Do you believe in "third time through the order"?

[roger_that]

I don't.

Here's my thinking: "third time through the order" causes problems for some pitchers (probably most of them) NOT because the batters are now familiar with their repertoires, which analysts have repeated so often it's become a cliche. It's because the pitchers have a high enough pitch count that they're beginning to wear down.

The way to measure if this idea is valid, however, is giving me problems. What I tried to do to verify the notion is to compare pitchers who've gone through the batting order for the third time on fewer than 60 pitches to pitchers who've done that having thrown 80 or more pitches to the first 18 batters they've faced. If I'm right, the pitchers with fewer than 60 pitches thrown should have ERAs the third time through the order that are comparable to their ERAs in previous innings, and the pitchers with more than 80 pitches should have ERAs much higher than from the 19th batter on.

But I'm having a very hard time locating that data. Even AI, which I thought would be useful here, says no such data is available. I have a hard time buying that--teams track pitch counts so carefully for the past few years that I sense this data is out there somewhere. Does anyone have any idea where I can find what I'm looking for?

Oh, and the reason I didn't do it more simply with "70< pitches" vs. "70> pitches" is that I expected there to be a lot of data available, and I expected a lot of junk data from pitches right around the 70 mark, which I thought I wouldn't get from the more extreme numbers.

Edited August 6, 2025 by roger_that

[ashie62]

If it wasn't a problem in 1990 it's not now

[roger_that]

Sorry--what wasn't a problem in 1990? Did people stop repeating that cliche around then?

[kcmets]

Does anyone have any idea where I can find what I'm looking for?

 

Stockholm closed the Have-A-Clue Window here in 2019 during some

massive budget cuts. But I hope you find one soon.

(sorry, but you kinda put that one on a tee with a bullseye)

[Edgy MD]

If I go to work two days in a row commuting ninety miles, I may create a pattern where each time, the first part of my commute costs $20 in gas and tolls, and the second third costs $15, and the third part costs $10. As I go through the commute, I am seeing progressively less expensive commuting conditions. Overall, during those two days, I am spending, on average, $0.50 a mile.

If, on the third day, my boss calls me after the first part of my commute, and tells me that they are opting to close for the day and that I should not come in, I have spent $20 to go thirty miles, or $0.67 per mile.

You can conclude that I am having trouble with my third commute, because my rate stat went up, but that would not be a logical conclusion, because my third commute is incomplete and I never got to continue through the less expensive parts of my commute.

Similarly, if I am not a commuter, but an MLB starting pitcher, and I go through the Mets order two times, I may create another pattern. Each time, I give up a double to Soto batting third, a single to McNeil batting fifth, and a walk to Baty batting seventh. As such, as I go through the order, I tend to face progressively weaker batters, and so I do progressively better. I have a .708 OPS against those first two times through the order.

I repeat my pattern the third time through the order, but now I am on a shorter leash. After the third double to Soto, my manager pulls me. I never get a chance to face those lesser batters, and my record shows that I have a 1.000 OPS against on that third trip through — even though my performance was the same.

You can conclude that I am having trouble with my third third time through the order, because my rate stat went up, but that would not be a logical conclusion, because my third time through the order is incomplete, and I never got to continue through the weaker parts of the Mets lineup.

I do believe there likely is something to be learned from measuring how a pitcher does his third time through the order, but I believe it is being measured (or, at least, reported) wrong. We are not correcting for the pitcher always facing the strongest fraction of a lineup the third time through the order.

[FIMG=437]https://facts.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/26-facts-about-tolls-1739855071.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=303]https://wallpapers.com/images/hd/baseball-pitcher-in-action-jpg-8hkg6jcy4d7sqdsg.jpg[/FIMG]

[roger_that]

That's a very elaborate response, but identifying the problem as "incomplete times through the order on the third attempt" doesn't correspond to the situation I'm describing. I was trying to find complete trips through the order three times, and compare pitchers with fewer than 60 pitches to those with over 80 pitches thrown to the first 18 batters. So pitchers who don't get through the order three times wouldn't qualify.

I realize that the limitations I've put on such a study would make such pitchers very rare, but I also figured that I had thousands, probably tens of thousands, of pitcher/games to go through. Finding such pitchers is not as easy as I'd thought, though, so I'm just left with a theory, which makes sense to me, but it's still just a theory.

