2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[mvp 78]

You are correct, sir.

 

I'm always correct.

[Kimmi]

Yes and there's a reason why. Because teams using that formula have won games and championships for decades. I'm not against the idea of statistical analysis helping the decision making process but basing the decisionmaking process entirely on the world of statics and numbers to the exclusion of giving experienced managers their heads, is where I stop the bus to get off.

 

Statistical analyses miss a lot. They ignore psychological factors, assume average distributions and frequently forecast from hindsight. Emotions and experience do count for something.

 

Sorry, but the "that's the way we've always done it" reason doesn't fly with me. It's been successful throughout baseball because no one has been willing to try it any differently. Experience in this case only counts so far as you've had the non-conventional experiences to compare it to. Otherwise, saying that it's always been successful means nothing, because you don't know how much more successful another line of thinking could be.

 

There are always going to be exceptions that go against the average. But they're just that - exceptions. You play the averages.

[Kimmi]

Because there is no realtime situation in which this debate matters.

 

If you have 2 or more relievers who could close or plug holes, it does not matter which does what because you've got acceptable arms in every necessary slot

 

If you only have 1 reliever you can count on to hang a 0 up in an inning, it still doesn't matter where you use him because whichever area you DON'T use him will be occupied by a substandard arm that will lose you ballgames.

 

It really does not matter in the slightest.

 

If your team is in danger of blowing the lead in a later inning of the game, it would make the most sense to bring your closer in then, even if it's the 7th inning. No, no one can predict whether an equally high leverage situation will come up later or not, but whenever that high leverage situation calls for your best reliever, you bring him in at that moment, not wait until the game is already lost.

[Kimmi]

I'm always correct.

 

Yes you are. It's because you wear the dad pants.

[Dojji]

If your team is in danger of blowing the lead in a later inning of the game, it would make the most sense to bring your closer in then, even if it's the 7th inning. No, no one can predict whether an equally high leverage situation will come up later or not, but whenever that high leverage situation calls for your best reliever, you bring him in at that moment, not wait until the game is already lost.

 

And how exactly are you supposed to know that that's your highest leverage situation? Let's say that your starter faces 7-8-9 and managed to put 2 by bases on balls on with 1 out and a 1 run lead. Even if the guy gets the next 2 outs, there's 3-4-5 in the next inning, is that higher or lower leverage with a 1 run lead?

[Kimmi]

And how exactly are you supposed to know that that's your highest leverage situation? Let's say that your starter faces 7-8-9 and managed to put 2 by bases on balls on with 1 out and a 1 run lead. Even if the guy gets the next 2 outs, there's 3-4-5 in the next inning, is that higher or lower leverage with a 1 run lead?

 

You don't know whether a situation will be the highest leverage situation or not. I'm just saying that it's silly to not bring in your best reliever when a situation calls for it, just because it's not the 9th inning.

[Dojji]

and I'm saying that it literally does not matter whether he comes in in the 9th (which is the highest leverage inning on average), or some other inning. if you only have 1 man who could either close or shut down a mid inning crisis, which is the only situation in which this debate is even interesting, then you're going to have a gaping hole in your team whenever that 1 guy isn't pitching. And if you have multiple good relievers, or zero good relievers, which are the other two possibilities, then it matters even less.

[SoxHop]

and I'm saying that it literally does not matter whether he comes in in the 9th (which is the highest leverage inning on average), or some other inning. if you only have 1 man who could either close or shut down a mid inning crisis, which is the only situation in which this debate is even interesting, then you're going to have a gaping hole in your team whenever that 1 guy isn't pitching. And if you have multiple good relievers, or zero good relievers, which are the other two possibilities, then it matters even less.

 

Where are you getting the 9th has the highest average leverage inning? The only advantage an offense has that inning is pinch hitting. Statistically does the meat of the order come up that inning more than other times, or does it have to do with the pressure of holding a lead on the offense? Why would the 9th be the inning with the most pressure to the defense on average?

 

The discussion is using your best reliever at the most advantageous situation. Not the hypothetical team than only has one good reliever.

 

We may be only talking a game or two a year for most teams as they are constructed in this era, but a game is a game.

 

When a crises cometh...... why wait until there may be a crises in the 9th when there may not be and you already have one..?

