2013 Pennant Chase

[rjortiz]

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.

 

O'Day isn't the best example, because lefties had a .657 OPS against him in 2012, but I see your point.

 

The blueprint would be to ask your relief ace to get you six outs. Hopefully, you have a couple other relievers that can pitch to both sides of the plate. They get you six more. You could probably mix and match the rest of the way.

 

If it all goes horrible wrong, then you're going to have to use a long reliever/starter to get you to the finish. Although, I don't see how that's much different than using relievers for ineffective starters.

[rjortiz]

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

 

Can you show me where I extrapolated a relievers performance? I'm assuming that multiple relievers will have to pitch to reach five or six innings. That's why I am saying they should use the entire bullpen. If I was extrapolating a reliever's performance, then I would be arguing that the Braves should just start Craig Kimbrel.

[User Name]

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.

 

Right here you are trying to make a comparison (incorrect one by the way) between the work of "every single relief pitcher" to "an average starter". That is an apple to oranges comparison.

 

You can't take 40-50 IP of "being brought in to a situation where i can succeed" to around 160 IP of starter workload.

[User Name]

And since we're in 2013 and no one has tried to open a playoff game (let alone an elimination one) with their closer of all pitchers, it's safe to say that there's something inherently wrong with your assumptions rjortiz.

 

A short-rested #2, #3 starter is a better bet to give you a decent performance than a juggling act with your entire bullpen.

 

Where's the logic in starting your bullpen arms out of their allotted roles and then your starter out of the BP (where some guys just can't get loose that quickly or easily) instead of in their regular roles?

 

This just seems like you're trying very hard to push an out-of-left-field idea with very little substance behind it.

[rjortiz]

Right here you are trying to make a comparison (incorrect one by the way) between the work of "every single relief pitcher" to "an average starter". That is an apple to oranges comparison.

 

You can't take 40-50 IP of "being brought in to a situation where i can succeed" to around 160 IP of starter workload.

 

Looking at the 2012 Orioles, they had 8 relievers with lower FIP numbers than Saunders. The Braves bullpen this year has 7 relievers with lower FIP numbers than Kris Medlen. Looking at those bullpens, you can safely say that every single one of their relievers had/have been more effective than an average starter.

 

The comparison can be made, because no one would ask a reliever to pitch in situations similar to a starter, nor would you ask the same from a starter. Relievers would still be brought in to situations where they can succeed. Remember what's being debated. Would a team be better off starting an elite bullpen over an average starter in an elimination game? This would have to assume that relievers are going to operate as they usually do, and a starter is going to operate as he usually does. The only exception would be the inning the relievers enter the game, and possibly the relief ace getting you 1-3 more outs.

 

I think there's some validity to the argument that relievers pitching out of their comfort zones might pitch worse, but I think with a little advanced preparation and the manager defining roles before the game, that would mitigate those concerns.

[rjortiz]

And since we're in 2013 and no one has tried to open a playoff game (let alone an elimination one) with their closer of all pitchers, it's safe to say that there's something inherently wrong with your assumptions rjortiz.

 

Because something hasn't been tried, doesn't make it wrong. I don't think it's drastically different than the all hands on deck strategy. The only difference is that you don't wait to fall behind before you use better options. I also think that any manager that tried this approach and it failed, would probably be fired immediately.

 

A short-rested #2, #3 starter is a better bet to give you a decent performance than a juggling act with your entire bullpen.

 

Not entire sure about that. For every Josh Beckett against the Yankees, there's a Tom Glavine performance.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2935

 

Three days rest looks like a total crapshoot.

 

Where's the logic in starting your bullpen arms out of their allotted roles and then your starter out of the BP (where some guys just can't get loose that quickly or easily) instead of in their regular roles?

 

This just seems like you're trying very hard to push an out-of-left-field idea with very little substance behind it.

 

I'm not convinced that going with an average starter is a better option than going with an elite bullpen. The quick hook/use relief aces for longer stints is common in the postseason. I just don't think you should wait to fall behind before you start implementing that strategy.

 

I understand your reluctance to move pitchers out of their roles. Unless some team tries this approach, this argument is purely theoretical.

[Bellhorn04]

Oddly enough the Rays used all relievers in last night's game.

[sk7326]

O'Day isn't the best example, because lefties had a .657 OPS against him in 2012, but I see your point.

 

The blueprint would be to ask your relief ace to get you six outs. Hopefully, you have a couple other relievers that can pitch to both sides of the plate. They get you six more. You could probably mix and match the rest of the way.

 

If it all goes horrible wrong, then you're going to have to use a long reliever/starter to get you to the finish. Although, I don't see how that's much different than using relievers for ineffective starters.