[Benjamin Grimm]

When I see the subject of this thread, I always want to respond, "Yes, I'm certain that it happens all the time."

[roger_that]

I think Do You Believe in Magic?

[Frayed Knot]

Problems in dealing with 'Third Time thru the lineup' data:

- small sample size: Lots of pitchers go through the lineup once and twice but fewer even start to go through a third time and if you're limiting yourself to only complete third trips thru than that reduces your sample size even further

- as mentioned above: those partial third time thru trips are likely to involve only the theoretical better hitters so hitting [bAA, OPS, etc] numbers would likely skew higher

In addition to teams looking at data (shaky as it might be) to make their decisions, pitching staffs are much more bullpen heavy than they used to be, both in terms of size (five has morphed into eight which becomes more like 15 as shuttle services are factored in) but also in quality. There are so many high octane arms out there who are (ideally) only going to throw 10-20 pitches in a game that it makes the gap between a starter, even a good one, with north of 75 pitches under his belt and a [6th, 7th, 8th inning] reliever is not what it once was, particularly in this era when starters are usually all-out, all the time.

Back in the day the only bullpen pitcher who might be considered an improvement over a top half of the rotation starter was your end of the game "fireman" (before they called them closers). Managers might pull 4th & 5th starters in favor of someone from the pen ('they all used to go 9' is a gross exaggeration) but few out there were going to be better than Seaver or Kooz on their 3rd/4th lap around thee scorecard. Many bull penners back then were often either hopeful future starters still on their way up or aging starters on their way out. And many were simply failed starters on board to fill mop-up, long relief, or spot stars rolls. Now teams can run a conga line of dudes with nasty stuff out there starting in the 6th or 7th that it gives the manager reasons for a quick hook.

Not that I'm advocating for it as a knee-jerk reaction as certainly the particulars of the pitcher and of the game need to be considered. A starter might be given the chance at the 7th/3rd-time-thru but it usually comes with a short leash which often means 'until someone gets on'. If and when that happens to the first few hitters it further negatively skews the 3rd-time data which in turn can be used to justify both a switch in that game plus the wisdom of an early switch as a matter of course as you start to breed a 'better too early than too late' kid of mindset.

[MFS62]

Gavin Williams threw 126 pitched and looked pretty darn effective that third time through the order.

(Disclaimer - he was doing it against the Mets)

Later

[stevejrogers]

I’m still waiting for you to admit you are wrong about Willie Mays’ second ASG appearances from 1959-1962 “shouldn’t be acknowledged” in his all-time record of appearances

Here, it’s hard to quantify because the variables include not only a potential tiring starter from additional pitches, but at least a few hitters that are so locked into considering things the pitcher did that got them, and their teammates out the first two times.

Yeah a tipped pitch is one thing, but this goes beyond “noticing timing patterns” and such to get the mental edge.

So it’s hard to really prove or disprove, and but just accepted due pretty much only pitchers tiring and batters noticing things.

[roger_that]

if you're limiting yourself to only complete third trips thru than that reduces your sample size even further

 

There must be records of tens of thousands of games in which the starter pitched to at least 27 batters, thousands of which were low pitch-count games and thousands of which were high pitch-count games. That's a pretty significant sample size. The problem is accessing those records. I'm going on the premise that these two types of games would show a large difference in the effectiveness of each type of game. If it does, wouldn't you agree that "third time through the order" isn't really the problem, and that "high pitch-count" is?

Edited August 7, 2025 by roger_that

[roger_that]

pitching staffs are much more bullpen heavy than they used to be, both in terms of size (five has morphed into eight which becomes more like 15 as shuttle services are factored in) but also in quality. There are so many high octane arms out there who are (ideally) only going to throw 10-20 pitches in a game that it makes the gap between a starter, even a good one, with north of 75 pitches under his belt and a [6th, 7th, 8th inning] reliever is not what it once was, particularly in this era when starters are usually all-out, all the time.