Edited February 9, 2016 by SoxHop

[Bellhorn04]

Where are you getting the 9th has the highest average leverage inning? The only advantage an offense has that inning is pinch hitting. Statistically does the meat of the order come up that inning more than other times, or does it have to do with the pressure of holding a lead on the offense? Why would the 9th be the inning with the most pressure to the defense on average?

 

The discussion is using your best reliever at the most advantageous situation. Not the hypothetical team than only has one good reliever.

 

We may be only talking a game or two a year for most teams as they are constructed in this era, but a game is a game.

 

When a crises cometh...... why wait until there may be a crises in the 9th when there may not be and you already have one..?

 

He's correct, the leverage factor is higher on average in the 9th because the Win Probability factor for the team that's ahead keeps getting higher as the number of remaining outs decreases.

[Bellhorn04]

You don't know whether a situation will be the highest leverage situation or not. I'm just saying that it's silly to not bring in your best reliever when a situation calls for it, just because it's not the 9th inning.

 

This would mean that, hypothetically, the closer would have to be prepared to come in the game any time from the 6th inning on, maybe even earlier. That could be beneficial in one particular game, but over the course of the season I'm not sure it would work out so well.

[Elktonnick]

This would mean that, hypothetically, the closer would have to be prepared to come in the game any time from the 6th inning on, maybe even earlier. That could be beneficial in one particular game, but over the course of the season I'm not sure it would work out so well.

What is missing in this argument is the fact that managers don't manage one game at a time except in the playoffs and then only in the later games. Major leaguers need consistency to be successful. The closers role didn't just suddenly appear over night, It evolved over the last hundred years this game has been played. The stats show a trend to using more relievers for a shorter period of time. There are times a manager may use a closer earlier than the ninth but those are rare and few and far between.

 

The point is that major league ball players are creatures of habit. That's why the closer by committee doesn't work. The current system of using the "best reliever" to close out the game was developed because it has been shown to produce the best results through actual experience not by a theoretical model. Experience has shown that teams get their best results when the designated closer knows day in and day out before the game starts that he is one who is going to get the ball with the game on the line in the ninth inning.

[SoxHop]

What is missing in this argument is the fact that managers don't manage one game at a time except in the playoffs and then only in the later games. Major leaguers need consistency to be successful. The closers role didn't just suddenly appear over night, It evolved over the last hundred years this game has been played. The stats show a trend to using more relievers for a shorter period of time. There are times a manager may use a closer earlier than the ninth but those are rare and few and far between.

 

The point is that major league ball players are creatures of habit. That's why the closer by committee doesn't work. The current system of using the "best reliever" to close out the game was developed because it has been shown to produce the best results through actual experience not by a theoretical model. Experience has shown that teams get their best results when the designated closer knows day in and day out before the game starts that he is one who is going to get the ball with the game on the line in the ninth inning.

 

I'm not sure if major league players need consistency to succeed. Maybe that is just superstition.

 

Closer by committee is only used now a days with bullpens that are horrible. So that is not is not an argument against the idea that it is wrong.

 

Again, this is twist it from what you believe you think it right backed by loads of stats, this is a think outside the box idea. Not the, well they have been doing it for years so it must be right kind of explanation.

 

I would think you would need a fairly smart manager to pull this off. Someone that over or under reacted in situations would burn this idea to the ground. But maybe the "wait till the ninth inning for our best guy to come in" is the easy way out. Maybe a manager who thought they could game the system by using the best tool at the time instead of a later possibility could work it so it would have a better outcome.

 

The "Experience has shown" statement when stats prove otherwise can leave you behind the eight ball. Do you think that at this time, today, that the best baseball that has ever been played is going on right now? If anything, it's worth a discussion, even if it won 1 more game a year.

[Dojji]

Not everything that's based on experience in defiance of theoretical numbers is superstition. Theoretical numbers ignore some crucial factors that are either unquantifiable or tough to quantify, psychology probably being the most prominent among them.

[SoxHop]

Not everything that's based on experience in defiance of theoretical numbers is superstition. Theoretical numbers ignore some crucial factors that are either unquantifiable or tough to quantify, psychology probably being the most prominent among them.

 

True for sure. But baseball players habits can be superstitious. And it's been that way as long as I can remember. Maybe some of the things they believe they need to do really don't need to be done. Especially if the cycle of superstition was broken.

 

You don't see anything wrong in an example when we are up a run or two in the six or seventh with a man or two man on and we are bringing in say an Ogando type player while our closer waits for the ninth?