 

What I get for not looking up O'Day's numbers and judging by a righty submariner. At the same time, you look at most bullpens, and a good chunk of the pitchers are there for specific matchups ... putting matchup guys in matchup neutral situations cuts into the FIP numbers cited. I don't mind the out of the box idea. But even if you are stuck with a mid rotation guy for a winner take all game, all hands are on deck anyway - and there is a solid chance the guy can get 4 innings or so out anyway. You look at all of these big games lately - generally the starting pitching has (even with lesser guys) been OK. I saw the Boston Red Sox win a do or die game with John Burkett in Yankee stadium.

[jung]

If the "discussion" is whether a Manager would ever start the game with a bullpen arm and continue with them throughout the course of the game as opposed to just starting the game with a starter on normal rest or even short rest I think it an impractical discussion.

 

A Manager is going to start his game with a Starter. He may make a judgement about whether to start his best on short rest or less than his best on regular rest but he is starting the game with a Starter. There is no guarantee what so ever that a top reliever is going to go out there and not lay an egg and all things being equal, the reliever going out to start the game has already been pitching in games and is not fully rested. In addition, in the biggest game your team is going to play all year, you are asking the relief pitcher to go out there and start. Do you actually think relief pitchers are born to be relief pitchers? Every pitcher ever born wants to start. The reason he is not starting is because he is not good enough. So now you expect a Manager to anoint one of those guys to start the biggest game of the year???? How is this hypothetical relief pitcher supposed to prepare for said start? How is he to control his emotions working up to the start? Never happened...never going to happen.

 

Nothing stops the Manager from having a very fast trigger finger on his hook if his starter does not perform. Who he brings in under those circumstances might be an interesting discussion. Does he use up what might be his only real fireman trying to get out of the early jam? Does he trust that somebody else can get him out of the jam saving his fireman for later? If I had to guess I would say the latter and not the former.

 

The original discussion if I understand it correctly is just a discussion with no basis because one of the alternatives offered is not an alternative at all. A Manager is never going to start one of these games with a relief pitcher if he has a rested starter available to him.

[sk7326]

If the "discussion" is whether a Manager would ever start the game with a bullpen arm and continue with them throughout the course of the game as opposed to just starting the game with a starter on normal rest or even short rest I think it an impractical discussion.

 

A Manager is going to start his game with a Starter. He may make a judgement about whether to start his best on short rest or less than his best on regular rest but he is starting the game with a Starter. There is no guarantee what so ever that a top reliever is going to go out there and not lay an egg and all things being equal, the reliever going out to start the game has already been pitching in games and is not fully rested. In addition, in the biggest game your team is going to play all year, you are asking the relief pitcher to go out there and start. Do you actually think relief pitchers are born to be relief pitchers? Every pitcher ever born wants to start. The reason he is not starting is because he is not good enough. So now you expect a Manager to anoint one of those guys to start the biggest game of the year???? How is this hypothetical relief pitcher supposed to prepare for said start? How is he to control his emotions working up to the start? Never happened...never going to happen.

 

Nothing stops the Manager from having a very fast trigger finger on his hook if his starter does not perform. Who he brings in under those circumstances might be an interesting discussion. Does he use up what might be his only real fireman trying to get out of the early jam? Does he trust that somebody else can get him out of the jam saving his fireman for later? If I had to guess I would say the latter and not the former.

 

The original discussion if I understand it correctly is just a discussion with no basis because one of the alternatives offered is not an alternative at all. A Manager is never going to start one of these games with a relief pitcher if he has a rested starter available to him.

 

Pretty much. And in a single elimination the quick hook is already there. After all, Tito put Foulke in in the 7th of some of those big Yankees starts and in that Game 7 I remember Torre going to Rivera very early. You don't have time to mess around - as it should be. In the situation you outlined, I'd think you want to get the out with your best guy and then (depending on workload) ride him out or go to a swing starter.

[rjortiz]

If the "discussion" is whether a Manager would ever start the game with a bullpen arm and continue with them throughout the course of the game as opposed to just starting the game with a starter on normal rest or even short rest I think it an impractical discussion.

 

A Manager is going to start his game with a Starter. He may make a judgement about whether to start his best on short rest or less than his best on regular rest but he is starting the game with a Starter. There is no guarantee what so ever that a top reliever is going to go out there and not lay an egg and all things being equal, the reliever going out to start the game has already been pitching in games and is not fully rested. In addition, in the biggest game your team is going to play all year, you are asking the relief pitcher to go out there and start. Do you actually think relief pitchers are born to be relief pitchers? Every pitcher ever born wants to start. The reason he is not starting is because he is not good enough. So now you expect a Manager to anoint one of those guys to start the biggest game of the year???? How is this hypothetical relief pitcher supposed to prepare for said start? How is he to control his emotions working up to the start? Never happened...never going to happen.