 

I have an issue with this, too. These extra relievers are guys who would have been in the minor leagues in the old days. Are you contending that, somehow (magically?), these players who would have been minor leaguers are now MLB quality pitchers because--why? Because their teams need extra relievers? Because general managers are now convinced (or have been persuaded) that the last few spots on the roster are better filled by second-rate pitchers than by second-rate position players? (I.e., that third-string catchers are no longer needed, that utility players who can play multiple positions are more desirable than previously thought, that pinch-hitters are needed less often with a DH in the lineup, etc.) How does having need for fewer position players improve the quality of middle relievers? Answer: it doesn't. These are the same guys who used to play in the minor leagues.

Now, what I do think (and which agrees with your notions) is that baseball has come to realize that the difference between a tiring starter and a fresh reliever isn't as great as was once believed, even with top-rated starting pitchers (e.g. your Seavers and Koosmans). Any harm done by getting Seavers out of the game too soon is mitigated by limiting the danger of blowing out said Seavers' arms, even if that is only a minuscule chance of happening. So they do it, and put Reliever X in the game instead. I'm not convinced that this is a smart move, but neither am I convinced that it's very costly in the long run. Reliever X, who would have been back in AAA three or four decades ago, probably gives up a fraction of a run more than Seaver would have given up in his inning of work, a 4.00 or 4.50 ERA as opposed to a tiring Seaver's 3.00 or 3.50. In his one inning of work, that comes to a run every four or five outings. So it's a cheap way for the manager to persuade himself that he's doing very little harm to the team while (just possibly) saving Seaver's arm.

Maybe a good model for testing out this part of my theory is looking at World Series appearances, where there is less concern for saving the ace starters' arms. (That is, with the exception of overwork causing a Seaver to blow out his arm completely and destroying his career, the risk to the pitcher is just messing up his arm for his next few starts, which don't exist in the World Series. By spring training, he will recover from a little overwork.) Do ace pitchers tend to go longer in their final starts of the season? I think maybe they do.

[stevejrogers]

if you're limiting yourself to only complete third trips thru than that reduces your sample size even further

 

There must be records of tens of thousands of games in which the starter pitched to at least 27 batters, thousands of which were low pitch-count games and thousands of which were high pitch-count games. That's a pretty significant sample size. The problem is accessing those records. I'm going on the premise that these two types of games would show a large difference in the effectiveness of each type of game. If it does, wouldn't you agree that "third time through the order" isn't really the problem, and that "high pitch-count" is?

 

I still think there is a “little from column B” with zoned in hitters “noticing patterns” the third time up.

[roger_that]

if you're limiting yourself to only complete third trips thru than that reduces your sample size even further

 

There must be records of tens of thousands of games in which the starter pitched to at least 27 batters, thousands of which were low pitch-count games and thousands of which were high pitch-count games. That's a pretty significant sample size. The problem is accessing those records. I'm going on the premise that these two types of games would show a large difference in the effectiveness of each type of game. If it does, wouldn't you agree that "third time through the order" isn't really the problem, and that "high pitch-count" is?

 

I still think there is a “little from column B” with zoned in hitters “noticing patterns” the third time up.

 

No matter what the evidence shows?

Here's a thought: how come no one claims any improvement at all the second time through the order? After seeing a pitcher's stuff once, batters improve not at all the second time, but there's a bump after seeing the stuff twice? Why should that be?

[MFS62]

Maybe the pitchers are doing poorly the third time through the order because the cause effect premise they are using is wrong. The pitchers aren't being prepared to do it in the minors (re: Edgy's post about Tong in another thread). They are on pitch/ innings counts in the minors, so their arms don't have the stamina built up to pitch beyond that.

This argument is like the old joke about the scientist who cuts the legs off a frog, yells "jump" and the frog doesn't move. So the scientist concludes that when you cut the legs off a frog it goes deaf.

It isn't the pitchers. It is the player development system that doesn't prepare him to do it, the organizational system that doesn't allow him to try and the managers who are reticent to test their theory.

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Later

Edited August 7, 2025 by MFS62

[stevejrogers]

There must be records of tens of thousands of games in which the starter pitched to at least 27 batters, thousands of which were low pitch-count games and thousands of which were high pitch-count games. That's a pretty significant sample size. The problem is accessing those records. I'm going on the premise that these two types of games would show a large difference in the effectiveness of each type of game. If it does, wouldn't you agree that "third time through the order" isn't really the problem, and that "high pitch-count" is?