[cp176]

I'm not sure if major league players need consistency to succeed. Maybe that is just superstition.

 

Closer by committee is only used now a days with bullpens that are horrible. So that is not is not an argument against the idea that it is wrong.

 

Again, this is twist it from what you believe you think it right backed by loads of stats, this is a think outside the box idea. Not the, well they have been doing it for years so it must be right kind of explanation.

 

I would think you would need a fairly smart manager to pull this off. Someone that over or under reacted in situations would burn this idea to the ground. But maybe the "wait till the ninth inning for our best guy to come in" is the easy way out. Maybe a manager who thought they could game the system by using the best tool at the time instead of a later possibility could work it so it would have a better outcome.

 

The "Experience has shown" statement when stats prove otherwise can leave you behind the eight ball. Do you think that at this time, today, that the best baseball that has ever been played is going on right now? If anything, it's worth a discussion, even if it won 1 more game a year.

 

In all sincerity correct me if my interpretation of what you are saying is wrong. Your approach seems to be that you would bring your closer in during any game, at any time that you think the situation dictated it regardless of the inning that the game was in? By closer, i assume that you mean the guy that you feel is your best shut down guy in a fairly short relief stint? If that is what you are saying, although I like your theory, I do not think that it holds up over the course of a 162 game season. There are some games that seem more important than others over the course of a year. In those games, I think that you do what you can do to win. I do think that a back of the rotation late inning guy is very valuable. I find myself questioning what is going on more now as managers in general try to create 7th and 8th inning specialty guys in addition to a late game stopper. I also will add that I do not think that a failure to use your "closer" at any time during a game, in any way is an example of conventional, traditional, do it the way it has always been done thinking. If you are using statistics to justify your position on this one then you are doing what I did when I was 13 and playing start-o-magic baseball. I started Dick Radatz! Now there was a 20 game winner for sure that was supported statistically if I ever saw one!LOL- This debate isn't about a new way of dong things at all. Still a good debate.

[Elktonnick]

True for sure. But baseball players habits can be superstitious. And it's been that way as long as I can remember. Maybe some of the things they believe they need to do really don't need to be done. Especially if the cycle of superstition was broken.

 

You don't see anything wrong in an example when we are up a run or two in the six or seventh with a man or two man on and we are bringing in say an Ogando type player while our closer waits for the ninth?

 

To be successful in major league baseball consistency isn't a superstition it is a prerequisite. One speaks of pitchers needing to be consistent in the delivery, consistent in finding their release point and having consistency in their control. Practice they say makes perfect that is all about establishing consistency.

 

BTW You all make it sound that bringing in your best pitcher in the 7th inning is a brand new idea, It has all been done before. If any of you can recall Dick Radatz. He was doing that in the sixties. He would come in in the 7th, 8 th or 9 th. I even think he came in as early as the 6th inning on one occasion. I recall watching a game in the early sixties from the right field bleachers. You could hear the explosion of the ball hitting the catchers glove way up in the right field bleachers. (Of course there were fewer fans watching the games back then.)

 

Another reason why there is less reason to bring your "best reliever" in before the 9th is that there are more high quality relievers today and more who can throw 95 and above today. Just look at the Yankees bullpen for example.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Elktonnick

[cp176]

To be successful in major league baseball consistency isn't a superstition it is a prerequisite. One speaks of pitchers needing to be consistent in the delivery, consistent in finding their release point and having consistency in their control. Practice they say makes perfect that is all about establishing consistency.

 

BTW You all make it sound that bringing in your best pitcher in the 7th inning is a brand new idea, It has all been done before. If any of you can recall Dick Radatz. He was doing that in the sixties. He would come in in the 7th, 8 th or 9 th. I even think he came in as early as the 6th inning on one occasion. I recall watching a game in the early sixties from the right field bleachers. You could hear the explosion of the ball hitting the catchers glove way up in the right field bleachers. (Of course there were fewer fans watching the games back then.)

 

Another reason why there is less reason to bring your "best reliever" in before the 9th is that there are more high quality relievers today and more who can throw 95 and above today. Just look at the Yankees bullpen for example.

