Sox extend Whitlock

[jacksonianmarch]

Can be worth up to $44 mil over 6 years

[notin]

That’s not a bad deal at all if he stays healthy.

Unlike other expensive pitching contracts, even if Whitlock pitches like a #3 or #4 starter, he is paid like one anyway and leaves room for more expensive pitchers or isn’t priced out of the trade market…

[jacksonianmarch]

It’s not a bad deal, but health is not guaranteed and for a guy who they’re using as a swing reliever, the likelihood of reinjury is high. I think this deal is a precursor to a move into the rotation, honestly

[notin]

It’s not a bad deal, but health is not guaranteed and for a guy who they’re using as a swing reliever, the likelihood of reinjury is high. I think this deal is a precursor to a move into the rotation, honestly

As much as I want Houck/Whitlock securing the pen, I suspect both will be full time starters by 2023…

[jacksonianmarch]

Bloom is all about maximizing value. This deal is for a lights out reliever. If Whitlock becomes a reliable starter, then this deal is a fucking home run

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

Bloom is all about maximizing value. This deal is for a lights out reliever. If Whitlock becomes a reliable starter, then this deal is a fucking home run

These kinds of signings are the master plan. Promote a prospect, wait until he proves himself, then lock him up; those will be the longterm investments Bloom will make as he puts in place the core of his sustained contenders. None of them will require 12-year contracts for half a billion dollars.

[moonslav59]

These kinds of signings are the master plan. Promote a prospect, wait until he proves himself, then lock him up; those will be the longterm investments Bloom will make as he puts in place the core of his sustained contenders. None of them will require 12-year contracts for half a billion dollars.

Except this is not really a "long term investment."

Didn't Whitlock still have 5 years of team control remaining? 2 pre-arb and 3 arbs?

This is really a one year extension and takes away arb year estimating and haggling.

Don't get me wrong. I like this deal, but we didn't really add much.

[Bellhorn04]

Except this is not really a "long term investment."

Didn't Whitlock still have 5 years of team control remaining? 2 pre-arb and 3 arbs?

This is really a one year extension and takes away arb year estimating and haggling.

Don't get me wrong. I like this deal, but we didn't really add much.

No, it's better than that. The Red Sox have team options for 2027 and 2028, which would be his first two years of free agency. And the buyouts for the two years are small.

You have to dig into the details of it.

[a700hitter]

Except this is not really a "long term investment."

Didn't Whitlock still have 5 years of team control remaining? 2 pre-arb and 3 arbs?

This is really a one year extension and takes away arb year estimating and haggling.

Don't get me wrong. I like this deal, but we didn't really add much.puzzling move by Bloom.

[Bellhorn04]

puzzling move by Bloom.

Not really. We tacked on two years of control.

[Bellhorn04]

Upfront signing bonus of $1 million
2023: $1 million
2024: $3.25 million
2025: $5.25 million
2026: $7.25 million
2027 (club option) $8.25 million with $1 million buyout
2028 (club option) $10.5 million with $500k buyout

Total guarantee, not including Whitlock’s $720,000 salary in 2022, $18.75 million
Option salaries can escalate by up to $2.5 million each for significant innings pitched in previous years (some cumulative over 2023-26, some in immediate prior year) and for award recognition. Maximum total escalation is $4 million per year.

[Nick]

Upfront signing bonus of $1 million
2023: $1 million
2024: $3.25 million
2025: $5.25 million
2026: $7.25 million
2027 (club option) $8.25 million with $1 million buyout
2028 (club option) $10.5 million with $500k buyout

Total guarantee, not including Whitlock’s $720,000 salary in 2022, $18.75 million
Option salaries can escalate by up to $2.5 million each for significant innings pitched in previous years (some cumulative over 2023-26, some in immediate prior year) and for award recognition. Maximum total escalation is $4 million per year.

It's a great deal for Sox. We now control Whitlock for 7 more years beginning 2022.

Quit worrying about extending Xander at $30M. It's about signing Story at $23M for 6 years to hedge vs Xander leaving or asking for the moon. Same goes for Devers. If Dalbec can hit the way he did the last two months of 2021, then we have 3B, SS and 1B covered.

It's unrealistic to have 2 $30M infielders on left side along with a $23M 2B. No way that happens.

[a700hitter]

Not really. We tacked on two years of control.It still puzzles me. take the 3 years of control and hope for the best with no financial risk.

[moonslav59]

No, it's better than that. The Red Sox have team options for 2027 and 2028, which would be his first two years of free agency. And the buyouts for the two years are small.

You have to dig into the details of it.

Okay! I did not know that part. This is much better.

3 years beyond arb control is nice. I'm still not sure I'd call it long term.

[Old Red]

Okay! I did not know that part. This is much better.

3 years beyond arb control is nice. I'm still not sure I'd call it long term.

The fact that he could be locked up through 2028 is long term, and no messing around with arbitration is good too.

[notin]

It still puzzles me. take the 3 years of control and hope for the best with no financial risk.

If he moves to the rotation, they definitely save money over his likely arbitration raises. Probably also true if he closes…

[Nick]

Okay! I did not know that part. This is much better.

3 years beyond arb control is nice. I'm still not sure I'd call it long term.

Wrong. It's 2 years beyond arb control. Basically its a four year deal starting next year (yrs 3, 4, 5 and 6 for Whitlock) PLUS 2 years of club options.

Having a player for 8 years (counting last year) is a long term deal in today's world.

[Larry Cook]

This is a smart move by Hang’em Chaim.

Hang’em Chaim is really stringing together quite a few good moves for the Boston club, improving the desolate post desperate Dave minor league system and making solid draft picks!

He may not be a Ben cherrington when it comes to building a minor league system and he may not be a desperate Dave when it comes to stockpiling talent on the Boston roster, but when it comes to building a perennially solid team with organizational depth, he appears to be almost as good as Theo!

I say we keep letting him drive the bus. I like where we are headed.

[Bellhorn04]

It's a beautiful deal, really. Whitlock gets financial security, the Sox potentially get a bargain, and have a lot of control with those 2 team options and low buyouts.

Nice work by Bloom IMHO

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

It's a beautiful deal, really. Whitlock gets financial security, the Sox potentially get a bargain, and have a lot of control with those 2 team options and low buyouts.

Nice work by Bloom IMHO

One scribe compared it to the Tampa contract with Wander Franco.

I'm not going to say it...

[notin]

One scribe compared it to the Tampa contract with Wander Franco.

I'm not going to say it...