 

Nothing stops the Manager from having a very fast trigger finger on his hook if his starter does not perform. Who he brings in under those circumstances might be an interesting discussion. Does he use up what might be his only real fireman trying to get out of the early jam? Does he trust that somebody else can get him out of the jam saving his fireman for later? If I had to guess I would say the latter and not the former.

 

The original discussion if I understand it correctly is just a discussion with no basis because one of the alternatives offered is not an alternative at all. A Manager is never going to start one of these games with a relief pitcher if he has a rested starter available to him.

 

We weren't discussing if a manager would implement the strategy, we were discussing if the strategy would work better than using an average starter. There's already consensus about whether a manager would actually use it.

 

I notice you base your arguments on feelings and emotions. Why should we assume that a relief ace would implode because he started the game? They already pitch in much higher leveraged innings. Why wouldn't they be able to handle throwing two innings at the start of the game?

[sk7326]

We weren't discussing if a manager would implement the strategy, we were discussing if the strategy would work better than using an average starter. There's already consensus about whether a manager would actually use it.

 

I notice you base your arguments on feelings and emotions. Why should we assume that a relief ace would implode because he started the game? They already pitch in much higher leveraged innings. Why wouldn't they be able to handle throwing two innings at the start of the game?

 

OK, this is interesting ... how about we clarify the argument.

 

Let's say a normal team carries between 10 and 12 pitchers ... 5 of them are starters ... so that gets you down to 5-7 relievers. Are we focusing on the latter 5-7 pitchers? That would be 5-7 pitchers for 9 innings or more of work which is well beyond what most of them are stretched for. So that means going to 10 relievers? That's adding 3 of the De La Rosa-Villerael-Alex Wilson-De La Torre pu pu platter?

 

Now if we are talking about a normal staff with all-star sort of rules - that is a little better, but we know one of the starters has to be held for Game 1 ... and probably would be too tired to pitch anyway (one expects the wild card teams will be too busy chasing to set their rotation). So 4 starters and 7 relievers. There is enough coverage here for a game, but the question of wasting resources and exposing inferior pitchers still lies. I don't think Koji would implode starting and getting 6 outs ... it's the 3-6 outs that Craig Breslow or Matt Thornton have to get that become dicey.

 

Would I be - in a 1-game elimination - willing to pitch Koji in the 4th if the situation dictates? No doubt - but that is another issue.

[rjortiz]

OK, this is interesting ... how about we clarify the argument.

 

Let's say a normal team carries between 10 and 12 pitchers ... 5 of them are starters ... so that gets you down to 5-7 relievers. Are we focusing on the latter 5-7 pitchers? That would be 5-7 pitchers for 9 innings or more of work which is well beyond what most of them are stretched for. So that means going to 10 relievers? That's adding 3 of the De La Rosa-Villerael-Alex Wilson-De La Torre pu pu platter?

 

Now if we are talking about a normal staff with all-star sort of rules - that is a little better, but we know one of the starters has to be held for Game 1 ... and probably would be too tired to pitch anyway (one expects the wild card teams will be too busy chasing to set their rotation). So 4 starters and 7 relievers. There is enough coverage here for a game, but the question of wasting resources and exposing inferior pitchers still lies. I don't think Koji would implode starting and getting 6 outs ... it's the 3-6 outs that Craig Breslow or Matt Thornton have to get that become dicey.

 

Would I be - in a 1-game elimination - willing to pitch Koji in the 4th if the situation dictates? No doubt - but that is another issue.

 

I wouldn't use this strategy if I were the Red Sox. The rotation is better than the bullpen.

[Bellhorn04]

I wouldn't use this strategy if I were the Red Sox. The rotation is better than the bullpen.

 

In most cases, no matter how good your bullpen, in a single game you can't expect to cover more than 5 innings with top quality relievers. That's the basic problem this idea runs into.

[sk7326]

I wouldn't use this strategy if I were the Red Sox. The rotation is better than the bullpen.

 

I don't know many (if any) teams where the bullpen contains better pitchers than the rotation. The bullpen can have better results than the rotation based on how a manger deploys them and not having their (lack of) third pitch exposed. But making a 1-for-1 swap of pitchers, aside from the odd Craig Kimbrel or Aroldys Chapman, I am not sure there are any short guys who actually ARE better than a comparable starter. After all, I remember Tom Gordon one year being a very average starter for Boston and then turning into a knockout reliever - same guy, just meant he could throw harder and his third pitch did not matter.