 

Like I said in my previous post, I think that I was a master in new age, unconventional thinking when I started Radatz when playing strato back in the 60"s. The stats supported my position very well. It was an unconventional no brainer to use the "monster" as a starter. LOL

[SoxHop]

So here is the link to the article Kimmi sent out.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/4/14/2110082/why-dont-sabermetric-gms-have-sabermetric-managers-and-shouldnt-they

 

I really picked up on #5 because I have always questioned the closer role. I think it would be safe to say that more games are lost in innings earlier than the 9th inning.

 

Here's a portion of what was written about closers in the article:

 

One might think that the fact that closers don't pitch 100 innings anymore is mostly about closers being limited to one-inning saves. But they are also pitching fewer games. Look at the games pitched leaders for the 1970's and the first half of the 1980's. It is full of closers. You'll see names like Mike Marshall, Rollie Fingers, Dan Quisenberry, Willie Hernandez, Kent Tekulve and Mitch Williams. But by the 1990's and especially the 2000's, closers give way to setup men. You'll see names like Jesse Orosco, Steve Kline, Paul Quantrill, Matt Guerrier and Pedro Feliciano.

 

So closers have been reduced primarily to single inning work, and not in a great number of games. In short, a team's best reliever is having his contribution to his team severely limited. Wouldn’t it make the most sense to 1) use a team’s best reliever in the highest leverage situations, and 2) have them pitch for more innings, thus maximizing their utility to their team? This is not some impractical pipe dream which works on paper but wouldn’t work in the real world. It worked very well for many years until closers started to be treated like hot house flowers. The return of the multi-inning fireman is very much overdue.

[SoxHop]

To be successful in major league baseball consistency isn't a superstition it is a prerequisite. One speaks of pitchers needing to be consistent in the delivery, consistent in finding their release point and having consistency in their control. Practice they say makes perfect that is all about establishing consistency.

 

BTW You all make it sound that bringing in your best pitcher in the 7th inning is a brand new idea, It has all been done before. If any of you can recall Dick Radatz. He was doing that in the sixties. He would come in in the 7th, 8 th or 9 th. I even think he came in as early as the 6th inning on one occasion. I recall watching a game in the early sixties from the right field bleachers. You could hear the explosion of the ball hitting the catchers glove way up in the right field bleachers. (Of course there were fewer fans watching the games back then.)

 

Another reason why there is less reason to bring your "best reliever" in before the 9th is that there are more high quality relievers today and more who can throw 95 and above today. Just look at the Yankees bullpen for example.

 

Yes, the role of closer has changed recently to be what it is now, a ninth inning person.

 

I would think this method wouldn't be much more productive to a team that had multiple relievers of the same caliber. But out of the say 4 relievers, why would you be using the best one the least, and maybe using them at the point in the game when it's not the highest percentage of runs being scored against the team?

 

If this strategy won one or two more games a year, it would be a success.

Edited February 10, 2016 by SoxHop

[SoxHop]

In all sincerity correct me if my interpretation of what you are saying is wrong. Your approach seems to be that you would bring your closer in during any game, at any time that you think the situation dictated it regardless of the inning that the game was in? By closer, i assume that you mean the guy that you feel is your best shut down guy in a fairly short relief stint? If that is what you are saying, although I like your theory, I do not think that it holds up over the course of a 162 game season. There are some games that seem more important than others over the course of a year. In those games, I think that you do what you can do to win. I do think that a back of the rotation late inning guy is very valuable. I find myself questioning what is going on more now as managers in general try to create 7th and 8th inning specialty guys in addition to a late game stopper. I also will add that I do not think that a failure to use your "closer" at any time during a game, in any way is an example of conventional, traditional, do it the way it has always been done thinking. If you are using statistics to justify your position on this one then you are doing what I did when I was 13 and playing start-o-magic baseball. I started Dick Radatz! Now there was a 20 game winner for sure that was supported statistically if I ever saw one!LOL- This debate isn't about a new way of dong things at all. Still a good debate.

 

Yes, it's about going back to an old way of doing things.

 

I'm not sure exactly how it would work. What it would be trying to do is get who is most likely your best reliever in more times during the year in situations that already call for a reliever.

 

Maybe the closer roll would go away and he would be added to reliever pool, when there is a situation that. This idea would be more difficult for the manager to manage. I'm definitely not saying brining in the closer at any inning, especially the early ones where there is trouble, I would think the starter roll stays the same. Just maybe if the starter is starting to falter and now the situation is serious you would then go with your best guy.