It is similar in the amount of service time each player had. Beyond that, I don’t see it…

[Bellhorn04]

It is similar in the amount of service time each player had. Beyond that, I don’t see it…

Franco is guaranteed 182 mill
Whitlock is guaranteed 18.75 mill

It's no wonder 5 GG's has to restrain the urge to be sardonic.

[mvp 78]

Franco is guaranteed 182 mill
Whitlock is guaranteed 18.75 mill

It's no wonder 5 GG's has to restrain the urge to be sardonic.

Just move the decimal over one place and it's a one to one deal. That's just one digit. No biggy.

[moonslav59]

Wrong. It's 2 years beyond arb control. Basically its a four year deal starting next year (yrs 3, 4, 5 and 6 for Whitlock) PLUS 2 years of club options.

Having a player for 8 years (counting last year) is a long term deal in today's world.

We had him for 6 years. I don't see adding 2 years as being called "long-term."

One could say the 6 years were "long term" to begin with." A 2 year extension is not long term, IMO.

I'm fine with you and other thinking it became long term by adding 2 years. It's nice deal, no matter how we word it.

[Nick]

We had him for 6 years. I don't see adding 2 years as being called "long-term."

One could say the 6 years were "long term" to begin with." A 2 year extension is not long term, IMO.

I'm fine with you and other thinking it became long term by adding 2 years. It's nice deal, no matter how we word it.

You are correct Moon. With opt outs and players wanting to get as much as they can (opt outs) and yet have the protection against subpar/injuries years, it's refreshing to see Whitlock's deal.

He's with us for seven years counting this year. Much of that has to do with Sox able to get a full year of service in his rookie year.

This is why I'm rooting for Houck and Dalbec. I want to see Casas join the team as soon as he's unable to get a full year of service this year.

[moonslav59]

You are correct Moon. With opt outs and players wanting to get as much as they can (opt outs) and yet have the protection against subpar/injuries years, it's refreshing to see Whitlock's deal.

He's with us for seven years counting this year. Much of that has to do with Sox able to get a full year of service in his rookie year.

This is why I'm rooting for Houck and Dalbec. I want to see Casas join the team as soon as he's unable to get a full year of service this year.

I agree, and I'm thrilled to see younger players making an impact or possibly about to.

[dgalehouse]

This is a smart move by Hang’em Chaim.

Hang’em Chaim is really stringing together quite a few good moves for the Boston club, improving the desolate post desperate Dave minor league system and making solid draft picks!

He may not be a Ben cherrington when it comes to building a minor league system and he may not be a desperate Dave when it comes to stockpiling talent on the Boston roster, but when it comes to building a perennially solid team with organizational depth, he appears to be almost as good as Theo!

I say we keep letting him drive the bus. I like where we are headed.

At some point, liking Bloom's style is not going to be enough. There is a bottom line reality. This is his third year. So far , he has a fifth place finish and a tied for second and third place finish. Hopefully, we do win the division soon. Maybe this year? How long of a leash does he have without winning at least the division? Four years? Five?

[moonslav59]

At some point, liking Bloom's style is not going to be enough. There is a bottom line reality. This is his third year. So far , he has a fifth place finish and a tied for second and third place finish. Hopefully, we do win the division soon. Maybe this year? How long of a leash does he have without winning at least the division? Four years? Five?

Reality is he was handed a weak farm and bottom of the 40 man roster (like the bottom 18 slots) and a tight new spending budget.

The checkbook was opened, this winter, so the clock starts ticking now.

Blaming Bloom for 2020 and the over performing 2021 season is short-sighted.

[Bellhorn04]

At some point, liking Bloom's style is not going to be enough. There is a bottom line reality. This is his third year. So far , he has a fifth place finish and a tied for second and third place finish. Hopefully, we do win the division soon. Maybe this year? How long of a leash does he have without winning at least the division? Four years? Five?

Amazingly enough, the Red Sox only won the division once under Theo in 9 seasons, and it was in his 5th season.

I don't think winning the division is necessarily the real barometer of success.

[Larry Cook]

Amazingly enough, the Red Sox only won the division once under Theo in 9 seasons, and it was in his 5th season.

I don't think winning the division is necessarily the real barometer of success.

The ring is the thing!

[dgalehouse]

Amazingly enough, the Red Sox only won the division once under Theo in 9 seasons, and it was in his 5th season.

I don't think winning the division is necessarily the real barometer of success.
With the wild card situation, there is always the chance to get hot in the post season. I think winning the division is always the goal.

[dgalehouse]

Reality is he was handed a weak farm and bottom of the 40 man roster (like the bottom 18 slots) and a tight new spending budget.

The checkbook was opened, this winter, so the clock starts ticking now.

Blaming Bloom for 2020 and the over performing 2021 season is short-sighted.
I don't care for excuses. When you are the guy in charge , you have to be responsible for the results.

[Bellhorn04]

With the wild card situation, there is always the chance to get hot in the post season. I think winning the division is always the goal.

It's fine to have it as a goal, but as I say, the man considered by many to be the one of the best GM's in history only did it once in 9 seasons with us.

[dgalehouse]

It's fine to have it as a goal, but as I say, the man considered by many to be the one of the best GM's in history only did it once in 9 seasons with us.

That does take something away from his accomplishments. But breaking the curse overrides everything.

[moonslav59]

I don't care for excuses. When you are the guy in charge , you have to be responsible for the results.

Good for you

[dgalehouse]

Good for you

Good for me? What does that mean?

[notin]

That does take something away from his accomplishments. But breaking the curse overrides everything.

Why?

Dombrowski won the two division titles with teams that won 93 games. Epstein’s teams exceeded that total 6 times and came in second 5 of them.

Winning the division is nice, but at what point are you giving a GM credit for the rest of the division being weak?

[dgalehouse]

Why?

Dombrowski won the two division titles with teams that won 93 games. Epstein’s teams exceeded that total 6 times and came in second 5 of them.

Winning the division is nice, but at what point are you giving a GM credit for the rest of the division being weak?

That is your thing. You like to break everything down and analyze. It doesn't change the bottom line. I look for results. You compete. You try to win. You win or you don't. No excuses. In here , we have fans who scour the Internet to try and find something that supports their opinion. It does not change the realty. It just doesn't matter. But if that's what you like , it's okay. My question is how long do we continue to praise Bloom if he doesn't win anything? Five years? Or what? Or indefinitely if we like his style?