 

I still think there is a “little from column B” with zoned in hitters “noticing patterns” the third time up.

 

No matter what the evidence shows?

Here's a thought: how come no one claims any improvement at all the second time through the order? After seeing a pitcher's stuff once, batters improve not at all the second time, but there's a bump after seeing the stuff twice? Why should that be?

 

I think you’ve been over thinking this in terms of looking for statistical patterns. The idiom just follows languages’, and baseball’s love of 3s.

Hopefully you don’t try to prove/disprove the idiom about the defensive player securing the final out of a half inning, especially if it’s a nifty play, turning out to be the leadoff guy the next half inning of play!

At least I just had to look up four years of roster changes and in-game player management of two games a year to prove Willie Mays’ four extra All-Star Game appearances from 1959-1962 were as legit as any of his appearances as a Giant during those two decades

[roger_that]

At least I just had to look up four years of roster changes and in-game player management of two games a year to prove Willie Mays’ four extra All-Star Game appearances from 1959-1962 were as legit as any of his appearances as a Giant during those two decades

Keep telling yourself that ********. You've got an audience that will lap that stuff up and beg for more. You do you.

Tell me, though. If Rob Manfred decided that next season, because they're such crowd-pleasers, he'll decree eight All star games (not impossible with this bozo) then the players who get selected to play in all 8 are as legitimate as the guys who had to get elected in eight different years?

[MFS62]

1960

I was at one of those two All Star games, and I wasn't hallucinating.

6-0 NL.

Vern Law was the winning pitcher, Whitey Ford the loser.

All the legitimate All-Stars were in it.

Here's the box score:

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/asgbox/07131960.shtml

It was real.

And many of the players were multi-timers,

It was as real to me as it was to any other 17 year old in the stands. It was a thrill to see them all, including some we never got to see too much (before interleague play and nationally televised games on cable). It was a way to provide that opportunity to those who might not otherwise have one.

It might not be as exciting these days.

Later

[stevejrogers]

At least I just had to look up four years of roster changes and in-game player management of two games a year to prove Willie Mays’ four extra All-Star Game appearances from 1959-1962 were as legit as any of his appearances as a Giant during those two decades

Keep telling yourself that ********. You've got an audience that will lap that stuff up and beg for more. You do you.

Tell me, though. If Rob Manfred decided that next season, because they're such crowd-pleasers, he'll decree eight All star games (not impossible with this bozo) then the players who get selected to play in all 8 are as legitimate as the guys who had to get elected in eight different years?

 

WHA!?

Look it up, and my notes are in the Mays Day thread.

All except for one year both squads had a bunch of roster changes, and besides the starting pitchers there was quite a few All-Stars who played in the first game, but didn’t play the second game.

[stevejrogers]

Players who were only on one of those game rosters:

1959 19 (GEEZ that is much more than I expected)

Roger Maris AL Athletics Game 2 OF

Cal McLish AL Indians Game 2 P

Jerry Walker AL Orioles Game 2 P

Gene Woodling AL Orioles Game 2 OF

Billy O’Dell AL Orioles Game 2 P

Bobby Allison AL Senators Game 2 OF

Pedro Ramos AL Senators Game 2 P

Camilo Pascal AL Senators Game 2 P

Jim Bunning AL Tigers Game 1 P

Billy Pierce AL White Sox Game 1 P

Whitey Ford AL Yankees Game 1 P

Tony Kubek AL Yankees Game 2 SS

Bobby Richardson AL Yankees Game 2 2B

Elston Howard AL Yankees Game 2 C

Johnny Logan NL Braves Game 2 SS

Wilmer Mizel NL Cardinals Game 1 P

Charley Neal NL Dodgers Game 2 2B

Jim Gilliam NL Dodgers Game 2 3B

Sam Jones NL Giants Game 2 P

1960 No changes

1961 16 (still a lot more than I expected, especially with no additions to either 1960 squads)

