The 2018 Bullpen Season Thread

[Bellhorn04]

Red Sox postseason history would suggest that a great closer was a difference-maker. Foulke in 04, Papelbon in 07, Koji in 13. Vs. Schiraldi in 86, and the Committee that Grady didn't trust in 03.

[mvp 78]

Red Sox postseason history would suggest that a great closer was a difference-maker. Foulke in 04, Papelbon in 07, Koji in 13. Vs. Schiraldi in 86, and the Committee that Grady didn't trust in 03.

 

This is how I feel about it. My childhood was haunted by the ghosts of Schiraldi and Stanley's passed ball.

[notin]

The other side of the argument is how many World Series teams have you seen that did not have an established' date=' top level closer?[/quote']

 

Plenty.

 

In fact many WS champions have had multiple pitchers in the role.

 

I think it was the 2011 Cardinals who had 6 different pitchers as closer on the way to winning the title. You really can't argue all 6 were dominant, can you?

[notin]

Red Sox postseason history would suggest that a great closer was a difference-maker. Foulke in 04, Papelbon in 07, Koji in 13. Vs. Schiraldi in 86, and the Committee that Grady didn't trust in 03.

 

Please don't make me explain again why the Committee thing is often mistaken, misremembered, and proved the exact point about why it was formed in the first place

[notin]

Red Sox postseason history would suggest that a great closer was a difference-maker. Foulke in 04, Papelbon in 07, Koji in 13. Vs. Schiraldi in 86, and the Committee that Grady didn't trust in 03.

 

Also bear in mind in the 2004 World Series, thr Sox had the lead in every single inning (with one exception). It was probably the most one-sided world series in history. Hard to argue Foulke put them over the top...

[moonslav59]

What KC closer was that bad? I know they had Holland one year, then he got hurt and Davis took over. I think your thinking about their Starters, they didn't have good Starters, but a terrific BP, in 2015, and actually year before too, with Holland and Davis.

 

I said, they did not have a great closer or "established top level closer" as the point given that I responded to.

[mvp 78]

Plenty.

 

In fact many WS champions have had multiple pitchers in the role.

 

I think it was the 2011 Cardinals who had 6 different pitchers as closer on the way to winning the title. You really can't argue all 6 were dominant, can you?

 

Their closer from the prior year s*** the bed in April. Then they went primarily to Salas and switched to Motte towards the end of the year. I'd say Sanchez, Motte and Salas were all fairly dominant that year.

[mvp 78]

Also bear in mind in the 2004 World Series, thr Sox had the lead in every single inning (with one exception). It was probably the most one-sided world series in history. Hard to argue Foulke put them over the top...

 

He did put them over the top in the ALCS tho. The WS was an afterthought.

[Bellhorn04]

Please don't make me explain again why the Committee thing is often mistaken, misremembered, and proved the exact point about why it was formed in the first place

 

I would love it if you did that again. (I missed it the other times.)

[S5Dewey]

Is whether a team wins the WS going to be the criteria now for whether it's worthwhile to have a shut-down closer?

 

Unfortunately we don't know who's going to win the WS until it's over but that shut-down closer can give a team a better opportunity to win the WS than a team who doesn't have one.

For example, the Sox made the playoffs last year with Kimbrel's 35 saves. If we had a closer who only had half that many the Sox would have missed the playoffs completely and therefore had no chance at winning the WS.

 

Not to mention that if the Sox closer only saved 18 games the closer and everyone in the FO would have been lynched.

[notin]

I would love it if you did that again. (I missed it the other times.)

 

Gee thanks lol

 

The "committee" was largely Chad Fox, who got all the save chances. Fox was an ok reliever who had some bad games in Boston, but was largely the fall guy for an ineffective bullpen. He did go on to get a World Series ring with Florida that year.

 

The rest of the bullpen struggled. During the 54 games before Byung-Yun Kim was acquired, Fox blew only three 9th inning leads, resulting in two losses. The real struggles for that pen were in the sixth through eighth innings, normally not the role for a closer. That the Sox struggled where the game was really on the line in earlier innings was the exact logic for using a committee. The problem wasn't a lack of defined roles as they had those. The problem was too many ineffective pitchers handling key situations.

 

The true best pitcher from that committee turned out to be Timlin, but he didn't emerge as a force until the post-season, where he was unhittable. Of the committee pitchers, it was no surprise he was the only one the Sox kept re-signing...