[notin]

That is your thing. You like to break everything down and analyze. It doesn't change the bottom line. I look for results. You compete. You try to win. You win or you don't. No excuses. In here , we have fans who scour the Internet to try and find something that supports their opinion. It does not change the realty. It just doesn't matter. But if that's what you like , it's okay. My question is how long do we continue to praise Bloom if he doesn't win anything? Five years? Or what? Or indefinitely if we like his style?


It’s a simple question.

If division titles are the sole measure, when do we acknowledge not all titles are created equal.

In Dombrowski’s first two years, the Sox won 93 games each time and won the division title. In those two years in the AL East, only one other team won 90 games. Last year, the Sox won 92 games - enough to win the East in 2016 and 2017. But they played in a division where four teams won 91 games, including one team winning 100. This year, the AL East figures to be just as tough if not tougher. Why doesn’t that get taken into account? It’s not like Bloom has any control with what other teams do. And he certainly couldn’t stop Toronto from developing a lineup full of legacy sluggers.

Epstein only won one title because he was up against Vintage Core Four in NY. Why does that tarnish his accomplishments according to you?

[dgalehouse]

It’s a simple question.

If division titles are the sole measure, when do we acknowledge not all titles are created equal.

In Dombrowski’s first two years, the Sox won 93 games each time and won the division title. In those two years in the AL East, only one other team won 90 games. Last year, the Sox won 92 games - enough to win the East in 2016 and 2017. But they played in a division where four teams won 91 games, including one team winning 100. This year, the AL East figures to be just as tough if not tougher. Why doesn’t that get taken into account? It’s not like Bloom has any control with what other teams do. And he certainly couldn’t stop Toronto from developing a lineup full of legacy sluggers.

Epstein only won one title because he was up against Vintage Core Four in NY. Why does that tarnish his accomplishments according to you?
You are competing against the teams in your division. You want to be the best. If they beat you out , then you were not the best . Maybe you had a high win total because you were able to beat up on weaker teams too. You can analyze it to death. There are so many different factors. Results are what matters. The fact is that the other guy was better. The competition was better. Nothing changes that. As far as Theo is concerned, what would his standing be if Dave Roberts was picked off first? I know how you like to break things down and examine everything. But in the end , there is a winner and there are also rans. The ever growing wild card rules do provide another shot for some also rans. That didn't use to be the case either. Anyway , I am getting repetitive and I don't want to go round and round with this. Do your thing . To me , in a five team division, a success means finishing in first place. If you don't do that , someone else was better than you. I want to see Bloom win before I put any trust in him. That's how I see it. Have a good night.

[jacksonianmarch]

So the 21 Sox were a failure? That’s pretty harsh IMO. Exceeded expectations, won the WC play in game vs hated rivals then knocked off division winners in ALDS. That’s a pretty successful year. If all you measure by is division titles, you won’t be able to enjoy the other methods of making the POs and possibly winning a title

[cp176]

With the wild card situation, there is always the chance to get hot in the post season. I think winning the division is always the goal.

Without one ounce of doubt, I agree. competing throughout the entire course of a baseball season with making the playoffs your goal, makes for possibly a boring summer. You play to win especially at this level. It is why expanded playoffs and extended seasons just don't work for this fan. I understand that you can't turn back the clock but hey maybe we should just give a trophy to all teams that can break .500 and call it good. Or even better how about special awards to managers and coaches who can keep their players healthy all season? We ought to be able to reward all for just being there.

[notin]

I thought the goal was winning a World Series?

Winning the division is nice, but at the end of the day all it gets you is a better postseason seating.

And it very shouldn’t be the measure of a GM or team…

[cp176]

Quite likely most people would agree with you. I would to a certain extent. I just don't share the same amount of joy i guess when any team can squeak there way into the playoffs and then get lucky. The expanded diluted playoff format makes me much less interested in the regular season than i ever was before. Oh well, the clocks not getting turned back. i much prefer watching a championship series that features 2 teams that have proven to be the best over the course of a grinding summer season.

[Bellhorn04]

I thought the goal was winning a World Series?

Winning the division is nice, but at the end of the day all it gets you is a better postseason seating.

And it very shouldn’t be the measure of a GM or team…

No, apparently 2016 and 2017 were better years than 2004.

You learn something new every day.

[Bellhorn04]

Quite likely most people would agree with you. I would to a certain extent. I just don't share the same amount of joy i guess when any team can squeak there way into the playoffs and then get lucky. The expanded diluted playoff format makes me much less interested in the regular season than i ever was before. Oh well, the clocks not getting turned back. i much prefer watching a championship series that features 2 teams that have proven to be the best over the course of a grinding summer season.

They expanded the playoffs in 1969.

And even before that, some years the 2 best teams were in the same league.

[Kimmi]

It's a beautiful deal, really. Whitlock gets financial security, the Sox potentially get a bargain, and have a lot of control with those 2 team options and low buyouts.

Nice work by Bloom IMHO

It's a win-win IMO. The Sox are taking on some risk, as is the case with any long term contract, but the value is potentially extremely good. Especially since I'm thinking that Whitlock will be transitioned into a starting role.

[Kimmi]

At some point, liking Bloom's style is not going to be enough. There is a bottom line reality. This is his third year. So far , he has a fifth place finish and a tied for second and third place finish. Hopefully, we do win the division soon. Maybe this year? How long of a leash does he have without winning at least the division? Four years? Five?

You seem to look at not winning the division as some type of failure. I like to look at making it farther in the playoffs than any other AL East team as some sort of success. Granted, the playoffs are largely a crapshoot, so we can't really credit Bloom for what happens in the postseason. However, we should credit him for putting together a team that made it to the playoffs, regardless of whether they win the division or not. He gave the team a really good chance.

Bloom had a lot of rebuilding to do. Outside of 2020 when we had some major starting pitching injuries, he has been able to keep the team competitive while rebuilding. That's difficult to do. Rebuilding plans typically take 5 years. Bloom is way ahead of schedule.

[Kimmi]

That is your thing. You like to break everything down and analyze. It doesn't change the bottom line. I look for results. You compete. You try to win. You win or you don't. No excuses. In here , we have fans who scour the Internet to try and find something that supports their opinion. It does not change the realty. It just doesn't matter. But if that's what you like , it's okay. My question is how long do we continue to praise Bloom if he doesn't win anything? Five years? Or what? Or indefinitely if we like his style?

Sincere question: Do you consider the 2021 season a failure because the team did not win the division?

[cp176]

They expanded the playoffs in 1969.

And even before that, some years the 2 best teams were in the same league.

Correct - I think that the playoffs in general are so watered down and lengthy now though that it decreases the incentives to finish first in the division. i do not like that. Obviously it must be just me though right who feels this way. Unfortunately i guess I was raised athletically to believe that the goal was to finish first. It is likely that no amount of soul searching or criticism with respect to my beliefs are going to change them much.

