A Realistic View at 2022: Part I

[moonslav59]

Rays have consistently had starters only go 4-5 innings and have been a very good team. Wonder if Bloom goes that way. Can either push Houck and Whitlock to that role or keep them as the important multi inning reliever role that McHugh excelled in this year.

 

I think they both do very well in that role, and having two is a real asset.

 

Imagine alternating two- 2 inning closers, all year. That would be something new.

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

I think they both do very well in that role, and having two is a real asset.

 

Imagine alternating two- 2 inning closers, all year. That would be something new.

 

 

But if they're capable of being effective starters who can give you 160 innings each, do you want to restrict them to 80 innings each instead?

[mvp 78]

I think they both do very well in that role, and having two is a real asset.

 

Imagine alternating two- 2 inning closers, all year. That would be something new.

 

 

No, you wouldn't have "two- 2 inning closers." It would be one closer who finishes the game and another "fireman" who comes in during the game and puts out the fire.

[mvp 78]

But if they're capable of being effective starters who can give you 160 innings each, do you want to restrict them to 80 innings each instead?

 

And that's the big question. Is it total innings that provides the value or high leverage innings?

[moonslav59]

But if they're capable of being effective starters who can give you 160 innings each, do you want to restrict them to 80 innings each instead?

 

Umm, 2 innings x 81 games = 160+ IP.

[moonslav59]

No, you wouldn't have "two- 2 inning closers." It would be one closer who finishes the game and another "fireman" who comes in during the game and puts out the fire.

 

I'm talking a new way of closing and using the expertise of our two excellent "long men."

[Bellhorn04]

Umm, 2 innings x 81 games = 160+ IP.

 

What??? You're imagining each of them pitching every other game?

[moonslav59]

What??? You're imagining each of them pitching every other game?

 

Close enough. With team days off, it won't be 81 games in 162 days.

 

Of course, if the team is up or down by 5 or more, they don't have to pitch every other day, but they could also go 3 IP, some days.

[Bellhorn04]

Close enough. With team days off, it won't be 81 games in 162 days.

 

Of course, if the team is up or down by 5 or more, they don't have to pitch every other day, but they could also go 3 IP, some days.

 

They just can't pitch that many innings in relief. Nobody does.

 

Whitlock pitched 73 innings this year. I think 80 is a reasonable ceiling.

[sk7326]

I think you could definitely do a 100 inning reliever. But you're still going to manage him like a starter (sorta). Like, two appearances a week - face 6 to 9 hitters. Now, I should really mess around with OOTP baseball or something to see how it would look in simulated action

[Bellhorn04]

Kittredge logged the most innings of any Rays reliever/opener, at 71.2, almost identical to Whitlock.

[Bellhorn04]

Personally I would rather be a little more conventional and not risk the health of prized assets such as Whitlock and Houck, thank you very much.

[Bellhorn04]

The trend in the game is toward limiting innings. We're not going to see the re-emergence of 1978 Goose Gossages.

[sk7326]

Personally I would rather be a little more conventional and not risk the health of prized assets such as Whitlock and Houck, thank you very much.

 

I think it would be do-able ... the thing is you can't put them in games ad hoc.

[Bellhorn04]

I think it would be do-able ... the thing is you can't put them in games ad hoc.

 

I'm not sure how that would work.

 

Your idea sounds a lot different from moon's. He's basically picturing the 2 guys pitching the 8th and 9th inning, up to 70 games each or so, for well over 100 innings each.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Bellhorn04

[Bellhorn04]

And oddly enough, the Dodgers are doing the opener thing tonight instead of Urias starting. I don't get it, really.

[Bellhorn04]

Speaking of Whitlock, that job he did in Game 4 has to go down as one of the great moments ever for a Red Sox reliever. Comes in with a man on second, no outs, tie game, 8th inning, and proceeds to get 6 outs on 15 freakin' pitches, keeps the run from scoring, and makes a great heads-up fielding play backing up third base on the overthrow!

 

Thanks Cashman!

[oldtimer]

The status of pitching usage in the ML seems to have evolved over the years and more recently.

 

A good start is now 5 or 6 innings with the BP doing 4 innings nightly. Add to that the case where the opener is used for once through the lineup max. Seems to me the BP is getting more stressed these days.

 

There is also a tendency to bring high leverage BP resources into games earlier, should a critical situation develop.

 

Still, it seems desirable to have 5 defined starters and backup available in the minors to come in when the inevitable injuries and sicknesses occur.

 

In the BP, you still want a mix of righties and lefties, although the pitch to three batter rule seems to require decent effectiveness against each. With 8 or 9 in the BP and the need to throw at least 4 innings most nights it seems to be a best practice to use the real firemen in competitive games. How many of the 8 or 9 fit into that category? Probably 4 so they need to be used judiciously. Are 70 innings a year reasonable?

 

If we can win 100 games in a year, one would assume we were competitive in 120. Four innings a night means 480 innings, not counting extra inning. So if we get 280 innings out of our best, there are 200 innings of competitive innings to be covered by our remaining BP. One would hope that there would be a significant contribution from our prospects being cycled through.

