Case Study: The Decline of MLB Starting Pitchers
BACKGROUND
Are Starting Pitchers a Dying Breed?
From 1991 to 2001, the Atlanta Braves had three or more starting pitchers eclipse 200 IP in 9 out of 11 seasons. The two seasons they fell short were because of the MLB Strike, which shortened the 1994 and 1995 seasons. During this same period, the Atlanta Braves finished 1st in the NL East every year, allowing them to reach the postseason each year, and they went on to five World Series in eight years. The combination of just seven starting pitchers, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Steve Avery, Greg Maddux, Charlie Leibrandt, Denny Neagle, and Kevin Millwood helped to solidify a successful winning MLB organization for over a decade.
The game has significantly changed since the Brave's historic period of success, a period we will perhaps not witness again, especially in the way pitchers are developed at all levels of baseball. Pitching development has dramatically changed over the past decade. Injuries are trending upward as average innings pitched and innings pitched per game amongst starting pitchers decline. Some of this seems to be the result of strategy. Still, the worrying concern for the future is the health and possibility that the future "workhorse" starting pitcher will no longer exist. The young promising prospects are getting hurt too soon before their MLB career has a chance to start.
How low will the average starting pitcher's innings per game drop? Are the current pitching pipelines of the minors, colleges, and high schools producing healthy enough, capable enough starting pitchers to perform in the major leagues?
Since 2015, MLB organizations have spent over 2.5 billion dollars on injured pitchers who combined to miss more than 162,000 days on the IL. An MLB Team will spend almost 10% of their yearly payroll on injured pitchers. From 1990 to 2011, 44 pitchers averaged at least 200 MLB innings each season. Since 2012, the average has dropped to 20 pitchers per season, including just 4 pitchers in 2021. Ironically, pitchers are getting hurt more frequently with the infusion of more technology, data, and resources combined with an infatuation with enhancing pitching velocity. With more high-velocity pitchers paired with an emphasis on the strikeout, building a pitching staff at the MLB level is changing. But, is the change necessarily a positive shift for MLB organizations regarding sustainable winning?
In building this case study, I wanted to explore the problem of the decline of the "traditional" starting pitcher in MLB and explore the possibility of quantifying how well MLB organizations develop starting pitchers and what the forecast possibly looks like for the next generation of starting pitchers.
Quantifying Pitching Development in MLB Organizations
How can we quantify how well an MLB organization develops starting pitchers within their farm system?
Every year an MLB Organization has the opportunity to scout, invest, inherit, and develop a new class of pitchers via the MLB Amateur Draft. The MLB draft can pay dividends in the organization's short and long-term goals and help stabilize a franchise. All aspects of the organizations need to be synergistic and aligned with a common goal of helping their top pitching prospects mature into valuable assets that the MLB team can utilize to enhance their ability to win.
To explore the problem of the declining starting pitcher and pulse the current state of pitching development, I looked at the top three pitchers drafted each year by every MLB organization since 2012. I used this starting point for several reasons.
A decade is a long period to see patterns/trends in accumulated innings, performance, and potential injuries.
It can illuminate the ability of the MLB organization to turn its top investments into valuable assets at the highest level.Â
The top three picks will likely have the most money invested in them and will be better talent within each Draft.
The MLB Draft provides a fair starting point to which every MLB organization has had the opportunity to thoroughly scout, acclimate, and develop each pitcher into their system.
2012 is the first year we began to see a stark decline in the number of pitchers reaching at least 200 MLB innings per season.
Methods
The top three pitchers drafted in the MLB Amateur Draft from 2012 to 2021 by each MLB team were used as a part of this study. If a pitcher was drafted but did not sign, he was not included in the study. Additionally, once a pitcher was no longer with his original team, data was not continually used as part of the team-by-team analysis. This omission could limit how many potential pitchers advanced to the Major Leagues but was not continually tracked because the player didn't reach the majors with his parent team. Many injuries, especially injuries suffered in the minor leagues aren’t always disclosed. If the injury was undisclosed and no evidence supported the injury was an arm injury, that injury was not used in the study. All data entered into the study was final as of June 24th, 2022.
No formal analysis was conducted in this case study. The primary research method was to accumulate data listed below relative to pitching development and rank specific data points accordingly. The study's primary goal was to generate evidence as to the case study's overall problem: the decline of the "traditional" starting pitcher in MLB and to rank each MLB Team accordingly across various categories.
Data inputs used:
Total signing bonus
Years spent with organization
MLB innings pitched with team
Milb IP with team
Arm injury - missed at least 30 days or more on the IL
Arm surgery - surgery performed on the throwing arm as a result of pitching
Highest level achieved with team
Current status with team
Transactions - traded, Rule 5 Draft, released, retired, other
Career cumulative MLB innings pitched
Career cumulative games and games started
Awards & recognition
Current rotation rank
Data Sources used:
thebaseballcube.com, baseballreference.com, spotrac.com, baseballprospectus.com, milb.com, mlb.com and wikipedia.comMLB Organization Rankings
RESULTS
Data was collected on a total of 855 pitchers across 30 MLB Teams. Each MLB Team’s data was collected and then summarized into Table 1. In addition, a complete list of every pitcher to pitch at least 1 MLB inning is provide in Table 2.