[Bellhorn04]

Correct - I think that the playoffs in general are so watered down and lengthy now though that it decreases the incentives to finish first in the division. i do not like that. Obviously it must be just me though right who feels this way. Unfortunately i guess I was raised athletically to believe that the goal was to finish first. It is likely that no amount of soul searching or criticism with respect to my beliefs are going to change them much.

You mean you weren't raised to believe that it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game?

OK, mostly kidding with that. But I think the truth is we all have our own way of looking at things, and nobody is going to change it.

[Kimmi]

Correct - I think that the playoffs in general are so watered down and lengthy now though that it decreases the incentives to finish first in the division. i do not like that. Obviously it must be just me though right who feels this way. Unfortunately i guess I was raised athletically to believe that the goal was to finish first. It is likely that no amount of soul searching or criticism with respect to my beliefs are going to change them much.

Of course Bloom and the team want to finish first in the division. I don't think anyone on the team, players or management, enter the season with the idea of shooting for 2nd place in the division. But it's not worth the risk of going all in with payroll and prospects when that guarantees nothing. There are other ways, far better IMO, to build a division winning team. Just because we don't make the splashy moves doesn't mean we're not trying to win the division.

If the team falls short of winning the division but still makes the playoffs via a wildcard, I don't consider that a failure.

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

Correct - I think that the playoffs in general are so watered down and lengthy now though that it decreases the incentives to finish first in the division. i do not like that. Obviously it must be just me though right who feels this way. Unfortunately i guess I was raised athletically to believe that the goal was to finish first. It is likely that no amount of soul searching or criticism with respect to my beliefs are going to change them much.

It may be impossible for younger fans and posters to fathom there once was a time when the most important goal in baseball was to finish first. Imagine fretting over day-to-day battles for six long months, instead of just aiming to peak for a few weeks in October? Winning The Pennant was actually a bigger accomplishment than one best-of-seven series in the fall.

But that only mattered for a hundred years.

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

If the team falls short of winning the division but still makes the playoffs via a wildcard, I don't consider that a failure.

That's not very elite of you. Imagine growing up a Yankee fan in the 90s, and going through life feeling that anything less than a World Series ring is a failure?

[notin]

I thought the goal was winning a World Series?

Winning the division is nice, but at the end of the day all it gets you is a better postseason seating.

And it very shouldn’t be the measure of a GM or team…


No, apparently 2016 and 2017 were better years than 2004.

You learn something new every day.

There’s something to be said for the 2021 team over the 2016 and 2017 teams. Winning 92 games while playing in the same division as three other teams that won 91 games is a ridiculous feat…

[cp176]

Of course Bloom and the team want to finish first in the division. I don't think anyone on the team, players or management, enter the season with the idea of shooting for 2nd place in the division. But it's not worth the risk of going all in with payroll and prospects when that guarantees nothing. There are other ways, far better IMO, to build a division winning team. Just because we don't make the splashy moves doesn't mean we're not trying to win the division.

If the team falls short of winning the division but still makes the playoffs via a wildcard, I don't consider that a failure.

No one in their right mind would disagree with any of this when looked upon through today's lens.

[mvp 78]

Any Sox team that wins a playoff series can consider their season a success.

I consider the 1999 team to be a success.

I consider the 2005 team to be a failure.

I consider the 2008 team to be a success.

I consider the 2009 team to be a failure.

Now, if they win the WC game to get to the playoffs but lose the first series? I don't know how I'd feel.

[notin]

Now, if they win the WC game to get to the playoffs but lose the first series? I don't know how I'd feel.

And given the new playoff format, you’ll never have to decide…

[cp176]

It may be impossible for younger fans and posters to fathom there once was a time when the most important goal in baseball was to finish first. Imagine fretting over day-to-day battles for six long months, instead of just aiming to peak for a few weeks in October? Winning The Pennant was actually a bigger accomplishment than one best-of-seven series in the fall.

But that only mattered for a hundred years.


I loved those times. Honestly, right or wrong by today's watered down standards, I still believe that if your primary goal is to make the playoffs as opposed to being the number one seed then your chances of winning the whole thing might be wattered down just a bit because of this approach. It is pretty difficult to turn up the jets all of a sudden if they have been on standby for very long. I'm not saying that it is a good thing but this saying worked for me athletically - "What I had i gave because what i saved I lost." It's an antiquated way to approach life I guess but oh well I sure hope my grandchildren will see it that way. It is a guarantee for success no matter the job.

[cp176]

You mean you weren't raised to believe that it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game?

OK, mostly kidding with that. But I think the truth is we all have our own way of looking at things, and nobody is going to change it.


You are right.

[mvp 78]

And given the new playoff format, you’ll never have to decide…

I was actively ignoring the new playoff structure and really didn't know how it was set up.

After digesting it for 30 seconds:

If you are the "third place" division winner and lose in the Wild Card round, it's not a success. You have homefield for the full WC best of 3 series and would be losing to a runner up.

If you win the WC round to get to the LCS, but lose the LCS can it be a success? Sure. Fine. It definitely waters down the playoffs though.

[moonslav59]

No, apparently 2016 and 2017 were better years than 2004.

You learn something new every day.

I guess it's entertaining to see some varying opinions.

[mvp 78]

No, apparently 2016 and 2017 were better years than 2004.

You learn something new every day.

I have a black hole in my memory for the teams that lost in the first round. I really don't remember much of 16 or 17.

[notin]

I loved those times. Honestly, right or wrong by today's watered down standards, I still believe that if your primary goal is to make the playoffs as opposed to being the number one seed then your chances of winning the whole thing might be wattered down just a bit because of this approach. It is pretty difficult to turn up the jets all of a sudden if they have been on standby for very long. I'm not saying that it is a good thing but this saying worked for me athletically - "What I had i gave because what i saved I lost." It's an antiquated way to approach life I guess but oh well I sure hope my grandchildren will see it that way. It is a guarantee for success no matter the job.


And for a long time, MLB never really incentivized teams to be the number one seed.

From the beginning of divisional play in 1969 until the creation of three divisions in 1994, postseason home fields just alternated. LCS would flip from East to West every year regardless of record, and WS home field alternated from AL to NL. This actually created a situation where teams in the AL East and NL West (I believe it was those two) could never have home field throughout the postseason, no matter what their records were.

