This is the second installment of my “Thinking Out of the Box” series.  You can find the first installment here.

Previously, we looked at the reasons that small market/low-revenue teams might want to consider doing things differently than their competitors.  Today, I want to focus on what types of things they might consider.

One thing that has never made sense to me is the five-man pitching rotation.  Actually, it’s not so much the number of men in the rotation that confuses me, but the inherent belief in the system that all starting pitchers do their best work on five days rest.  That’s almost certainly not true, yet it is followed with almost lock-step precision by all teams. 

Why don’t teams try to switch things up a bit?  If pitcher A thrives on four days rest, pitch him more often than pitcher B who needs six days rest.  I know it won’t work out perfectly.  Pitchers will often be at their optimum rest on the same day.  If that happens, use the better pitcher.  As it stands now, pitchers are used every fifth game regardless of whether or not they have received their optimum rest.

That’s just one simple example.  Joe Posnanski offers an idea that is a little more complicated.  Again, the idea originated with Bill James:

The off-the-wall idea that maybe some team (say the Pittsburgh Pirates) simply decides that they will stop scouting and acquiring anyone who throws 90-plus mph. Just stop. You throw 95? Good for you, we’re not interested.

I will repeat: Bill (James) wasn’t saying a team should actually do this. He was saying that a team COULD do this, though. I mean, seriously, what would happen? Let’s run a little thought experiment: You’re running the Pirates. And let’s say this was true:

50% of all potential big league pitchers who throw 95 mph will be good big league pitchers.

2% of all potential big league pitchers who throw 83 mph will be good big league pitchers.

I’m sure those percentages are way skewed — no way that half the 95-mph throwers are good big league pitchers, and I have no way of knowing about the 2%. But you can fill in any number you want … the point is we say there are 100 potential pitchers who throw 95, and in this scenario 50 of them will be good pitchers. OK, well, you’re the Pittsburgh Pirates. How many of those 50 do you think you’re going to get? You are competing against 29 other teams that also want guys who can light up the radar gun. The vast majority of those 29 teams have more resources than you do, more scouts poking and prodding those prospects, more money to sign them, more clout to draw them in, more status among players and their families and their agents.

So — my guess? You’re not getting any of those 50. Zero. Oh, you might get some of the 95-mph throwers who WILL NOT be good big league pitchers. And, sure, there’s a chance you could luck into one. But it would take luck. Best bet: A big fat zero.

No, look at the other side. There is much larger pool of pitchers to pick from who top out at 83 mph, or 81 or whatever. Say there are 500 of those. By this formula, 2 percent of them could pitch effectively in the big leagues — that would be 10 pitchers (maybe you don’t believe ANY of them will be good … we’ll get to that in a second). Now, you’re the Pittsburgh Pirates — what are the chances you would get any of those 10?

Well, again, I’m guessing here: But my feeling is that if you have decided to just stop looking at the 95 mph guys and focused ALL YOUR ENERGIES on these slow-throwing guys, well, I think the chances are pretty good that you would get some, most or even all of those 10 pitchers. Why? Because, generally speaking, other teams are not investing much effort in scouting people who top out at 83. They are not scouting those players, they are not making much effort sign those players, they’re not spending draft picks on those players. They simply do not VALUE those players. if you focus all of your effort on it — and you believe in what you’re doing — you will probably figure out which of those slow-throwers has the command, quirkiness, control or movement necessary to get big leaguers out. And if you choose to value command and quirkiness and control and utterly devalue the radar gun, you should be able to corner that market.

Now, there would be people who would say this is a pointless market to corner — that 83 mph pitchers is a dry well. Maybe that’s true. But MAYBE it’s not true. Maybe you can find a cool study that suggests an 83-mph fastball down and away is just as effective a pitch as an 94-mph fastball down and away. Maybe you can point to a collection of ineffective pitchers who can throw really hard (Exhibit A: The Kansas City Royals bullpen) and conclude that speed isn’t all that compelling when it comes to getting out big league hitters. Maybe you would do the math and find that the best slow-throwers would make a better staff than one filled with bottom-third hard-throwers.

See, I just think that’s brilliant.  Would it work?  I don’t know, but that’s not the important point.  The important point is that there are a million different ways to run a baseball team, yet all teams stay within the same narrow parameters in the way they do things.  Thinking of radical, unorthadox ways to run a team is the easy part.  Well, it’s not easy, but it is easier than giving those ideas a try.  Actually taking action on the ideas is the much harder part.

Here are a few other unconventional ideas, some from Pos, some from Bill James, and some from me:

• Fill your roster with great defenders.  Don’t worry about how well they can hit.  Just make sure they are among the best defensively at their postion.
• Rather than look for starting pitchers who can routinely go six or more innings, create “teams” of pitchers that can routinely throw three strong innings and pair them up.  If a team did this, they conceivably would have to carry fewer pitchers, and the pitchers they do carry could pitch more often.
• Why do teams look for “five tool” players?  Dump the idea of the five tool player and create another, more effective way to scout players.
• Tradition says you should hit your best hitter third in the line up.  Why not take your two best hitters and hit them second and fourth? 
• Stock your roster with high OBP guys who are also outstanding base runners.  Become the strongest team in baseball at going first to third or second to home.
• Sign pitchers who don’t walk hitters.  Reward pitchers who have the lowest BB/9  in baseball.  Look for pitchers that throw the highest percentage of strikes.
• Stack your line-up with all switch hitters. 
• Bat the pitcher eighth (Tony LaRussa does this often and he’s considered a genius.  Why isn’t anyone else giving a try?)
• If shortstops are the best fielders on a team (not always true), why not put shortstops at every position?
• Why not sign pitchers who can also play another position with some proficiency?  In high school (and to a lesser extent in college), the best position players are often also the best pitchers.  Why not cultivate this instead of insisting that pitchers only pitch?
• Push the fences back at your home park and build a team based on speed and fielding.
• Develop knuckleball pitchers.  There are so few and they are so relatively underappreciated, you could corner the market.

There are many, many more possibilities, but you get the idea.  Are some of these ideas foolish?  Probably.  Are any of them fool proof?  Of course not.  But one thing is for certain: What the Royals and Pirates and Nationals, and other teams are doing is not working and will not work.  If the goal is to simply save face, then by all means, carry on.  But if these teams want a result that is different from what they are currently experiencing, then they are going to have to risk ridicule and try something different.