 

Just a mind game but I would bet similar thinking would be applied by our coaches and front office.

[Bellhorn04]

This needs confirmation, but I believe that the 14 pitcher limit is a temporary pandemic rule and if things ever get to post-pandemic, it will likely go back to 13.

[moonslav59]

They just can't pitch that many innings in relief. Nobody does.

 

Whitlock pitched 73 innings this year. I think 80 is a reasonable ceiling.

 

Nobody does anymore, right. I think 80-90 is about the most any get, these days, but some of those get a spot start here and there.

 

Back in '82 and '83, Bob Stanley pitched 168 (48 Gms) and 145 IP (64 Gms) without any starts.

 

Let's go retro!

 

I know a hell of a lot used to do it.

[moonslav59]

Personally I would rather be a little more conventional and not risk the health of prized assets such as Whitlock and Houck, thank you very much.

 

How about 2 IP every 3 days?

[jad]

Nobody does anymore, right. I think 80-90 is about the most any get, these days, but some of those get a spot start here and there.

 

Back in '82 and '83, Bob Stanley pitched 168 (48 Gms) and 145 IP (64 Gms) without any starts.

 

Let's go retro!

 

I know a hell of a lot used to do it.

 

Wow. I was thinking maybe Mike Fornieles might have done something similar. But after he came to Boston (a bit after I started following them), looks like in his heyday, he was pitching between 80 and 120.

[Larry Cook]

For 2022, we need to sign the dodgers chris Taylor.

 

This guy can play center field for us next year and I think he had a monster year at the plate.

 

Not going to break the bank and the reward is going to be huge,

[moonslav59]

For 2022, we need to sign the dodgers chris Taylor.

 

This guy can play center field for us next year and I think he had a monster year at the plate.

 

Not going to break the bank and the reward is going to be huge,

 

It worked with Kike.

 

I'd like to keep Kike in CF, next year.

 

OF is not a high need area, but I do like CT.

[Bellhorn04]

Nobody does anymore, right. I think 80-90 is about the most any get, these days, but some of those get a spot start here and there.

 

Back in '82 and '83, Bob Stanley pitched 168 (48 Gms) and 145 IP (64 Gms) without any starts.

 

Let's go retro!

 

I know a hell of a lot used to do it.

 

Stanley may have been the last of the 'rubber arms'.

 

I think Whitlock and Houck probably throw too hard to be able to do anything like that.

 

It's just a different game now in many ways.

[moonslav59]

Stanley may have been the last of the 'rubber arms'.

 

I think Whitlock and Houck probably throw too hard to be able to do anything like that.

 

It's just a different game now in many ways.

 

I'm not sure going 2-3 innings every 3 days is much different than 5-7 every 5 days. It's actually less IP'd than a starter, and starters have a throwing day in between starts.

 

Of course, the routine is way different, but in terms of wear and tear, maybe the same.

 

My every 2 innings every 2 days might have been too much, but even that is not too different than throwing someone 1 IP 3 out of 4 days. They have to throw hard in warm ups, too.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not sure going 2-3 innings every 3 days is much different than 5-7 every 5 days. It's actually less IP'd than a starter, and starters have a throwing day in between starts.

 

Of course, the routine is way different, but in terms of wear and tear, maybe the same.

 

My every 2 innings every 2 days might have been too much, but even that is not too different than throwing someone 1 IP 3 out of 4 days. They have to throw hard in warm ups, too.

 

You're dreaming, man. This is just not a real possibility, and you know it. When not even the Rays will push a multi-purpose reliever past 75 innings, you're not going to see a maqical jump to 100 innings and more.

 

Remember Scott Proctor? If not look him up. Torre rode him a little too hard and ended his career early.

[moonslav59]

You're dreaming, man. This is just not a real possibility, and you know it. When not even the Rays will push a multi-purpose reliever past 75 innings, you're not going to see a maqical jump to 100 innings and more.

 

Remember Scott Proctor? If not look him up. Torre rode him a little too hard and ended his career early.

 

Where did I ever say they would do it?

 

Another aspect of this idea is this: the plan would be to use them every 3 days for 2-3 innings, but if they are not needed, which might be pretty often, then they get another day off. They might end up pitching 3 times every 10-12 days (9-11 games). Let's say 7 innings every 10 games. That's about 115 IP over a season.

 

Yes, RP'er usually throw harder, and they warm up a lot by throwing hard in the pen, even when not used, sometimes, but this plan would not have them warming up when they don't pitch, so they'd gain some there over Proctor, who pitched in 83 games one year with over 100 IP.

 

3 games every 10 is 48 games not 83.

3 games every 9 games is 54 appearances.

[Bellhorn04]

Where did I ever say they would do it?

 

I don't much see the point in talking about it if it's something they or any other team simply wouldn't do.

 

We might as well talk about getting starters back to 200 innings...

[mvp 78]

They just can't pitch that many innings in relief. Nobody does.

 

Whitlock pitched 73 innings this year. I think 80 is a reasonable ceiling.

 

You'd have to resurrect Dick Radatz for that kind of schedule. 80 is max for sure.