And this was somehow eventually replaced with the whole “WS home field goes to the winner of the All Star game” system, because Selig was desperate to replace a dumb system with one that was even dumber…

[Bellhorn04]

It may be impossible for younger fans and posters to fathom there once was a time when the most important goal in baseball was to finish first. Imagine fretting over day-to-day battles for six long months, instead of just aiming to peak for a few weeks in October? Winning The Pennant was actually a bigger accomplishment than one best-of-seven series in the fall.

But that only mattered for a hundred years.

And it's now been over fifty years since the Great Expansion began.

[notin]

I have a black hole in my memory for the teams that lost in the first round. I really don't remember much of 16 or 17.

Those were the teams that ignored the drum banging and paid for it dearly…

[moonslav59]

And it's now been over fifty years since the Great Expansion began.

You think 32 teams is in the works?

[mvp 78]

You think 32 teams is in the works?

It will be for a balanced schedule.

[moonslav59]

It will be for a balanced schedule.

Would they go to 4 divisions of 4 in each league?

I'd like to see them break down the NL-AL barriers and re-align geographically.

At 30 teams:

5 divisions of 6

East
BOS
NYY
NYM
PHI
BAL
WSH

North
TOR
PIT
DET
CLE
CIN
CWS

South
TBR
MIA
ATL
HOU
TEX
KC

Central
Cubs
MN
MIL
STL
COL
AZ

West
SEA
OAK
SFG
LAD
LAA
SDP

6 divisions of 5

BOS
NYY
NYM
PHI
BAL

WSH
ATL
TBR
MIA
KC

TOR
PIT
DET
CLE
CIN

MN
MIL
CWS
CC
STL

TEX
HOU
COL
AZ
SDP

SEA
OAK
SFG
LAD
LAA

[moonslav59]

It will be for a balanced schedule.

If they go with 8 divisions of 4, how would they balance it?

3 games x 28 non div games? (84)
+
26 games x 3 div teams (78)

4 games x 28= 112

17 games x 2 div= 34 and 16 x 1 div= 16

5 games x 28 teams= 140

7 games x 3 div= 21 (8 gms vs 1 div foe)

If they went with 4 divisions of 8:
5 x 24 non div teams= 120
6 x 7 div teams= 42

This is balanced, but just 6 games vs your own division is lame.

4 x 24= 96
9 x 4= 36 + 10 x 3 div teams= 30
Not balanced

3 x 24 non div= 72
12 x 1 div=12
13 x 6 div=78
Close to balanced

[dgalehouse]

No, apparently 2016 and 2017 were better years than 2004.

You learn something new every day.

2004 was historic. Without question, the greatest moment in Red Sox history. I do feel that in evaluating a G.M.'s performance, winning the division is the best yardstick. That should be the objective when building a team.

[mvp 78]

2004 was historic. Without question, the greatest moment in Red Sox history. I do feel that in evaluating a G.M.'s performance, winning the division is the best yardstick. That should be the objective when building a team.

Who is better: Theo or Dombrowski?

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

Who is better: Theo or Dombrowski?

Not a slam-dunk if just comparing 2004 -- the year denny referenced -- with 2018, Dombro's crown. Both GMs took clubs with stars inherited from past GMs and then made major moves or moves that turned out to be major that put them over the top.

[dgalehouse]

Who is better: Theo or Dombrowski?

Theo Epstein. What Theo accomplished in breaking the curse ( and then again with the Cubs) overrides everything. As for Dombrowski, I cannot understand why he is so criticized when he took over a team that had finished in the cellar two years running, and immediately won three straight division titles and one world championship. Apparently, his big sin was trading away a handful of mostly mediocre farmhands. In my opinion, he deserves far more credit than he is given.

[mvp 78]

Not a slam-dunk if just comparing 2004 -- the year denny referenced -- with 2018, Dombro's crown. Both GMs took clubs with stars inherited from past GMs and then made major moves or moves that turned out to be major that put them over the top.

What I was referencing was the idea that 1st place in the division was the goal. Theo had 1 division title and 2 WS titles. Dombo had 3 division titles and 2 WS titles.

[Bellhorn04]

Theo Epstein. What Theo accomplished in breaking the curse ( and then again with the Cubs) overrides everything.

Winning rings overrides winning divisions. Yes, I agree.

[Bellhorn04]

Deal looks even better right now. :cool:

[Nick]

Whitlock pitched 4 innings today. He came in scored tied. It should be his game to lose. He could have won vs Yankees. I love watching him pitch. Great command. Gets the ball and pitches.

Thought I may see AC outsmart himself and bring in a 'closer' in the 9th.

[Bellhorn04]

Whitlock pitched 4 innings today. He came in scored tied. It should be his game to lose. He could have won vs Yankees.

How could he have won vs Yankees?

[moonslav59]

How could he have won vs Yankees?

Maybe had he not let up a run and finished the game unscored upon?

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe had he not let up a run and finished the game unscored upon?

It would have been a save. Eovaldi was pitcher of record.

[moonslav59]

It would have been a save. Eovaldi was pitcher of record.

True dat!

I guess had he let up a run, stayed in the game and shut the Yanks down, he could have maybe won by pitching 5 innings (6-10th).

[Bellhorn04]

True dat!

I guess had he let up a run, stayed in the game and shut the Yanks down, he could have maybe won by pitching 5 innings (6-10th).

True, but I think what Nick is talking about is him pitching 4 innings, which was supposedly the original plan.

If he pitched 4 innings against the Yankees, he likely wasn't available for this one. Cora made the right move pulling him when the Yanks tied it. Playing the percentages, that's what you're supposed to do.

[moonslav59]

True, but I think what Nick is talking about is him pitching 4 innings, which was supposedly the original plan.

If he pitched 4 innings against the Yankees, he likely wasn't available for this one. Cora made the right move pulling him when the Yanks tied it. Playing the percentages, that's what you're supposed to do.

Exactly.

[Nick]

I see now that Cora plans to use Whitlock with Hill. He obviously did not want Whitlock to sit idle waiting for #5 starter to start the season.

Apparently Cora also wanted to piggyback Houck with Chris Sale.

I like the plan. It allows the bullpen to reset every fifth day.

I'm okay with us having 7 or 8 starters on the staff. As starter innings shorten (4-5 innings), you can't just have one inning guys.

Maybe by August we'll have Eovaldi, Pivetta, Houck, Wacha, Hill, Sale, Paxton and Whitlock to start/long relieve. Only one pitcher out of five has to go long (7 innings).

You can then finish out the game with the likes of Barnes, Diekman, Strahm, Taylor, Crawford and Robles. That's 13 solid pitchers.