 

The bullpen-primary plan I think also gives teams (even Baltimore 2012 - and a lot of those guys are still the same) too much credit for having enough MLB playoff-roster level arms to actually do this in a way that does not have fans trembling in fear.

 

BTW: This does not mean that "starter -> quick hook and throw pitchers at the rest of the game" is not a valid way to do things - heck, that's what all these teams will do, regardless of how good the starter is"

Edited September 3, 2013 by sk7326

[a700hitter]

Skanks are only 3 games back in the loss column for a Wild Card slot.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Skanks are only 3 games back in the loss column for a Wild Card slot.

 

Please, please, PLEASE let the Yankees win the WC.

 

I would LOVE for the Yankees to win the WC over the Rays. Then, on the off chance that Kuroda beats Darvish, then you've got CC and Pettitte going in the first 2 games of the ALDS.

 

Give me that matchup over the Rays Moore and Cobb 100 times out of 100.

[mvp 78]

Please, please, PLEASE let the Yankees win the WC.

 

I would LOVE for the Yankees to win the WC over the Rays. Then, on the off chance that Kuroda beats Darvish, then you've got CC and Pettitte going in the first 2 games of the ALDS.

 

Give me that matchup over the Rays Moore and Cobb 100 times out of 100.

 

Yup, I'd be much more scared of a Rays, O's, Guardians, Royals or A's/Rangers matchup at this point.

[rjortiz]

I don't know many (if any) teams where the bullpen contains better pitchers than the rotation. The bullpen can have better results than the rotation based on how a manger deploys them and not having their (lack of) third pitch exposed. But making a 1-for-1 swap of pitchers, aside from the odd Craig Kimbrel or Aroldys Chapman, I am not sure there are any short guys who actually ARE better than a comparable starter. After all, I remember Tom Gordon one year being a very average starter for Boston and then turning into a knockout reliever - same guy, just meant he could throw harder and his third pitch did not matter.

 

The bullpen-primary plan I think also gives teams (even Baltimore 2012 - and a lot of those guys are still the same) too much credit for having enough MLB playoff-roster level arms to actually do this in a way that does not have fans trembling in fear.

 

BTW: This does not mean that "starter -> quick hook and throw pitchers at the rest of the game" is not a valid way to do things - heck, that's what all these teams will do, regardless of how good the starter is"

 

 

Just to make sure we're on the same page, you know that I'm not claiming that it would be a 1-for-1 swap? At most, Kimbrel/relief ace would go 2 innings.

[rjortiz]

Looking closer at the 2012 Orioles, these are the FIP numbers of ten of their relievers: 1.89, 2.32, 2.79, 2.96, 3.25, 3.26, 3.45, 3.48, 3.59, 3.67. These are the ERA numbers: 1.10, 1.35, 2.28, 2.31, 2.43, 2.44, 2.49, 2.64, 2.79, 3.71. They went with Saunders who had a nearly identical FIP/ERA at 4.07 and 4.08. They did wind up winning, but I think this shows when the bullpen first strategy could be deployed.

[rjortiz]

Yup, I'd be much more scared of a Rays, O's, Guardians, Royals or A's/Rangers matchup at this point.

 

The Yankees aren't the same team they were earlier in the year. Rodriguez, Jeter, Soriano, and Granderson are upgrades over what they had a couple months ago. Those four probably bring them from truly awful to below average. I don't agree with the opinion, but apparently you only need three good relievers and three starters. They have the relievers, and Kuroda, Nova, and Pettitte isn't an awful front three. I think they are a slighly above average team. They probably need too much help to win the WC, but I would definitely prefer to face the Royals. Shields is good, but they might score three runs at most jn a five game series.

[sk7326]

The Orioles bullpen did very well last season - and a lot less well this season with a lot of the same characters. I am not going to pooh pooh relief ERA, but there is a lot of small sample size at work there. (as there is in relief ERA generally)

 

Since we are diving into the xFIP numbers for the 2012 Orioles. At least among their middle relief guys:

 

Troy Patton had a large xFIP platoon split (2.96/3.90)

Luis Ayala did too (3.62/4.45)

O'Day's are not small either (3.19/4.09) - although his career BABIPs are such that it seems like he has enough of a skill that xFIP undervalues him

Strop was a reverse one with righties 3.88 vs 2.92

 

They were excellent last season - but there was a good amount of luck involved (the xFIP gap vs the ERAs). The relievers often had significant splits too - which makes it hard for Showalter to deploy them in the sort of specific way that good managers can use relievers late in games. Assuming you carry 10-12 relievers (sort of the minimum here - considering their top bullpen guys all were in the ballpark of 1 inning per outing or less - that is not a lot of room to operate if something goes wrong, without some of the factors relievers have working in their favor.

