2013 Pennant Chase

[User Name]

I wonder when we'll see a team that forgoes the starting pitcher and goes all bullpen. It's arguable that a team like the Rangers would be better off not using their fourth starter, and starting the game with their bullpen.

 

Never. Because this is a ridiculous idea.

[rjortiz]

Well the Sox also get Buchholz (or for the immature crowd, Buttholz) back in the Rays series, and have Lackey Lester Peavy and Doubront going against the Yankees. Then Buch Lackey Lester against the Rays, and Peavy Doubront Buch against the Yankees.

 

In that 10 game stretch, I expect the Sox to win 7

 

7/10 with seven on the road is bold. ESPN.com has Peavy, Doubront, Lackey, and Lester against the Yankees. I'm guessing a split on the road. Not sure what the Rays are going to look like next week. I'm guessing it's going to be Price, Cobb, and Archer, because they can skip Hernandez/Hellickson with Monday off. We'll probably pitch Buchholz, Peavy, and Doubront. I'll guess 1/3 on the road. Then we get the Yankees at home, which will probably look like Lackey, Lester, Buchholz vs. Kuroda, Sabathia, Pettitte. I think we at least win 2/3, if not all three.

 

My guess is 5/10. Even if the Rays were to win all three series (@Mariners, vs Red Sox, @Twins), they'd only pick up a game. Assuming they are 4.5 out by the time the Yankees series starts, that would leave them 3.5 out 14 to go. We could go 5-6 in our remaining 11, which would force them to go 10-4. Also, working against them is no days off after the 9th, which is going to force them to use a five man rotation.

[Dojji]

Never. Because this is a ridiculous idea.

 

Didn't Chuck Finley try this once with the A's? He'd try everything. The flaw in the idea is that you can't pretend you can predict how far into a game a reliever can go and having multiple pitchers committed to be available for tomorrow destroys your flexibility in the long run.

[rjortiz]

Never. Because this is a ridiculous idea.

 

Would you like to elaborate? I should also qualify that I mean in an elimination game.

 

Also, I shouldn't say all bullpen. A starter would obviously be needed toward the end of the game.

Edited September 2, 2013 by rjortiz

[rjortiz]

Didn't Chuck Finley try this once with the A's? He'd try everything. The flaw in the idea is that you can't pretend you can predict how far into a game a reliever can go.

 

Looking at the Rangers, they could go Nathan, Cotts, Ross, Frasor, Soria, and Feliz for the first six or seven.

[User Name]

Would you like to elaborate? I should also qualify that I mean in an elimination game.

 

Also, I shouldn't say all bullpen. A starter would obviously be needed toward the end of the game.

 

Even in an elimination game, a starter on short rest is better than a relief pitcher who's likely to be overworked as well for multiple innings. There's just no logical way to defend such a move.

[User Name]

Looking at the Rangers, they could go Nathan, Cotts, Ross, Frasor, Soria, and Feliz for the first six or seven.

 

And it would still make no sense.

[Bellhorn04]

Would you like to elaborate? I should also qualify that I mean in an elimination game.

 

Also, I shouldn't say all bullpen. A starter would obviously be needed toward the end of the game.

 

Well, I've never seen a relief pitcher parade like the 2011 World Series. I just looked it up and the 2 times combined had 58 pitcher changes in 7 games. So each team was averaging 5 pitchers a game. That was modern baseball at its best/worst.

[sk7326]

A pure bullpen sort of idea COULD make sense ... for the wild card game, but almost certainly doesn't for the reasons mentioned (your relief pitchers are almost always inferior, otherwise they'd start). And that is only because you get to re-rack your pitching staff if you get to advance. Frankly, for me - it'd make much more sense in that instance to only carry 8 pitchers and load up on specialists (Berry, McDonald) who'd be nice to have for a very specific situation.

[Palodios]

And it would still make no sense.