[moonslav59]

I see now that Cora plans to use Whitlock with Hill. He obviously did not want Whitlock to sit idle waiting for #5 starter to start the season.

Apparently Cora also wanted to piggyback Houck with Chris Sale.

I like the plan. It allows the bullpen to reset every fifth day.

I'm okay with us having 7 or 8 starters on the staff. As starter innings shorten (4-5 innings), you can't just have one inning guys.

Maybe by August we'll have Eovaldi, Pivetta, Houck, Wacha, Hill, Sale, Paxton and Whitlock to start/long relieve. Only one pitcher out of five has to go long (7 innings).

You can then finish out the game with the likes of Barnes, Diekman, Strahm, Taylor, Crawford and Robles. That's 13 solid pitchers.

If all 8 are healthy, we may not need to have one starter go 7. The rest of the pen should be well-rested and can handle pitching 4-6 innings.

[mvp 78]

If all 8 are healthy, we may not need to have one starter go 7. The rest of the pen should be well-rested and can handle pitching 4-6 innings.

That's just not realistic at all. A starter go 7 innings?

[Nick]

If all 8 are healthy, we may not need to have one starter go 7. The rest of the pen should be well-rested and can handle pitching 4-6 innings.

I can't see Sox keeping Davis when Taylor comes back. 4 lefties in the pen? At the very least, I see Davis gone when the roster is trimmed to 26 players.

I'm encouraged by our pitching thus far. Kutter has good stuff. He's better than both Brazier and Sawamura.

Eventually we'll score some runs. I just worry about JBJ in right. He's incapable of squaring up his bat to the ball. Countless weak ground balls. He's right up there with Marwin and Santana. It's scary to think they both hit better than JBJ. Ugh.

[moonslav59]

I can't see Sox keeping Davis when Taylor comes back. 4 lefties in the pen? At the very least, I see Davis gone when the roster is trimmed to 26 players.

I'm encouraged by our pitching thus far. Kutter has good stuff. He's better than both Brazier and Sawamura.

Eventually we'll score some runs. I just worry about JBJ in right. He's incapable of squaring up his bat to the ball. Countless weak ground balls. He's right up there with Marwin and Santana. It's scary to think they both hit better than JBJ. Ugh.

Other pitchers have options. Sometimes, that matters more than who is doing better.

[dgalehouse]

Baseball could reach the point where the bullpen is more important than the starting rotation.

[Bellhorn04]

Baseball could reach the point where the bullpen is more important than the starting rotation.

Yes, at some point those terms might disappear, and it's just called a pitching staff, period.

[notin]

Yes, at some point those terms might disappear, and it's just called a pitching staff, period.

Like back in the early 1900’s.

Everything old is new again..

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

Like back in the early 1900’s.

Everything old is new again..

In that case, can I have my old back back?

[Bellhorn04]

In that case, can I have my old back back?

Heh. No, some things just get older.

[Kimmi]

Baseball could reach the point where the bullpen is more important than the starting rotation.

Things are trending this way, and I don't like it one bit. The analytics are most definitely correct about not letting your starter go through the line up a 3rd time, but I still don't like it.

[Bellhorn04]

Things are trending this way, and I don't like it one bit. The analytics are most definitely correct about not letting your starter go through the line up a 3rd time, but I still don't like it.

Like everything else in the modern game, I'm learning to accept it. My opinion won't change a thing. It's still a great game, fortunately, they can't really screw it up no matter what.

[Kimmi]

Like everything else in the modern game, I'm learning to accept it. My opinion won't change a thing. It's still a great game, fortunately, they can't really screw it up no matter what.

I guess we have no choice but to accept it. You're right, it's still a great game. While I prefer a starting pitcher being able to go 7+ innings, there's still a lot of beauty in someone like Whitlock pitching 4 great innings out of the pen. And a lot of beauty in watching a manager put his relievers into situations where they'll be the most successful.

[sk7326]

I guess we have no choice but to accept it. You're right, it's still a great game. While I prefer a starting pitcher being able to go 7+ innings, there's still a lot of beauty in someone like Whitlock pitching 4 great innings out of the pen. And a lot of beauty in watching a manager put his relievers into situations where they'll be the most successful.

That said, one of the effects could also be the evolution of more people like Whitlock - who could be true 100 inning relievers, which itself is kind of old school.

[moonslav59]

That said, one of the effects could also be the evolution of more people like Whitlock - who could be true 100 inning relievers, which itself is kind of old school.

Could we see a day where staffs have ten 3-5 inning guys and three one inning guys?

[Nick]

Could we see a day where staffs have ten 3-5 inning guys and three one inning guys?

Most definitely. Then you won't need a $30M/year starter, not even close.

You'll also need couple of guys on strict 'cleaner' roles. Guys that can come in and just pitch to eat innings where games are lost.

[moonslav59]

Most definitely. Then you won't need a $30M/year starter, not even close.

You'll also need couple of guys on strict 'cleaner' roles. Guys that can come in and just pitch to eat innings where games are lost.

That might be your worst 3-5 inning guys, but the days of rest availability might get tricky, if someone is shelled, early. Might need a 14 man staff.

[sk7326]

Could we see a day where staffs have ten 3-5 inning guys and three one inning guys?

If pitching staffs are going to allow for anti-public health cranks, it seems inevitable.

[Behindenemylines]

As long as he stays healthy it is great deal! His role on the Sox is evolving.

[moonslav59]

Time to extend Devers and others.

[Bellhorn04]

Time to extend Devers and others.

Which others?

[notin]

Which others?

Houck? Verdugo?

[mvp 78]

which others?

jbj

[moonslav59]

Houck? Verdugo?

I was thinking Houck and maybe Kike or Pivetta, but Verdugo, too.

[Kimmi]

That said, one of the effects could also be the evolution of more people like Whitlock - who could be true 100 inning relievers, which itself is kind of old school.

Absolutely.

Even though I have always felt starters are more valuable than relievers, and Whitlock looked great in his start against the Rays, it's really nice to a guy like Whitlock in the pen. I'd certainly rather have him pitch 3-4 innings to close out a game in which we have a lead then have him start a game, only to have it lost in late innings.

[moonslav59]

Absolutely.

Even though I have always felt starters are more valuable than relievers, and Whitlock looked great in his start against the Rays, it's really nice to a guy like Whitlock in the pen. I'd certainly rather have him pitch 3-4 innings to close out a game in which we have a lead then have him start a game, only to have it lost in late innings.

Great point, but the risk is, what if we go 8 games in a row where we are ahead or behind by 5 runs?