Relevant Statistics
 The Cardinals had the most amount of pitchers (13) to reach MLB and the most MLB IP (2,496) amongst all MLB Teams.
38 (4.44%) pitchers are currently pitching for an MLB Team.
26 (3.04%) are starting pitchers. The distribution is as follows.
#1 Starter: 5
#2 Starter: 7
#3 Starter: 5
#4 Starter: 6
#5 Starter: 3
12 (1.4%) relief pitchers are currently on an MLB Team.
36% of pitchers have undergone a throwing arm injury forcing them to miss at least 30 days on the IL. 19% have resulted in surgery.
The Reds had the most arm injuries (18), while the Red Sox had the fewest (4).
The Yankees had the most arm surgeries (11), while the Braves had the fewest (1).
The Royals ranked 1st in bonus money spent ($42,085,300.00) and 1st in Milb IP (7,067), which has helped them produce 8 MLB pitchers.
The Mets had the fewest number of pitchers (2) to reach the majors and the fewest MLB innings pitched (166).
Among all MLB Teams, almost $900 million in initial signing bonus investment currently translates to about $35,000 per inning pitched at the MLB level.
12 or 1.4% of all pitchers drafted and signed over the last decade are a #1 or #2 starter currently in the MLB.
Only 7 pitchers in the study have thrown 200 MLB innings or more in one season, and only 2 of the 7 did it in back-to-back years.
203 (24%) pitchers pitched at least 1 MLB inning. 72 pitchers (8.2%) threw at least 100 MLB IP. 20 pitchers (2.3%) threw at least 300 MLB IP. 11 pitchers (1.28%) threw at least 500 MLB IP.
DISCUSSION
Team Rankings
In profiling all 30 MLB Organizations, it's impossible to know the specific situations surrounding the development of each pitcher. For example, several MLB Organizations may have had significant staff changes, changes in development philosophy, changes in scouting philosophy, or the pitcher could have had a personal matter complicate his ascent in the system. Whatever the case, we know numerous factors can prohibit a pitcher from reaching MLB. However, the same analysis was performed on all 30 teams, and 3 MLB Organizations in the study proved to have internally developed and produced more MLB Pitchers since 2012.
The three organizations that stand out are the Cardinals, Guardians, and Braves, who all finished in the Top 5 amongst total MLB innings pitched and continue to have the most active pitchers on their rosters.
Braves - Ian Anderson (SP), Spencer Strider (SP), A.J. Minter (RP), Kyle Wright (RP)
Cardinals - Jack Flaherty (SP), Dakota Hudson (SP), Jordan Hicks (RP), Ryan Helsey (RP)
Guardians - Shane Bieber (SP), Aaron Civale (SP), Triston McKenzie (SP), Eli Morgan (RP), Sam Hentges (RP)
The Guardians may be the most efficient with their overall development process of the three teams listed above. Since 2012, they rank 26th in total payroll, 1st in fewest days of MLB pitchers on the IL, 4th in total wins, 5th in cumulative ERA, 3rd in cumulative ERA, and had zero trades amongst their top picks since 2012.
The three organizations that finished last in total MLB innings pitched are the A's, Cubs, and Mets. I was surprised by all three teams being listed this low in the study, especially the Oakland A's. The A's have been consistently finding ways to win at the top level, ranking 10th in total wins since 2012 despite an average team payroll that has ranked 27th since 2012. Unfortunately, the next few years may prove similar without a current starting pitcher on the active roster, 16 total arm injuries, and 5 of the last 6 draft picks having undergone an arm injury.
A Decline in MLB Innings
24% of all pitchers in the case study pitched at least one MLB inning. However, it's unclear whether 24% is good, bad, or average compared to prior decades or whether the most recent drafts will mature into prominent starting pitchers. From the rankings above, it’s evident several MLB Organizations are capable and produce a higher number of MLB Pitchers than others, but 80% of the pitchers from 12 MLB Organizations never pitched an MLB inning.
The team-by-team rankings were built using all data that occurred while the pitcher was with their parent team. Once the pitcher was no longer with their parent team, the pitcher's cumulative data was not counted in the rankings. However, in tracking all pitcher's cumulative MLB innings, regardless of team, we can understand how many MLB innings pitchers in this study have accumulated over their careers.
Cumulative MLB Innings
0 to 100 = 92 (10.4%)
≥ 200 = 53 (6%)
≥ 300 = 38 (4.3%)
≥ 400 = 22 (2.5%)
≥ 500 = 17 (1.9%)
≥ 1000 = 5 (.6%)
200 MLB IP in one season = 7
Consecutive 200 MLB IP / season = 2
The current data in the study fit the profile over the last decade of the decline in the average number of starters accumulating at least 200 MLB IP in a season. It's likely the 26 pitchers currently in a starting rotation, 12 of which are top 2 starters, will continue to accumulate more significant inning thresholds but are unlikely to do so by reaching the 200 IP / season benchmark. This benchmark is relevant in today's game because it sheds light on a starting pitcher being able to, on average pitch 6 innings per start for an entire season, a feat familiar to at least 44 pitchers per year 10 years ago.