 

Remember the 2011 season where everyone was asking... Who the hell do they get to pitch the 3rd game in the playoffs? With a back-end rotation filled with guys like Weiland and Bedard, the best option was to pitch Buchholz for 3 innings, and then see what happens. It would only make sense for a team with a top-heavy rotation and zero depth.

[User Name]

Remember the 2011 season where everyone was asking... Who the hell do they get to pitch the 3rd game in the playoffs? With a back-end rotation filled with guys like Weiland and Bedard, the best option was to pitch Buchholz for 3 innings, and then see what happens. It would only make sense for a team with a top-heavy rotation and zero depth.

 

Buchholz was a starter. So you would have still had a starter to, you know, begin the game.

 

If you read rjortiz' initial post (i'm guessing you didn't) his suggestion is to ditch the starter altogether and to just pitch the entire bullpen.

[Palodios]

Buchholz was a starter. So you would have still had a starter to, you know, begin the game.

 

If you read rjortiz' initial post (i'm guessing you didn't) his suggestion is to ditch the starter altogether and to just pitch the entire bullpen.

 

I skimmed it. It isn't exactly what he is referring to, but it is a similar scenario.

[mvp 78]

The fifth guy in the pen usually has worse stuff than an average starter. That's the big flaw here.

[User Name]

I skimmed it. It isn't exactly what he is referring to, but it is a similar scenario.

 

How similar is it? A starter, even on short rest, is still a starter. In that scenario you could conceivably have Buch give you five decent innings instead of having to rely on your entire bullpen from the beginning of a game.

[rjortiz]

Even in an elimination game, a starter on short rest is better than a relief pitcher who's likely to be overworked as well for multiple innings. There's just no logical way to defend such a move.

 

At most, a reliever would go two innings.

 

The logic is that you use your best pitchers to win a game. Why use an inferior pitcher and then ask him to give you five innings? Relievers tend to perform better than starters, and a team with an elite bullpen would guarantee that their best pitchers are being used. You say that "a starter on short rest is better than a relief pitcher......" What starter are you talking about? By that statement, one could assume that you mean that Nick Tepesch, starting the game, would prevent more runs than the Rangers bullpen. He is 12th in FIP among Rangers pitchers, which is behind seven Rangers relievers, eight if you count Feliz. If you look at that scenario, it looks logical enough to defend the reliever first strategy.

 

Two examples that come to mind are the Braves and the Rangers. In a one-game playoff they would most likely use Minor and Darvish respectively. I wouldn't have the balls to pull this off, but four Rangers relievers have better FIP numbers than Darvish. Frasor is .10 behind, and Feliz has been an elite arm when used out of the bullpen. Looking at the numbers, the Rangers bullpen have been better than Darvish when it comes to run prevention. You could start with your relievers, and if you are blowing out the opposing team, you could save Darvish for the ALDS to start two games, increasing your chances of winning that series. If the game is in the balance, you could still use Darvish for multiple innings. As mentioned before, I wouldn't have the balls to pull off that strategy, but there is some rationale behind it.

 

Looking at the Braves, they have five pitchers who are better in FIP than Minor, and two that are within .02. They're going to win the NL East, so the point is moot, but deploying an elite bullpen first allows your most effective pitchers to impact the game, potentially allows you to save your ace for five game series without an impact on run prevention, and for NL teams maximizes offensive output, because the pitcher wouldn't take an AB.

 

This strategy has been almost effectively used by some teams in elimination games. Starters are often quickly hooked in these situations, and then it's all hands on deck until the end. The 2011 ALDS between the Yankees and Tigers comes to mind. Nova lasted two innings, and then was yanked. The only difference between the two strategies is why wait to fall behind to use your better pitchers?

 

Again, I think this option should only be used by teams that have an elite bullpen that are faced with using an inferior starter. It certainly looks debatable that an elite bullpen would be as good at run prevention compared to some #1 starters, but no manager would ever think of using that strategy. Also, this option would only exist in elimination games. Using it too often would be a good way to disintegrate a bullpen.

[rjortiz]

Would you like to elaborate? I should also qualify that I mean in an elimination game.