[mvp 78]

Absolutely.

Even though I have always felt starters are more valuable than relievers, and Whitlock looked great in his start against the Rays, it's really nice to a guy like Whitlock in the pen. I'd certainly rather have him pitch 3-4 innings to close out a game in which we have a lead then have him start a game, only to have it lost in late innings.

I'd rather have Whitlock start a game and give them a chance rather then see him languish in the pen as the Sox fall behind early.

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

I'd rather have Whitlock start a game and give them a chance rather then see him languish in the pen as the Sox fall behind early.

... and every inning they actually let him pitch (like past the 4th) gives the Sox a better pitcher than anyone in the bullpen.

[mvp 78]

... and every inning they actually let him pitch (like past the 4th) gives the Sox a better pitcher than anyone in the bullpen.

Yup. I think he could get to 6 innings by midseason for sure.

[moonslav59]

Yup. I think he could get to 6 innings by midseason for sure.

Agreed, and with his next appearance, he may move to 3rd in total IP'd by Sox pitchers.

(He's currently 5th- just 2/3 behind Wacha and 2 IP behind Houck.)

[mvp 78]

Agreed, and with his next appearance, he may move to 3rd in total IP'd by Sox pitchers.

(He's currently 5th- just 2/3 behind Wacha and 2 IP behind Houck.)

With how MLB is going, it wouldn't be surprising to have some bullpen guys start to get 6-7 innings a week and have seasons of 150 IP. Instead of throwing 6 once a turn in the rotation, they'd be throwing 3 innings twice. Would that save some arms?

[mvp 78]

Chad Green led all relievers with 83.2 IP last year.

Eichhorn in 1986 pitched 150 innings with no GS.

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/mark-eichhorn/1003712/game-log?position=P&gds=&gde=&type=0&season=1986

[Bellhorn04]

With how MLB is going, it wouldn't be surprising to have some bullpen guys start to get 6-7 innings a week and have seasons of 150 IP. Instead of throwing 6 once a turn in the rotation, they'd be throwing 3 innings twice. Would that save some arms?

150 IP of relief might be asking too much. The days of rest between outings would be hard to manage.

[moonslav59]

With how MLB is going, it wouldn't be surprising to have some bullpen guys start to get 6-7 innings a week and have seasons of 150 IP. Instead of throwing 6 once a turn in the rotation, they'd be throwing 3 innings twice. Would that save some arms?

It's hard to know. Maybe with some pitchers, it would work well, but others, used to the routines of every 5th day pitching, maybe not.

Starters do have a "throwing day" between starts, so maybe the adjustment might not be so unsettling.

Would throwing 3-4 innings every 3rd day vs 5-6 IP every 5th day be the trend of the future?

Over a 15 day/game period the 3rd day guy might pitch 17-18 innings (5 x 3.2 IP), while the every 5 day guy might pitch 17-18 IP (3 x 5.2), too.

[Bellhorn04]

Would throwing 3-4 innings every 3rd day vs 5-6 IP every 5th day be the trend of the future?


Nope, can't be done. Arms would fall off quickly.

[moonslav59]

150 IP of relief might be asking too much. The days of rest between outings would be hard to manage.

One problem might be, if it was Whitlock's "day to pitch," but we were up by 8 or down by 8. It would be a waste to pitch him, but not pitching him would upset the routine and force him to pitch less over a full season, assuming this happens multiple times.

[moonslav59]

Nope, can't be done. Arms would fall off quickly.

It's the same IP, more or less. I'm not s sure.

Maybe pitchers would throw harder, knowing they are not going 5-7 innings.

Did Bob Stanley's arm fall off?

[Bellhorn04]

One problem might be, if it was Whitlock's "day to pitch," but we were up by 8 or down by 8. It would be a waste to pitch him, but not pitching him would upset the routine and force him to pitch less over a full season, assuming this happens multiple times.

Yep, too hard to manage.

[Bellhorn04]

It's the same IP, more or less. I'm not s sure.

Maybe pitchers would throw harder, knowing they are not going 5-7 innings.

Did Bob Stanley's arm fall off?

Did Bob pitch 3-4 innings every third day?

[Bellhorn04]

Stanley did have a rubber arm, no doubt. I don't think he threw that hard, though.

Anyway, the modern trend is that guys throw a lot harder and throw less innings.

[mvp 78]

Did Bob pitch 3-4 innings every third day?

1982 - 168.1 innings, no starts
1983 - 145.1 innings, no starts

[mvp 78]

Stanley did have a rubber arm, no doubt. I don't think he threw that hard, though.

Anyway, the modern trend is that guys throw a lot harder and throw less innings.

Hard to really say what the modern trend is just yet. Snell being pulled from the WS was less than 2 years ago.

[Bellhorn04]

Hard to really say what the modern trend is just yet. Snell being pulled from the WS was less than 2 years ago.

Max innings thrown by a relief pitcher each year would say a lot.

[mvp 78]

Max innings thrown by a relief pitcher each year would say a lot.

I've looked at it before. It was 150 in the 80's. Dropped to about 100 in the 90's. Dropped to 80/90 from then on.

[Bellhorn04]

I've looked at it before. It was 150 in the 80's. Dropped to about 100 in the 90's. Dropped to 80/90 from then on.

That's a pretty clear trend.

[moonslav59]

Did Bob pitch 3-4 innings every third day?

Not all year long, but pretty much, yes... 3 IP every 3rd game comes to about 162 IP, and he had 168 in 1982.

That year he had these stretches:

IP date
4.0 5/1
4.0 5/3
5.0 5/6
3.2 5/9
(That's 4 times in 9 days and more than avg 4 IP per outing!)

5.0 5/16
6.0 5/19
8.1 5/29
4.2 5/29
3.2 5/31
(This stretch is off the charts crazy! 5 times in 16 days and 27.2 IP- almost 6 IP per outing!)

He, then went fewer innings for most of the remainder of the season, but pitched 2.1 to 5 innings a lot.

9 times in June 25.2 IP (just under 3 IP per outing)
7 times in July 24.0 (about 3 and a half IP per outing)
11 times in AUG 35.0 (3.1 IP per outing)
8 times in SEP 27.2 (3.1+ IP per outing)

He ended the year pitching in 48 out of 162 games (29.6%), which is pretty close to once every 3 days on average. He averages 3.92 innings per outing, so he basically went about 4 IP every 3rd day!

[Bellhorn04]

Stanley averaged 3.7 K's per 9 for his career LOL

[mvp 78]

That's a pretty clear trend.