[notin]

Their closer from the prior year s*** the bed in April. Then they went primarily to Salas and switched to Motte towards the end of the year. I'd say Sanchez, Motte and Salas were all fairly dominant that year.

 

They didn't use Motte until very late. Other pitchers, including Mitchell Boggs and Octavio Dotel, handled the role for them. Ryan Franklin was the closer on opening day, but faltered right out of the gate...

[jacksonianmarch]

Most title teams had a legit closer. Thing is, there are very few legit closers who last more than a year or two. The guys who have proven to stay elite (like Kimbrel) are very valuable. Guys, we had the best closer of all time. We outperformed our pythag every year with him as closer. In the playoffs, more people have walked on the moon than scored against Mo and he was in the postseason all but two seasons of his career. Kimbrel is an elite closer. He has been for awhile. Long standing, elite closers are imperative for teams to have long standing success. In the playoffs, you need to have a lead to hand to a closer for them to impact the games. For Boston the last two years, they got beaten to a pulp and having vintage circa 2001 Mo wouldn’t have helped your team.

[mvp 78]

Gee thanks lol

 

The "committee" was largely Chad Fox, who got all the save chances. Fox was an ok reliever who had some bad games in Boston, but was largely the fall guy for an ineffective bullpen. He did go on to get a World Series ring with Florida that year.

 

The rest of the bullpen struggled. During the 54 games before Byung-Yun Kim was acquired, Fox blew only three 9th inning leads, resulting in two losses. The real struggles for that pen were in the sixth through eighth innings, normally not the role for a closer. That the Sox struggled where the game was really on the line in earlier innings was the exact logic for using a committee. The problem wasn't a lack of defined roles as they had those. The problem was too many ineffective pitchers handling key situations.

 

The true best pitcher from that committee turned out to be Timlin, but he didn't emerge as a force until the post-season, where he was unhittable. Of the committee pitchers, it was no surprise he was the only one the Sox kept re-signing...

 

Fox wasn't a fall guy so much as he was just injured and was released at the end of July. Saying Fox only blew 3 games is odd since he only pitched in 10 games before he was injured and Kim was brought in before Fox returned to the pen. It basically went Fox (injured) to Lyon (meh) to Kim.

 

Yes, the struggles were that every option in the pen kinda sucked. Kim and Timlin were the best of a mediocre bunch. But that kinda proves the point that you can't put out mediocre options and expect to have success. You need the big horses (aka Foulke) to anchor the pen. If the 2003 team had Foulke, they would have won the WS.

[mvp 78]

They didn't use Motte until very late. Other pitchers, including Mitchell Boggs and Octavio Dotel, handled the role for them. Ryan Franklin was the closer on opening day, but faltered right out of the gate...

 

Dotal had one save in May, one in August and one in September. That hardly constitutes "handling the role".

[mvp 78]

Most title teams had a legit closer. Thing is, there are very few legit closers who last more than a year or two. The guys who have proven to stay elite (like Kimbrel) are very valuable. Guys, we had the best closer of all time. We outperformed our pythag every year with him as closer. In the playoffs, more people have walked on the moon than scored against Mo and he was in the postseason all but two seasons of his career. Kimbrel is an elite closer. He has been for awhile. Long standing, elite closers are imperative for teams to have long standing success. In the playoffs, you need to have a lead to hand to a closer for them to impact the games. For Boston the last two years, they got beaten to a pulp and having vintage circa 2001 Mo wouldn’t have helped your team.

 

But if you could have saved money on payroll, you totally would have just moved on from Mariano though.

[jacksonianmarch]

Yeah, no. Mo has 5 rings for a reason. We don’t get those rings without him

[mvp 78]

Yeah, no. Mo has 5 rings for a reason. We don’t get those rings without him

 

You don't feel bad for the owner losing out on a few million? Seems like it's a big concern for people around here!