 

Also, I shouldn't say all bullpen. A starter would obviously be needed toward the end of the game.

 

Buchholz was a starter. So you would have still had a starter to, you know, begin the game.

 

If you read rjortiz' initial post (i'm guessing you didn't) his suggestion is to ditch the starter altogether and to just pitch the entire bullpen.

 

That wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was to start the game with the bullpen.

[User Name]

Except that you'd be:

 

A) Taking a reliever out of his comfort zone.

 

Your whole premise is wrong, because after probably the first two guys in the 'pen, all of the other relievers are essentially guaranteed to have worse stuff than your worst starter even in an elite bullpen.

 

c) In an elimination game, with all hands on deck, you can pitch your starters who have the most rest, and are obviously better than the mid-bottom rung relievers of your roster.

 

D) You essentially force your specialists into one-inning situations.

 

E) It's just a terrible idea, because what happens if by miracle you don't get shitstomped and the game goes to extras, and then you have to warm up a .starter on short notice instead of piggybacking starters, which is the logical choice?

 

Straws are not good to grab on to.

[User Name]

That wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was to start the game with the bullpen.

 

Trying to pitch a starter out of the bullpen afterwards makes it an even more terrible idea.

[rjortiz]

The fifth guy in the pen usually has worse stuff than an average starter. That's the big flaw here.

 

The key word is "usually." In an elite bullpen it isn't uncommon to see every single reliever pitch better than an average starter. The 2012 Orioles immediately come to mind, as do this years Braves.

[User Name]

You can't just extrapolate a reliever's one-inning stint performance to a starter's. That's ludicrous.

[sk7326]

The key word is "usually." In an elite bullpen it isn't uncommon to see every single reliever pitch better than an average starter. The 2012 Orioles immediately come to mind, as do this years Braves.

 

Neither of them do - their stuff plays up in short bursts ... like a starter would ... none of those dudes could turn a lineup over more than once. For the most part relievers are failed starters - born and bred relievers (hello, Craig Hansen) are even more limited than that.

 

The all bullpen approach also is very very high risk - if one reliever spits the bit, then you are starting to burn through pitchers very quickly, and do you carry 12 relievers for the occasion, some of those guys with horrid platoon splits? You probably want a starter for at least a little while.

[Palodios]

How similar is it? A starter, even on short rest, is still a starter. In that scenario you could conceivably have Buch give you five decent innings instead of having to rely on your entire bullpen from the beginning of a game.

 

If you want to be technical, then the scenario is simply impossible, even if the "starter" gets 0 outs because the pitcher who starts the game is the starters. If Buch was on a 40 pitch limit or something in that range, he'd simply be a long reliever being used for a few early innings in the game.

 

Another scenario from a few years ago.... Dice-k was scratched minutes before his start, and Atchison (who wasn't stretched out as a long man at the time) ended up starting the game, and the bullpen pitched the entire game. Not a playoff game obviously, but the Red Sox have done it before.

[User Name]

If you want to be technical, then the scenario is simply impossible, even if the "starter" gets 0 outs because the pitcher who starts the game is the starters. If Buch was on a 40 pitch limit or something in that range, he'd simply be a long reliever being used for a few early innings in the game.

 

Another scenario from a few years ago.... Dice-k was scratched minutes before his start, and Atchison (who wasn't stretched out as a long man at the time) ended up starting the game, and the bullpen pitched the entire game. Not a playoff game obviously, but the Red Sox have done it before.

 

You just can't compare a regular season game to a playoff elimination game. They wouldn't begin the game with a starter on a 40-pitch limit. Why should they?

[rjortiz]

Except that you'd be:

 

A) Taking a reliever out of his comfort zone.

 

The only difference would be the inning they enter the game. There isn't any evidence to suggest that relievers are either successful or terrible in the proposed situation. Are relievers significantly worse when they pitch earlier in the game?

 

Your whole premise is wrong, because after probably the first two guys in the 'pen, all of the other relievers are essentially guaranteed to have worse stuff than your worst starter even in an elite bullpen.