Ok? I'm just saying maybe we see a reversal as pitching usage has changed.

[mvp 78]

Stanley averaged 3.7 K's per 9 for his career LOL

And Eichhorn had 9.52 in 86 when he pitched 157 innings.

[moonslav59]

Maybe it is not trending to more RP'ers going more IP... maybe it is...

Most IP thrown by RP'er with 0 GS'd:

2019 or 2021
96 Gaviglo
92 Beeks
85 LeBlanc
84 Green
84 Huerra
83 3 guys
81-81 5 guys
80 4 guys
(17 over 79.2 IP)

2017-2018
119 Yarbrough
95 Chavez
87 Petit
87 Petit
85 Rusin
84 Castro
83 Lorenson
82 N Ramirez
81 Hader & Devinski
80 3 guys
(13 with over 79.2 IP)

'15-'16
89 Hand
85 E Ramirez
85 Betances & Devinski
82 Torres
80 4 guys
(only 9 guys)

'13-'14
90-96 4 guys
86-89 3 guys
79.2-85 4 guys
(11 total)

[Bellhorn04]

And Eichhorn had 9.52 in 86 when he pitched 157 innings.

And his innings and K/9 dropped precipitously the next two seasons.

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe it is not trending to more RP'ers going more IP... maybe it is...

Most IP thrown by RP'er with 0 GS'd:

2019 or 2021
96 Gaviglo
92 Beeks
85 LeBlanc
84 Green
84 Huerra
83 3 guys
81-81 5 guys
80 4 guys
(17 over 79.2 IP)

2017-2018
119 Yarbrough
95 Chavez
87 Petit
87 Petit
85 Rusin
84 Castro
83 Lorenson
82 N Ramirez
81 Hader & Devinski
80 3 guys
(13 with over 79.2 IP)

'15-'16
89 Hand
85 E Ramirez
85 Betances & Devinski
82 Torres
80 4 guys
(only 9 guys)

'13-'14
90-96 4 guys
86-89 3 guys
79.2-85 4 guys
(11 total)



Yarbrough wasn't a reliever. He generally came in after an "opener".

[moonslav59]

Yarbrough wasn't a reliever. He generally came in after an "opener".

Good point, so the trend seems even stronger towards more relief pitchers going 80+ IP over the past few years.

[Bellhorn04]

Gaviglio - after that big innings year in 2019 he has hardly pitched since.

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

Stanley did have a rubber arm, no doubt. I don't think he threw that hard, though.

Anyway, the modern trend is that guys throw a lot harder and throw less innings.

Goose Gossage just punched his laptop in the mouth.

[moonslav59]

Gaviglio - after that big innings year in 2019 he has hardly pitched since.

So, maybe arms do drop off.

You don't see too many repeat names, either.

[Bellhorn04]

Good point, so the trend seems even stronger towards more relief pitchers going 80+ IP over the past few years.

What's the leaderboard for 2021 look like?

[moonslav59]

Stanley averaged 3.7 K's per 9 for his career LOL

While Bob had a low career K/9 number, his K/9 numbers in those years where he pitched a lot, and the ones afterwards were his highest:

5.9 1986
5.0 1988
4.7 1985
4.4 1982 140 ERA+ led the league
4.4 1984
4.0 1983 153 ERA+ (2nd best in career)
7 other seasons between 1.8 and 3.9)

His arm seemed to get stronger!

[mvp 78]

What's the leaderboard for 2021 look like?

Already posted.

[moonslav59]

What's the leaderboard for 2021 look like?

They don't count Whitlock's 4 IP in his start, but had we used an opener, it would have, and he'd be tied for the most.

13.2 Thompson (4 gms)
13.1 Crowe 6
11.2 Akin 5
10.2 King 5
10.1 Peters 5
10.1 Banks 5
10.1 Ortega 7
10.1 Winder 3
9.2 Whitlock 4
11 guys with 9 to 9.2 IP (7 with 6 or less games)

[Bellhorn04]

They don't count Whitlock's 4 IP in his start, but had we used an opener, it would have, and he'd be tied for the most.

13.2 Thompson (4 gms)
13.1 Crowe 6
11.2 Akin 5
10.2 King 5
10.1 Peters 5
10.1 Banks 5
10.1 Ortega 7
10.1 Winder 3
9.2 Whitlock 4
11 guys with 9 to 9.2 IP (7 with 6 or less games)




I meant 2021, not 2022.

[moonslav59]

I meant 2021, not 2022.


84 Green 67 gms
81 Crismatt 45 (the only guy in the top 11 averaging close to 2 IP per outing)
81 Rogers 80
80 Gallegos 73
80 Stammen 79
78 Petit 78
77 Shaw 81

12th Whitlock 73.1 in 46 games

[Bellhorn04]

84 Green 67 gms
81 Crismatt 45 (the only guy in the top 11 averaging close to 2 IP per outing)
81 Rogers 80
80 Gallegos 73
80 Stammen 79
78 Petit 78
77 Shaw 81

12th Whitlock 73.1 in 46 games

Thanks.

[moonslav59]

Thanks.

Yusmeiro Petit seems to be the only guy repeating on these lists since moving from a starter to the pen after the 2014 season, but he's no where near Bob Stanley:

IP/ games
76-42
62-36
91-60
93-74
83-80
(2020 not counted 22-26 in 60 games)
78-78

[Kimmi]

Great point, but the risk is, what if we go 8 games in a row where we are ahead or behind by 5 runs?

True. It's kind of like the idea of leaving your best reliever on the bench for a save situation in the 9th inning that might never come.

[Kimmi]

I'd rather have Whitlock start a game and give them a chance rather then see him languish in the pen as the Sox fall behind early.

Yes, me too.

[notin]

That's a pretty clear trend.

Even if you include that bullpens have jumped from 5 pitchers in the 1980’s to 8 today?

[Bellhorn04]

Even if you include that bullpens have jumped from 5 pitchers in the 1980’s to 8 today?

I think that's kind of a package deal.

[notin]

I think that's kind of a package deal.

But it also drastically effects the max innings a reliever has to handle. As does the ridiculous specialization.

How many innings are teams getting from a bullpen over a season now? I’d guess 650-700 on average…

[Bellhorn04]

But it also drastically effects the max innings a reliever has to handle. As does the ridiculous specialization.

How many innings are teams getting from a bullpen over a season now? I’d guess 650-700 on average…

In 2021 relievers pitched 18,212 innings, so 607 per team. A little bit of skewing from the use of 'openers', I would assume.

I'm sure that will be noticeably higher this year.