Ryne Duren AL Angels Game 1 P

Ken McBride AL Angels Game 2 P

Jim Perry AL Indians Game 1 P

Tito Francona AL Indians Game 2 OF

Barry Latman AL Indians Game 2 P

Mike Fornieles AL Red Sox Game 1 P

Don Schwall AL Red Sox Game 2 P

Frank Lary AL Tigers Game 1 P

Camilo Pascual AL Twins Game 2 P

Luis Aparicio AL White Sox Game 2 SS

Roy Sievers AL White Sox Game 2 1B

Bill Skowron AL Yankees Game 2 1B

Luis Arroyo AL Yankees Game 2 P

Ernie Banks NL Cubs Game 2 SS

Don Drysdale NL Dodgers Game 2 P

Ed Bailey NL Giants Game 2 C

1962 17

Ken McBride AL Angels Game 2 P

Bill Monbouquette AL Red Sox Game 1 P

Pete Runnels AL Red Sox Game 2 1B

Al Kaline AL Tigers Game 2 OF

Jim Kaat AL Twins Game 2 P

Ray Herbert AL White Sox Game 2 P

Yogi Berra AL Yankees Game 2 C

Bob Shaw NL Braves Game 1 P

Eddie Mathews NL Braves Game 2 3B

George Altman NL Cubs Game 2 OF

Billy Williams NL Cubs Game 2 OF

Sandy Koufax NL Dodgers Game 1 P

Don Drysdale NL Dodgers Game 1 P

Johnny Podres NL Dodgers Game 2 P

Felipe Alou NL Giants Game 1 OF

Art Mahaffey NL Phillies Game 2 P

Frank Robinson NL Reds Game 2 OF

DNPs in all 8 games

1959 I 13 (GEEZ Fred Haney used 17 of 25 available)

Billy Pierce AL White Sox P

Hoyt Wilhelm AL Orioles P

Yogi Berra AL Yankees C

Joe Cunningham NL Cardinals OF

Vada Pinson NL Reds OF

Frank Robinson NL Reds OF

Bill White NL Cardinals OF

Smoky Burgess NL Pirates C

Hal Smith NL Cardinals C

Gene Conley NL Phillies P

Warren Spahn NL Braves P

Wilmer Mizell NL Cardinals P (Injured)

1959 II 22 (Looks like the reverse happened with Stengel not using 13 guys at his disposal while Haney had 8 guys left on the bench or in the pen)

Roy Sievers AL Senators 1B

Bill Skowron AL Yankees 1B

Bobby Richardson AL Yankees 2B

Harmon Killebrew AL Senators 3B

Gil McDougald AL Yankees SS

Bob Allison AL Senators OF

Harvey Kuenn AL Tigers OF

Minnie Minoso AL Indians OF

Elston Howard AL Yankees C

Gus Triandos AL Orioles C

Bud Daley AL Athletics P

Pedro Ramos AL Senators P

Ryne Duren AL Yankees P

Camilo Pascual AL Senators P (Injured)

Orlando Cepeda NL Giants 1B

Bill Mazeroski NL Pirates 2B

Johnny Logan NL Braves SS

Bill White NL Cardinals OF

Johnny Antonelli NL Giants P

Lew Burdette NL Braves P

Warren Spahn NL Braves P

Don Elston NL Cubs P

1960 I 12 (okay, manageable, even by today’s standards)

Vic Power AL Indians 1B

Whitey Ford AL Yankees P

Camilo Pascual AL Senators P (Injured)

Early Wynn AL White Sox P

Gerry Staley AL White Sox P

Dick Stigman AL Indians P

Ed Bailey NL Reds C

Larry Jackson NL Cardinals P

Johnny Podres NL Dodgers P

Stan Williams NL Dodgers P

Bill Henry NL Reds P

Lindy McDaniel NL Cardinals P

1960 II 14 (ugh, Al Lopez goes off the rails, but Walt Alston does his team right for the 6-0 win)

Jim Gentile AL Orioles 1B

Luis Aparicio AL White Sox SS

Jim Lemon AL Senators OF

Elston Howard AL Yankees C

Bud Daley AL Athletics P

Chuck Estrada AL Orioles P

Bill Monbouquette AL Red Sox P

Jim Coates AL Yankees P

Dick Stigman AL Indians P

Camilo Pascual AL Senators P (Injured)