 

Look at the Braves bullpen this year. Is it "essentially guaranteed" that Paul Maholm has better stuff than those pitchers in the bullpen?

 

c) In an elimination game, with all hands on deck, you can pitch your starters who have the most rest, and are obviously better than the mid-bottom rung relievers of your roster.

 

In some cases that starter is your 3rd or 4th best. Looking at some bullpens, every single one of their relievers has outperformed the bottom of the rotation. Again, not "obviously" better.

 

D) You essentially force your specialists into one-inning situations.

 

Starting the game with a bullpen would likely negate the other team's ability to stack a lineup. The Braves could have Kimbrel pitch two innings, and then use the other six pitchers to get 9-12 outs. That would reduce the probability of specialists being forced to pitch full innings.

 

E) It's just a terrible idea, because what happens if by miracle you don't get shitstomped and the game goes to extras, and then you have to warm up a .starter on short notice instead of piggybacking starters, which is the logical choice?

 

The Braves bullpen has a 2.34 ERA. Does having them pitch the first parts of the game dramatically increase those numbers to where you're getting crushed? What evidence are you basing this on?

 

I think it's preferable to go to extras having deployed your best pitchers, as opposed to losing the game without using them.

 

Straws are not good to grab on to.

 

Thinking in logical absolutes is not a good idea either.

Edited September 2, 2013 by rjortiz

[rjortiz]

You can't just extrapolate a reliever's one-inning stint performance to a starter's. That's ludicrous.

 

No one is doing that.

[rjortiz]

Neither of them do - their stuff plays up in short bursts ... like a starter would ... none of those dudes could turn a lineup over more than once. For the most part relievers are failed starters - born and bred relievers (hello, Craig Hansen) are even more limited than that.

 

Relievers are going to be going with max effort. A starter will not. The argument is whether starting the game with the bullpen is better than starting the game with a non-elite starting pitcher. No one is asking a reliever to turn over a lineup. I think we should be assuming that starters and relievers would pitch how they normally do.

 

The all bullpen approach also is very very high risk - if one reliever spits the bit, then you are starting to burn through pitchers very quickly, and do you carry 12 relievers for the occasion, some of those guys with horrid platoon splits? You probably want a starter for at least a little while.

 

The roster resets after the one game playoff. You could leave off starters that weren't going to pitch for you, or you could use them in relief roles. Either way, you are likely going to carry 12-13 pitchers for the one game. Running out of pitchers appears to be a remote possibility. Also, if it starts to be a problem, then you are either in the 18th inning, or you are getting blown out.

[User Name]

The only difference would be the inning they enter the game. There isn't any evidence to suggest that relievers are either successful or terrible in the proposed situation. Are relievers significantly worse when they pitch earlier in the game?

 

You have enough anecdotal evidence about pitchers being "creatures of habit" (and that being why they have set roles) to think that it's more likely that's true than the other side of the coin. And why find out in an elimination game? That makes zero sense.

 

 

Look at the Braves bullpen this year. Is it "essentially guaranteed" that Paul Maholm has better stuff than those pitchers in the bullpen?

 

Paul Maholm wouldn't be starting an elimination game. Don't insult people's intelligence.

 

In some cases that starter is your 3rd or 4th best. Looking at some bullpens, every single one of their relievers has outperformed the bottom of the rotation. Again, not "obviously" better.

 

On short bursts in usually favorable situations. Apples to oranges, and "obviously" better. That's why they're starting games instead of relieving. Most of those "great" relievers are nothing more than failed starters.

 

Starting the game with a bullpen would likely negate the other team's ability to stack a lineup. The Braves could have Kimbrel pitch two innings, and then use the other six pitchers to get 9-12 outs. That would reduce the probability of specialists being forced to pitch full innings.

 

In the best case scenario. Because they're all going to get quick outs and pitch clean innings right? That's not how baseball works.

 

 

 

The Braves bullpen has a 2.34 ERA. Does having them pitch the first parts of the game dramatically increase those numbers to where you're getting crushed? What evidence are you basing this on?