[User Name]

Looking closer at the 2012 Orioles, these are the FIP numbers of ten of their relievers: 1.89, 2.32, 2.79, 2.96, 3.25, 3.26, 3.45, 3.48, 3.59, 3.67. These are the ERA numbers: 1.10, 1.35, 2.28, 2.31, 2.43, 2.44, 2.49, 2.64, 2.79, 3.71. They went with Saunders who had a nearly identical FIP/ERA at 4.07 and 4.08. They did wind up winning, but I think this shows when the bullpen first strategy could be deployed.

 

No it doesn't, because it still presents the fundamental flaw of overextending relievers, bringing them into unfamiliar situations, and the fact that a group of relievers will never be a better bet to start a game than a league-average starter.

[rjortiz]

No it doesn't, because it still presents the fundamental flaw of overextending relievers, bringing them into unfamiliar situations, and the fact that a group of relievers will never be a better bet to start a game than a league-average starter.

 

Those are all valid objections, but arguing in absolutes, when the strategy has never been implemented is a little rash.

 

At some point, this argument started to go in a circle. I think all that needs to be said has been said. The idea isn't mine, it has some traction in the sabermetric community. Maybe some statistically inclined organization will try it one day When that happens, then we can draw conclusions about its usefulness. Right now, it looks like the same arguments are being rehashed, but in slightly different ways.

[Orange Juiced]

Another day, no change in the AL East race. That's a good thing.

[SoxFanForsyth]

At this point, the Rays have their backs pretty well against the wall.

 

The Red Sox have 22 games left, the Rays 25. And the Rays have to lose 4 fewer than the Red Sox to force a 1 game playoff for the division.

 

In essence, if the Red Sox go 11-11 in their final 22, the Rays would have to go 18-7 (.720 baseball) to tie the Red Sox. Even if the Sox go 10-12 in their final 22, the Rays would still have to go 17-8 (.680) to tie it up.

 

Not at all saying it's over, and not at all saying the Rays can't make up that ground, just saying they've dug themselves a pretty tough hole to get out of.

[User Name]

Those are all valid objections, but arguing in absolutes, when the strategy has never been implemented is a little rash.

 

At some point, this argument started to go in a circle. I think all that needs to be said has been said. The idea isn't mine, it has some traction in the sabermetric community. Maybe some statistically inclined organization will try it one day When that happens, then we can draw conclusions about its usefulness. Right now, it looks like the same arguments are being rehashed, but in slightly different ways.

 

Can you show me some evidence of this? I'm an avid reader of baseball analysis and i've never seen such an idea lobbied for before.

[Orange Juiced]

At this point, the Rays have their backs pretty well against the wall.

 

The Red Sox have 22 games left, the Rays 25. And the Rays have to lose 4 fewer than the Red Sox to force a 1 game playoff for the division.

 

In essence, if the Red Sox go 11-11 in their final 22, the Rays would have to go 18-7 (.720 baseball) to tie the Red Sox. Even if the Sox go 10-12 in their final 22, the Rays would still have to go 17-8 (.680) to tie it up.

 

Not at all saying it's over, and not at all saying the Rays can't make up that ground, just saying they've dug themselves a pretty tough hole to get out of.

 

Yep. That's why every day that goes by with the standings remaining the same is a good day for the Sox.

[sk7326]

Can you show me some evidence of this? I'm an avid reader of baseball analysis and i've never seen such an idea lobbied for before.

 

Fangraphs mused about this http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/play-in-game-strategy-skip-the-starter/

[sk7326]

At this point, the Rays have their backs pretty well against the wall.

 

The Red Sox have 22 games left, the Rays 25. And the Rays have to lose 4 fewer than the Red Sox to force a 1 game playoff for the division.

 

In essence, if the Red Sox go 11-11 in their final 22, the Rays would have to go 18-7 (.720 baseball) to tie the Red Sox. Even if the Sox go 10-12 in their final 22, the Rays would still have to go 17-8 (.680) to tie it up.

 

Not at all saying it's over, and not at all saying the Rays can't make up that ground, just saying they've dug themselves a pretty tough hole to get out of.

 

If the Red Sox can manage to win 1 game in the final head to head series with Tampa, they will be out of our hair for the division. Frankly Tampa is closer to being knocked out at this point.