Rewind 115 years.
In game 2 of the inaugural 1903 World Series, the Pittsburgh Pirates pulled their starter, Sam Leever, after only 1 inning of work. He was replaced by Bucky Veil.
Fast-forward back to today.
In early baseball, pitching changes only occurred when pitchers swapped positions another on the field. In 1889, rules were changed to allow for the use of a bullpen. The 1903 pitching change is significant because it was the first occurrence of a relief pitcher ever being used in a Word Series game.
At the time, the move came as a 'surprise.'
 |
| Boston Daily Globe, Oct. 3, 1903 pg 8 |
Now, what the Rays just did over the weekend is notable becuase they planned the switch all along. The analysis behind their reasoning can be found all over the internet right now. I won't try to replicate the thinking others have already done. But I will summarize:
Since this story first broke, Cozart's sentiment was the first I came across that was negative. I guess I can't really blame him since he was the Angel's leadoff hitter against Romo and his team lost against this unorthodox strategy.
Baseball as a culture tends to resists change. It often takes a situation like the Rays are in plus some pretty gutsy individuals calling the shots. If the Astros were to try something like this, it would be a much bigger story. But is it 'bad for baseball' bad as Cozart suggests?
Honestly, unless the Rays continue to deploy this strategy or another team gives it a shot, we cannot infer much from this strategy. Until something changes, this will go down in history as a bit of trivia on Romo's baseball card and I'll have to disagree with Cozart -- mainly becuase I enjoy seeing teams try the unorthodox.
- The Rays are currently bad.
- The Angels employ Mike Trout.
- The Rays like trying to innovate. (See defensive shifts)
- The Rays lack quality SP depth AND the league as a whole has emphasized bullpen utilization.
- Sergio Romo has proven successful against RHB.
- Ryan Yarbrough (a lefty) has proven to be less successful against RHB.
The thinking is simple: start a high-effort pitcher to face the top of the Angels lineup that features two of the games great RHB in Justin Upton and Trout. In addition to proving a more difficult matchup for the Angels' best hitters, the move increases the chances that the top of the Angels' lineup never see the same pitcher twice.
That's enough of the backstory. As the title of this post would suggest, I mainly want to discuss the reaction from Zack Cozart.
Zack Cozart on the #Rays starting Romo on back-to-back days: “It was weird...it’s bad for baseball, in my opinion...It’s spring training. That’s the best way to explain it.” #Angels— Fabian Ardaya (@FabianArdaya) May 20, 2018
Since this story first broke, Cozart's sentiment was the first I came across that was negative. I guess I can't really blame him since he was the Angel's leadoff hitter against Romo and his team lost against this unorthodox strategy.
Baseball as a culture tends to resists change. It often takes a situation like the Rays are in plus some pretty gutsy individuals calling the shots. If the Astros were to try something like this, it would be a much bigger story. But is it 'bad for baseball' bad as Cozart suggests?
Honestly, unless the Rays continue to deploy this strategy or another team gives it a shot, we cannot infer much from this strategy. Until something changes, this will go down in history as a bit of trivia on Romo's baseball card and I'll have to disagree with Cozart -- mainly becuase I enjoy seeing teams try the unorthodox.
Note: What a pleasant coincidence that the first use of a reliever in a World Series game was only used after the starter went a single inning. Of course, the Pirates decision was likely a result of the game situation and not planned such as the Ray's was.
An artists rendering of starter Leever's reaction to 1903 WS game 2:
For further discussion, see Travis Sawchik's piece over at Fangraphs.
 |
| Boston Daily Globe, Oct. 3, 1903 pg 8 |
For further discussion, see Travis Sawchik's piece over at Fangraphs.