact, reducing his average pitches per batter.  He’d just have to be willing to tweak his strategy a bit to not be fanning as many as 11 per 9 IP anymore.  Maybe reducing that rate to 9 Ks per 9, while trusting that most batted balls would be outs, might get him to 10 or so fewer pitches through 6.6 innings and allow him to face another 2 or 3 batters.

Of course, deGrom no doubt feels tons of what I'll call SP 1 pressure, pressure made worse by his incredible struggle to get W's himself. Former SP 1 Seaver allowed 2.53 runs per 9 IP in those 3 years, while the Mets ( including his stats) allowed 3.75 per game, a 1.22 run differential.  Jake allowed 2.83 runs per 9 vs. the Mets allowing 4.75, a much larger and nearly 2 run differential.  

The rest of the Mets’ staff, excluding Jake, (awfully) allowed over 5 runs per 9 IP over those 3 seasons.  Jake may simply feel that he can’t take chances, he's gotta go all out for Ks, because if he fails in his starts, the team will just eventually collapse each year...so he feels compelled to punch out as many opposing hitters as he can and then hope the pen can occasionally come through.

Me? I’d like to see him add that half inning per start. If that means less Ks, to hold down his pitch count, so be it. Whenever I see him throwing 10-12 pitch strikeouts, I see it as a victory of sorts for the other team, as it means his outing will be shorter, and the opponent can then attack a weaker bullpen.

Less Ks...go longer...and win more, perhaps?

What say you?

P.S. Some fans are already getting testy with Steve Cohen. After all, he’s a billionaire, just get the players you want and budget be damned.  

I would suggest PATIENCE.  They’re not playing games in early January, last I checked. Let’s see the team he has put together when the games actually count.