Is it me, or is everyone simply looking for excuses to dump on the Brewers rotation? And I’m talking about Brewers fans, not anyone else.

Why does it seem that people seem to take every opportunity possible to note that the Brewers’ starters are less than ideal? In fact, the Brewers starting rotation couldn’t be more average in terms of overall production, and more importantly, the distribution of that production is occurring in favorable patterns, witnessed by the Brewers’ overall quality start stats.

On the other hand, the offense sort of gets a free pass, that they’re the really talented portion of this team, and that they simply need to heat up after a cool stretch. In fact, the Brewers’ offense is just as average as the rotation, including excellent campaigns by Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder thus far.

Does the presence of superstars on any team, in any regard, help the impression of that team? Note that people were touting the Astros’ offense and pitching staff prior to the season – an offense featuring Carlos Lee, Lance Berkman, Miguel Tejada, and Ivan Rodriguez, some bigtime superstar names, no matter how questionable the quality performance of some of those players remains. Of course, it can’t hurt to have Roy Oswalt on your ballclub, but does that skew the perception of the entire rotation? If the Brewers rotation had a couple of true 5 starters, but retained C.C. Sabathia, would that have changed anything?

The Brewers’ rotation remains underrated even after their performance has proven that they can indeed pitch, pitch quality starts, and help their team win. I don’t know why, but people have been underrating this staff for the entire off-season and most of this season thus far, and frankly, it misses the point about what is needed to win in the National League.

Johnny Cueto (3-1, 5 GS, 2.75 runs average, 7.20 IP/GS; 4 quality starts) @ Braden Looper (2-3, 5 GS, 7.00 runs average, 5.66 IP/GS; 1 quality start)

Holy efficiency! After having been run through the Dusty Baker Experience in 2008, Cueto’s arm must breathe a sigh of relief in 2009. This kid is really putting things together, in the rotational absence of Edinson Volquez, his Dominican mate. Unlike his counterpart – who threw his change up more frequently than his cross-seam fastball in 2008 – Cueto is a bigtime fastball / slider pitcher, and throws those pitches almost exclusively.

Looper is in the midst of a tough stretch, after such a bright start. It seems as though he cannot help but allow 5 runs over the course of his last 5 starts.  In order for the Brewers to maintain their successful rotation, it is imperative that Looper rebound and pitch somewhere in between his current level and the level at which he started the season.

Aaron Harang (3-1, 5 GS, 3.90 runs average, 6.46 IP/GS; 3 quality starts) @ Dave Bush (2-1, 5 GS, 3.74 runs average, 6.74 IP/GS; 4 quality starts)

Struggling for most of 2008, Harang is putting things back together in 2009, leveling those results back to that production of old. The right hander works almost exclusively with that sneaky 88-90 MPH fastball, sneaky because his height and delivery obscure the speed of the ball, as well as his secondary favorite – the slider. Should the Reds hope to continue their success in 2009, Harang will need to play an important part, and all the better, for it’s a good thing when baseball’s underrated pitchers continue stretches of good performance.

I feel like I say it every week, and every week Bush indulges me further. This sinkerballer is a home run machine lately, allowing 8 HR in his last 5 starts (he allowed 3 in his first 4 starts). Bush pitches aggressively – 62% of his pitches were strikes in his last 5 GS – and two of the consequences are hit batsmen and home runs. Yet, Bush never seems to get hurt with multi-run home runs; not one of those 8 HR was a multi-run homer.

Micah Owings (2-3, 5 G, 4 GS, 5.57 runs average, 5.38 IP/GS; 1 quality start) @ Yovani Gallardo (2-1, 5 GS, 3.00 runs average, 6.60 IP/GS; 3 quality starts)

Owings had a rough stretch of late, working one long outing out of the bullpen, and scuffling in his last 4 starts. In his 8 starts thus far, Owings allowed 5 runs in half of them. He and Braden Looper might need a vacation.

So, I went to dinner with the future Mrs. Radio Silence, and we mused on Gallardo's pitch count. She and I both agree that near-130 pitches in 8 innings is not as pretty to look at as near-110 pitches after 7, and since I returned to my cave, I was compelled to look at YoGa's recent game log:

April 8: 6.7 IP, 103 NP (quality start)

April 13: 5.0 IP, 100 NP 

April 18: 6.0 IP, 103 NP (quality start)

April 24: 9.0 IP, 106 NP (complete game)

April 29: 8.0 IP, 116 NP (quality start)

May 4: 7.0 IP, 108 NP(quality start)

May 9: 5.0 IP, 102 NP

May 20: 5.0 IP, 94 NP

May 25: 8.0 IP, 126 NP (quality start)

Here's my problem:

(1) For a developing pitcher under 25 years old, I am a bit suspicious of pitch counts around 130 in the first place. Even in the context of an efficient start.

(2) The inefficient starts around the near-130 pitch outing are much more subtle and concerning: April 13, May 9, and May 20, for one, as well as April 18, which is slightly less alarming.

Perhaps I would let a near 130 pitch outing pass if it was a complete game, but in 8 innings, it makes me a bit more concerned, especially after throwing almost 200 pitches to complete 10 innings in his last two starts. Given his  inconsistent games started workload lately, with the Cardinals rain out and what not, I'm not sure that right now was the best time to get Gallardo up near 130 pitches.

And yet, what do we do about overall efficiency? Using the MLB basic rule of thumb that 16 pitches is about the average for finishing an inning, even 126 pitches after 8 is technically an efficient outing.

But I'm wondering if we shouldn't have a descending pitch-per-inning requirement after 7 IP -- afterall, we really wouldn't consider 144 NP in a complete game to be efficient, either, would we? Pitchers that complete games are rarely in the position of simply going along in a mediocre start and completing the game for the heck of it; complete games therefore are extra-efficient starts in the era of the bullpen.

This can be seen by looking at the pitch counts in 2009 CG (9 inning and otherwise) thus far:

Whereas one can expect the usual efficiency level of a starter to be around 15-17 pitches per inning, pitchers that have completed games in 2009 are working markedly more efficient outings: They are pitching, on average, between 12 and 13 pitches per inning, with only a few working complete games into the 120 pitch range, and almost nobody sneaking close to that 130 pitch mark.

 I believe we can apply this judgment to 7 and 8 inning outings by youngsters by Gallardo. While we should expect pitchers to learn to work deep into games, and shouldn't be too upset with pitch counts between 100 to 110 in 7 innings, those are probably not the types of starts in which a pitcher should be expected to complete the game.  That level of efficiency, while average, is not conducive to completing the game due to the number of pitches thrown, probably due to the number of baserunners, etc.

110 in 7 innings is acceptable, but to get to 9 innings, that likely requires another 30 pitches on that type of efficiency level; and while completed the game is pretty much out of the question (or should be), 8 innings becomes the judgment call:

According to efficiency ratings in complete games in 2009, the average NP for a 9 IP complete game is around 113 pitches. So, how do we judge a 126 pitch, 8 inning outing, which is technically an efficient outing? How heavily to we weigh complete game data such as that presented above against the potential of working a pitcher beyond 7 innings?