Bob Buhl NL Braves P

Bob Friend NL Pirates P

Mike McCormick NL Giants P

Roy Face NL Pirates P

1961 I 7

Jim Perry AL Indians P

Billy Pierce AL White Sox P

Ryne Duren AL Angels P

Eddie Kasko NL Reds SS

John Roseboro NL Dodgers C

Joey Jay NL Reds P

Art Mahaffey NL Phillies P

1961 II 24 (After a modern day like use of the roster by both Paul Richards and Danny Murtaugh in the first game, THIS happens!? And this is the 1-1 tie after 9 innings due to rain game at Fenway)

Yogi Berra AL Yankees C

Jim Gentile AL Orioles 1B

Bill Skowron AL Yankees 1B

Nellie Fox AL White Sox 2B

Harmon Killebrew AL Twins 3B

Dick Howser AL Athletics SS

Tony Kubek AL Yankees SS

Jackie Brandt AL Orioles OF

Tito Francona AL Indians OF

Dick Donovan AL Senators P

Whitey Ford AL Yankees P

Ken McBride AL Angels P

Luis Arroyo AL Yankees P

Barry Latman AL Indians P

Hoyt Wilhelm AL Orioles P

Don Zimmer NL Cubs 2B

Ken Boyer NL Cardinals 3B

Frank Robinson NL Reds OF

Ed Bailey NL Giants C

Don Drysdale NL Dodgers P

Joey Jay NL Reds P

Mike McCormick NL Giants P

Warren Spahn NL Braves P

Roy Face NL Pirates P

1962 I 14

Tom Tresh AL Yankees SS

Elston Howard AL Yankees C

Hank Aguirre AL Tigers P

Bill Monbouquette AL Red Sox P

Dave Stenhouse AL Senators P

Ralph Terry AL Yankees P

Hoyt Wilhelm AL Orioles P (Injured)

Richie Ashburn NL Mets OF (Pinch hits in the second game)

John Roseboro NL Dodgers C

Turk Farrell NL Astros P

Bob Gibson NL Cardinals P

Sandy Koufax NL Dodgers P

Warren Spahn NL Braves P

Hank Aaron NL Braves OF (Injured)

1962 II 14

Norm Siebern AL Athletics 1B

Mickey Mantle AL Yankees OF

Jim Landis AL White Sox OF

John Romano AL Indians C

Jim Bunning AL Tigers P

Dick Donovan AL Indians P

Jim Kaat AL Twins P

Camilo Pascual AL Twins P

Ralph Terry AL Yankees P

Hoyt Wilhelm AL Orioles P

Ken McBride AL Angels P (Injured)

Jim Davenport NL Giants 3B

Bob Purkey NL Reds P

Warren Spahn NL Braves P

[Edgy MD]

Strange, strange sidebar argument.

[stevejrogers]

Strange, strange sidebar argument.

 

Just be glad in the above I didn’t pull out the “is making an All-Star Game roster any more legitimate than the TSN lists or MLB’s new fangled (since 2019) All-MLB teams at the end of the year anyway” card, especially using Schmidt’s 1989 ASG roster selection via the fan vote, despite retiring in May as a perfect example.

[Edgy MD]

Weird.

[stevejrogers]

Weird.

 

Honestly, though maybe just as strangely, the research was for an online card collecting hobby of mine. I do notice some trends in terms of a lot more players not playing in the games back in that era. Perhaps that is a small part of why in recent decades interest has perceived to have waned beyond seeing the introductions and activities in the days leading up to it…

Anyway, to answer his “question posed” Yes, if those 7 bonus exhibition games are played the same as the first game, the Games Played “stats” should be accounted for. If you want to boil down a 5 out of 8 All-Star Series appearance to just 1, that’s a different, probably just as “what the hell are we arguing soberly over” childish, discussion altogether.

Though not as much as trying to figure out why one would say the third time through an order is difficult for a pitcher to go through is a “truism” and try to not only prove it, but “why” it’s a common enough baseball phrase in the first place!

[The Hot Corner]

I don't believe in the "third time through" philosophy, at least not as a blanket policy. As long as the starting pitcher is pitching well and is not unduly fatigued, then I would prefer to let him keep pitching until he is is showing signs of faltering or fatigue. Why keep turning to your 4th or 5th best reliever in the 5th/6th inning in hopes that they will be the first in a succession of effective pitchers that day.

Advocates of the third time through philosophy must believe that relievers don't get tired and fatigued from constant usage. They also must believe that the 4th/5th/6th best reliever in the bullpen is better than their starter after 75-85 pitches. Often times, the Mets are turning to a rotating group of minor league call ups to fill the 5th & 6th inning.

