While watching a thing on the A’s 71-75 teams the other night...
1973 & 1974, the A’s had three starters total more than 800 innings each year, winning more than 60 games amongst them both seasons, too. Hadn’t been done 40 years prior, and hasn’t been done since, either. Today’s large pitching staffs, often 13, will preclude any three starters repeating those totals, unless the game changes again, in this regard.
Premise: Carrying so many pitchers leaves very little on the bench, as in position players, which hamstrings the manager and overtaxes the other players. Conversely, more pitchers ostensibly means a more rested and healthy staff, improving overall performance.
Anyway, this got me wondering about the relative value of the end of the bullpen guys vs. end of the bench guys, and which is actually more valuable to have—a pitcher, or a position player, at the back end of the roster. Another aspect, financially—which way is more cost effective?
Maybe this type of valuation is available? Anyone want to take a crack at this?