History has shown that starting pitchers can throw more innings per season; what are some reasons for the sudden drop?
Reasons for Decline
Arm Injuries
In the study, more than 1/3 of MLB Teams had at least 50% of their pitchers suffer an arm injury. Additionally, 22% of those arm injuries lead to arm surgery. The study also indicates the rise in arm injuries occurring earlier in a pitcher's career, which ultimately delays their ability to provide value and innings to the MLB team. Traditionally, a pitcher will spend two full seasons in the minor leagues to be prepared to be called up in his third professional season. When an injury occurs, especially arm surgery, that timeline is pushed back and fueled with uncertainty about proper inning usage and development.
Inherited Risk
Ten years ago, baseball's entire game experienced a boom in technology, analytics, and player development. This boom created another emergence of businesses in the private sector, all set to enhance player performance. Thousands of travel teams and players have an outlet to increase their strength, speed, skill, and performance. As a result, players have become more prominent, faster, stronger, and capable of reaching new heights in performance measurements.
The cycle of obtaining optimal performance never stops. The private sector generates millions of dollars from extending players' desire to perform past the season and into the off-season. The growth of specialization to achieve optimal performance in the off-season combined with year-round playing options is the root of the pandemic of pitching injuries in baseball. The most potent billboard message from the private sector towards pitchers is "you must throw hard, and do whatever it takes, to create an opportunity to play at the next level."
The advanced training on premature joint structures accelerates the timeline to a pitcher's arm injury, which is evident in the surgery rates among high school pitchers and the increased volume of pitching injuries across professional baseball. MLB will continue to inherit high-risk pitchers, who will break down early in their professional careers, with the current cycle of pitching development stemming from the youth population.
Transactions
The plot above shows a gradual increase in the number of pitchers used per team each season until 2013. From 2000 to 2013, the average number of pitchers used / team was almost 23. From 2014 to 2021, that number spiked to 27.5, including a historical high of 32.27 average pitchers used in 2021. These statistics illustrate the impact of higher-risk pitchers coming into the league, getting injured earlier in their careers, and relying upon more pitchers to carry innings from the previous decade. The recent data trends and this study show that this number will likely stay at this higher level compared to the last decade.
CONCLUSION
The goal of the case study was to answer the question of whether or not there is evidence to support the decline in the starting pitchers amongst MLB Organizations. The answer is yes. As the game constantly adapts and moves forward, moving forward and still having the capacity to witness developed traditional "workhorse" starting pitchers from MLB Organizations is essential for baseball; it's how hall of fame pitchers are created.
The traditional starting pitcher in today's game can still be developed but comes with more challenges than ever before. Fueled by the private sector, the current pitching development culture doesn't coincide with a functional approach to building future starting pitchers. This notion is evident in the number of arm injuries in this study, the 5 billion dollars lost to injured pitchers across MLB since 2015, and the steep decline of innings per start amongst current starting pitchers. In addition, suppose a pitcher is drafted or signed to an MLB Organization but continues to be vested in other methods and training. In that case, it can directly impact his performance for the MLB Organization during the season.
Overall, any pitching development strategy needs to be functional for the long-term success of the player and the franchise. Therefore, the strategy must start early in the scouting process and then be handed over to the organization's pitching development program. Successful pitching development doesn't happen overnight; it may take several years before a pitcher begins to fulfill their actual value. Essentially, any organization needs its top pitching prospects to stay healthy, develop, achieve a high-level performance, and add value add the top level.
Regardless of how great a pitcher's arsenal may be, their value is minimal to the MLB team if he can't utilize it effectively due to injury or inconsistency. Therefore, the ability of a pitcher to accumulate innings throughout the minor league system typically results from a satisfactory means of performance, investment, minimal injury, and future value to the MLB Team. The last decade has placed emphasis on pitch design, spin, velocity, and specific pitching metrics that quantify one pitcher over another. But if a pitcher cannot pitch due to injury or has a timing issue related to the sequence of his delivery, his ability to execute pitches at a high-level decrease.
From 1993 to 2002, a combination of Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz combined to throw over 6000 innings helping the Atlanta Braves become one of the most successful MLB franchises in baseball history. The likelihood of three Hall of Fame pitchers pitching on the same team for 10 consecutive seasons is highly unlikely but in today’s game, is it possible for an MLB Organization to engineer or develop a starting rotation that has the potential to produce the consistent starting pitching that not only stabilizes a franchise but builds a culture of winning across a decade? As the game looks ahead in 2022 and beyond, hopefully a MLB team or two, can produce and develop a fraction of what the 1990’s Braves starting rotation achieved and maintain the value of quality starting pitching. It’s possible and it’s simple as long as the the development approach is functional to build starting pitchers.