I am old school. The third time through (or even the 4th time through) the line up didn't seem to be a concern for Seaver, Gibson, Maddux, Carlton, Marichal, Jenkins, Feller, R. Johnson, Ryan, Blyleven, Palmer, Clemens, Glavine et al. Even less accomplished (not HOF) pitchers like Koosman, Sutcliffe, Tiant, Morris, McNally, Drabek, Ojeda, Colon and John didn't have major issues facing batters more than twice in a game. It's not so much that pitchers are no longer capable of facing hitters a third time, it's that the game has changed and they are seldom asked to do so. With increased emphasis on pitch counts, protecting pitchers arms, advanced analytics, growing emphasis on velocity (radar guns) and larger/deeper bullpens have made complete game (or just completing 7 innings) a rapidly diminishing occurrence over the past 20-25 years. The emphasis is for pitchers to go all out for 5 or 6 innings, then get them out regardless of how well they are pitching. For relievers, it's get one inning, then they generally go to another reliever.

It's not like the hitters of today are smarter or better than the hitters of old, it is just the philosophy of how the game is played that has changed.*

*Of course, I'm just an old baseball curmudgeon, so I could be totally wrong.

[roger_that]

Strange, strange sidebar argument.

 

I don't even remember what he's yakking about, bringing up an irrelevant conversation we had months ago into a thread about something else entirely.

But I do know that Mays gets credit for 8 All-Star games in 4 years.

[stevejrogers]

Advocates of the third time through philosophy must believe that relievers don't get tired and fatigued from constant usage. They also must believe that the 4th/5th/6th best reliever in the bullpen is better than their starter after 75-85 pitches.

 

That’d be a good comparable set of stats. Though it most likely is “same game” as compared to say “Diaz faced Freeman two days ago, and last night, so this might be tougher on Diaz right here…”

Not as many relievers pitch three straight innings, and even though you have to factor in substitutions on the opponents side (situational replacements…was about to say PH for pitcher spot *sigh*).

Anyway, all this being said, I don’t even know if it’s a wide spread axiom at all beyond game broadcasters and fans on social media platform In Game Discussions talking about when it’s time to yank their starter.

[ashie62]

I don't believe in the "third time through" philosophy, at least not as a blanket policy. As long as the starting pitcher is pitching well and is not unduly fatigued, then I would prefer to let him keep pitching until he is is showing signs of faltering or fatigue. Why keep turning to your 4th or 5th best reliever in the 5th/6th inning in hopes that they will be the first in a succession of effective pitchers that day.

Advocates of the third time through philosophy must believe that relievers don't get tired and fatigued from constant usage. They also must believe that the 4th/5th/6th best reliever in the bullpen is better than their starter after 75-85 pitches. Often times, the Mets are turning to a rotating group of minor league call ups to fill the 5th & 6th inning.

I am old school. The third time through (or even the 4th time through) the line up didn't seem to be a concern for Seaver, Gibson, Maddux, Carlton, Marichal, Jenkins, Feller, R. Johnson, Ryan, Blyleven, Palmer, Clemens, Glavine et al. Even less accomplished (not HOF) pitchers like Koosman, Sutcliffe, Tiant, Morris, McNally, Drabek, Ojeda, Colon and John didn't have major issues facing batters more than twice in a game. It's not so much that pitchers are no longer capable of facing hitters a third time, it's that the game has changed and they are seldom asked to do so. With increased emphasis on pitch counts, protecting pitchers arms, advanced analytics, growing emphasis on velocity (radar guns) and larger/deeper bullpens have made complete game (or just completing 7 innings) a rapidly diminishing occurrence over the past 20-25 years. The emphasis is for pitchers to go all out for 5 or 6 innings, then get them out regardless of how well they are pitching. For relievers, it's get one inning, then they generally go to another reliever.

It's not like the hitters of today are smarter or better than the hitters of old, it is just the philosophy of how the game is played that has changed.*

*Of course, I'm just an old baseball curmudgeon, so I could be totally wrong.

 

This seems to pretty much how I feel about it

I might seem lazy brained but instinct had a lot to do with game management in that day and I think the current game could use more of it