[jacksonianmarch]

That’s not the concern my friend. Keeping Kimbrel if HRam vests his option will be tough. If you go over the final threshold, your first pick goes back 10 spots, even more money is pulled from your INTL slot pool and you lose two picks from the draft. The penalties are absolute season killers from a building perspective. If you do that with your awful system, you’ll end up with some real barren years

[Spudboy]

My thinking is obviously screwed up. We have an elite talent in Kimbrel who does his job as well as anyone in the game and many are concerned that we might lose some of the guys playing for us right now if he is re-signed. I guess I just don't see us having elite talent at too many other positions. I realize that we all have our favorites but really there aren't an abundance of guys that we have that I would worry too much about not being able to replace. Our record looks pretty good and on any given night we have seen 2 if not 3 utility players in our lineup as well as according to most here one of the worst fielding outfielders in the game today. Maybe we don't miss some of these guys all that much. Betts - Kimbrel - Sale - Bogaerts - JD- Porcello ( I guess right now) - Devers - Who else am I leaving out and don't give me how important it is to resign Pomeranz or to keep Rodriguez or even JBJ, Vazquez, Nunez or Leon. They are all good players but they are not indispensable and I think that any one or two and maybe even 3 of them would be easier to replace that someone representing the best in the game . Philisophically, yes I I get it - closers should be easier and more economically feasable to replace than your everyday players but each situation is different. Kimbrel is a special talent and maybe the way Cora is using his lineup shows that we have any number or everyday guys who could be replaced more easily than him.

 

Excellent f***ing post Coach.

[Spudboy]

It's not really that complicated. Kimbrel is a special talent, but he's also a specialist. He plays about 65 innings a year.

 

Everyone would love to have him back. The question is how much are you willing to pay? Chapman got 5/86, so Kimbrel's agent is probably thinking at least 5/95.

 

I still say that DD and company should work with Kimbrel now to seek his return. I believe that handled correctly, Kimbrel may chose to stay in Boston. Sure, money will be part of the equation. I just think that Kimbrel may be comfortable here and with the health of his daughter in the balance, moving his familly elsewhere may not be all that attractive to him.

 

Yes, I do realize that there are several other cities on our once great country where his child may receive cutting edge care.

 

Just my hunch and opinion.

 

I doubt very much that Kimbrel sniffs 5/96 or even 5/86.

[notin]

Yeah, no. Mo has 5 rings for a reason. We don’t get those rings without him

 

And this is always the type of things people say in defense of closers.

 

Not wanTing a closer doesn't mean avoiding pitchers like Kimbrel and Rivera. It means not using thsn add ninth inning specialIsts.

 

If Rivera was in the Yankee pen all those years but somEone else was getting saves, how fewer rings would he have?

[Bellhorn04]

Rivera pitched a lot of 2 inning saves in those postseasons for the Yanks. He was the 8th inning guy and the 9th inning guy.

[Slasher9]

he was also standing on the bump when that juggernaut known as Diamondbacks walked him off for a title....

[mvp 78]

he was also standing on the bump when that juggernaut known as Diamondbacks walked him off for a title....

 

That was a good one.

[S5Dewey]

Not wanting a closer doesn't mean avoiding pitchers like Kimbrel and Rivera. It means not using them as ninth inning specialists.

 

If Rivera was in the Yankee pen all those years but someone else was getting saves, how fewer rings would he have?

 

Now all we have to do is talk the closers into not seeing themselves as closers and rather as Firemen where they come in to put out the fire regardless of the inning. That may be a difficult sell to them because "closers" have prestige and prestige = money. I can hear them now. "Hey, I have to feed my family."

 

I'm a big Kimbrel fan but at the same time it irks me to hear the guys on TV or Radio say that Kimbrel "likes to start with a clean inning". Well, whoop-de-f***ing-do. Who wouldn't?

 

As to the second point, I'm not certain it would have made a big difference if Mo had been used as a Fireman or as a Closer. It's possible that he could have "saved" some of the games the Yankees lost if he'd been used earlier and someone else had closed the game out.

[Natick to NC]

Clay B is available for pennies ?? Bullpen arm ? Situational arm ....can't be worse than Johnson . Edited May 1, 2018 by Natick to NC

[mvp 78]

Clay B is available for pennies ?? Bullpen arm ? Situational arm .

 

No. He has 4 k's in 2 starts in AAA this year. Not worth moving anyone on this roster to AAA for.

[Natick to NC]

No. He has 4 k's in 2 starts in AAA this year. Not worth moving anyone on this roster to AAA for.

 

Yeah. I understand most have thrown dirt on his career .I think he may bounce back some who knows .

[mvp 78]

Yeah. I understand most have thrown dirt on his career .I think he may bounce back some who knows .

 

If his stuff wasn't good enough for the s***** Royals, I have no idea where he could go.