 

I agree, there are games that are more important to others. Top teams in your division or teams you are in a race with would take priority, there would be certain situations where there would be more need to go with your top guy. You would manage his innings like any other reliever.

 

You all have seen games where you know the other team is going to do damage to the reliever who is in, or has already done damage. I have to question why isn't our best guy in at this time to stop it. Because if it isn't stopped at that time, you are then hoping your offense can overcome the deficit. Why not stop it before it happens, instead of waiting to use our best guy in the hope that he will be useful later in the game.

[cp176]

It does make some sense to me. There have been many great points brought up here. Not the least of which for me is that some of the old ways are actually recognized to be somewhat new and creative to some of the people who have not been around the game "forever". I say that whatever works is what needs to be used. If what works can be supported by data and statistics, all the better for people for whom the use of metrics represents a game changer. I'm probably not in that camp - If it is new and works, I probably will use it. If it is old and works better, i probably will stick with it.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, major league teams only scored an average of 3.95 earned runs a game in 2015, so the management of pitching seems to be pretty effective overall.

 

Just one way to look at it.

[cp176]

Well, major league teams only scored an average of 3.95 earned runs a game in 2015, so the management of pitching seems to be pretty effective overall.

 

Just one way to look at it.

 

Trust me - I won't be the one who says that there is better way. What you have for personnel has to shape to a great extent how you use them.

[SoxHop]

It does make some sense to me. There have been many great points brought up here. Not the least of which for me is that some of the old ways are actually recognized to be somewhat new and creative to some of the people who have not been around the game "forever". I say that whatever works is what needs to be used. If what works can be supported by data and statistics, all the better for people for whom the use of metrics represents a game changer. I'm probably not in that camp - If it is new and works, I probably will use it. If it is old and works better, i probably will stick with it.

 

At the least I find the subject interesting. It was only a short article and didn't go into detail or specifics. If I was running a team, I'd need a lot more info to implement the idea.

[SoxHop]

Been thinking about the Vasquez and Swihart thing today. If both pan out one will go. We could end up with a very good player for one of these guys in a trade.

[User Name]

Well, major league teams only scored an average of 3.95 earned runs a game in 2015, so the management of pitching seems to be pretty effective overall.

 

Just one way to look at it.

 

Can you definitely prove offense is depressed because of effective pitching management though? Looks like grasping at straws to me.

[cp176]

Been thinking about the Vasquez and Swihart thing today. If both pan out one will go. We could end up with a very good player for one of these guys in a trade.

 

I'm not sure Swihart brings much alone. The potential is certainly there for him to be very good but someone would have to be willing to take a chance that his catching skills really will continue to improve. Maybe in a package but might not be worth it. Down the road maybe and maybe that is what will happen.

[Bellhorn04]

Can you definitely prove offense is depressed because of effective pitching management though? Looks like grasping at straws to me.

 

I said it's just one way to look at it. Just trying to add to the conversation, that's all. You know it's impossible to definitely prove one way or the other.

[Dojji]

Been thinking about the Vasquez and Swihart thing today. If both pan out one will go. We could end up with a very good player for one of these guys in a trade.

 

And this is your assumption only 10 months after both Vazquez and Hanigan were hurt by mid-April forcing us to call up Swihart in the first place and give him a trial by fire?

 

OK...

 

Seriously there is no rush to deal off our depth at catching. We've made that mistake before, no need to rush into it again. My analysis is there's NFW either of Swihart or Vazquez are traded before the deadline, and are only traded at the deadline if one of the catchers has made the job his own, Hanigan is healthy, and we still have Leon in the wings to provide replacement level backup if needed.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Dojji

[User Name]

And this is your assumption only 10 months after both Vazquez and Hanigan were hurt by mid-April forcing us to call up Swihart in the first place and give him a trial by fire?

 

OK...

 

Seriously there is no rush to deal off our depth at catching. We've made that mistake before, no need to rush into it again. My analysis is there's NFW either of Swihart or Vazquez are traded before the deadline, and are only traded at the deadline if one of the catchers has made the job his own, Hanigan is healthy, and we still have Leon in the wings to provide replacement level backup if needed.

 

Turning Swihart into a hybrid C/1B/3B with his athleticism might provide the Sox with fantastic insurance against injury at C, and suck at the corners. I think he has the tools to pull it off. I remember Ruseell Martin playing a decent 3B with the Dodgers there for a while.