 

What evidence are YOU basing the idea that they'd be able to hold on for basically an entire game, out of their regular usage pattern, in a playoff elimination game? None. You know why? No one has tried it because it's an idea that beats logic in the face with a baseball bat.

 

I think it's preferable to go to extras having deployed your best pitchers, as opposed to losing the game without using them.

 

Yeah, that's why you START your best available STARTER, who is your best available pitcher to START a game, instead of a relief pitcher.

 

Thinking in logical absolutes is not a good idea either.

 

It's better than batshit insanity.

[User Name]

No one is doing that.

 

Except that that's exactly what you're doing.

[sk7326]

Relievers are going to be going with max effort. A starter will not. The argument is whether starting the game with the bullpen is better than starting the game with a non-elite starting pitcher. No one is asking a reliever to turn over a lineup. I think we should be assuming that starters and relievers would pitch how they normally do.

 

 

 

The roster resets after the one game playoff. You could leave off starters that weren't going to pitch for you, or you could use them in relief roles. Either way, you are likely going to carry 12-13 pitchers for the one game. Running out of pitchers appears to be a remote possibility. Also, if it starts to be a problem, then you are either in the 18th inning, or you are getting blown out.

 

The choice is between 12 or 13 pitchers - which includes mop up guys and matchup guys. You mentioned Baltimore's great bullpen - part of it was a guy like O'Day who absolutely cannot face left handers. So many relievers have horrible platoon splits (by design) and that is hard to design around. Also - in a 1-game playoff more position players seems like (especially in the NL) a much much more useful roster decision. Pinch runners, platoon hitters, pure defenders. Starting immediately with the bullpen almost ensures the team cannot handle a long game - look what happens every all star game.

[rjortiz]

You have enough anecdotal evidence about pitchers being "creatures of habit" (and that being why they have set roles) to think that it's more likely that's true than the other side of the coin. And why find out in an elimination game? That makes zero sense.

 

Sounds more like superstition than any qualitative analysis.

 

 

Paul Maholm wouldn't be starting an elimination game. Don't insult people's intelligence.

 

Ivan Nova started one for the Yankees. Joe Saunders pitched the one game playoff for the Orioles. Average/below average pitchers have been forced to make crucial starts before. It can certainly happen again. Also, we are going off your words:

 

Your whole premise is wrong, because after probably the first two guys in the 'pen, all of the other relievers are essentially guaranteed to have worse stuff than your worst starter even in an elite bullpen.

 

I think you meant to say my conclusion was wrong. I have multiple premises. Anyway, here you point out that other than the first two relievers, the others are essentially guaranteed to have worse stuff than your worst starter. Paul Maholm isn't the Braves worst starter, but I think my point has been made.

 

 

On short bursts in usually favorable situations. Apples to oranges, and "obviously" better. That's why they're starting games instead of relieving. Most of those "great" relievers are nothing more than failed starters.

 

I thought it was assumed that the bullpen is going to be deployed as it usually is. The only exception are the innings. That's the whole point of the argument.

 

 

 

In the best case scenario. Because they're all going to get quick outs and pitch clean innings right? That's not how baseball works.

 

Is there a point to bringing this up? This is pretty obvious. This could happen no matter what strategy was being used.

 

 

 

What evidence are YOU basing the idea that they'd be able to hold on for basically an entire game, out of their regular usage pattern, in a playoff elimination game? None. You know why?

 

The only change would be the inning they are being used.

 

It's better than batshit insanity.

 

Why are you so abrasive? We are simply having a discussion on a game. Instead you just make assertions, and either dismiss contrary points out of hand, or get angry if someone disagrees with you. I think I've lost count how often you dismiss another person's point of view as having "no logical explanation." Are you an expert logician?

 

I'm not advocating that you use outfielders instead of starters. I'm simply stating that you should give the most innings to your more effective pitchers. If your more effective pitchers are in the bullpen, then you should you use them in lieu of an inferior starter. That isn't "batshit insanity."