rjortiz

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

I'm not a huge fan of Breslow. I don't like that he isn't missing bats, and I don't like that his FIP is 3.70. Looking at the probable bullpen in October, Britton and Thorton have shown promise. Although, I'm skeptical they can do it over multiple batters. I did mention that the Red Sox blueprint is to have the starters go 6-7, and get the ball to Tazawa and Uehara. Should the starters falter, we'll be using some pretty suspect options. With the exception of Tigers, I think we are at a disadvantage if the game turns into a bullpen war. '

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?

2nd in runs, and what is your definition of hole?

Definitely should have been a red flag, but there's also no guarantee that Bard succeeds in the closer role. Someone pointed out that the wheels started to fall off in September 2011. That could have continued into 2012 as a reliever. I'm not in favor of giving up good prospects for relievers, maybe if it's a glaring need at the deadline. This is also with the benefit of hindsight, but they might have been able to take the combined Lowrie and Reddick packages to make a move for a starter. I don't know who was available, and I'm not 100% sure that Lowrie and Reddick would have landed us a young starter at the time, so that's just wild speculation on my part. Also, many people believed Reddick was a 4th OF. We also got Sweeney in the deal. Although he sucked, it is defensible that the Red Sox thought they were swapping 4th OF's, and only gave up two prospects for a cheap replacement for Papelbon. I'll bet that no one thought that Reddick would have a WAR of 4.5 playing everyday. The deal didn't work out, but looking at it when it was made, it doesn't look a horrendous decision. The Melancon deal was a little more questionable, because Lowrie was a potential everyday SS, and Melancon was going to be the 8th inning guy. It also didn't help that they traded Scutaro, because you could at least argue that they moved Lowrie due to a surplus. They did have a need in the bullpen, and contending teams tend to overpay to fill holes, so that's another way to look at the deal. I think we can call it a bad deal, but if his worst move is trading away Reddick and Lowrie, then Cherrington is doing OK. He definitely could have maximized the returns, but they didn't cripple the franchise. As for not signing a free agent starter, the FO was against the wall with the massive contract commitments they already had on the books. They were banking on Bailey/Melancon to be a solid 1-2 punch, and for Bard to be respectable in the rotation. That blew up in their face, but they could have survived with just those moves going wrong. It's just that everything else that could have went wrong, went wrong. When you look back at 2012, it's a good thing that it did. A fringe contender probably doesn't unload Crawford/Beckett/Gonzalez, and the team isn't retooled for 2013.

Best record in MLB is meaningless, because homefield is decided by the All Star game. I think BR already does what you did. I know fangraphs does it by projected standings.

Rays slump continuing out west. Angels destroying them 11-2. Still 5.5 with games left dwindling.

Bradley hasn't shown enough to suggest he can play everyday. Besides, he has two more HR's than Nava? He's also hitting at a lower level. I probably could have been convinced earlier in the year that Bradley as an overall player is better than Nava. Too late to try it now, and I think Nava is overrated. He sucks defensively, but at least he hits. I'd rather have that problem, instead of a good defender who doesn't hit. I could see them carrying Bradley as a defensive replacement/pinch runner in October, but the talk of him starting is shelved until 2014. As for Bogaerts, he's three years younger than Bradley, so his numbers are much more impressive. I also think this thread was to identify the next Daniel Nava, not rip him for his lack of power. With that being said, Nava needed a lot of breaks to even reach the major league level. Hassan could make his debut next year, but he needs an injury for that to happen. Probably needs multiple ones to break the starting lineup.

I see you concede that the hitting ranks 2nd after ripping it in your last post. Anyway, our rotation looks solid. 5th in the AL in FIP, and if you dropped Dempster from consideration, those numbers look even better. The Tigers are clearly better here, so that is a little troubling. What really worries me is the bullpen. We rank 8th in the AL, and if you subtract Miller it gets worse. Not a lot of depth. Looks like the blueprint is to get 7 innings from our starters, so they can hand the ball to Tazawa and Uehara. Breslow and Thorton are probably OK from the left side, but what about righties? De la Rosa? Workman? Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Is this one opinion connected by supporting details, or is it multiple opinions on the lineup? Has to be the second one. Pedoria, Ortiz, and Nava are all above average hitters. They are .03 points behind the Tigers in OBP. If you removed Peralta, the Sox would be in first. Middlebrooks is the only low OBP player on the roster. K's are just another out, and the ones that do strike out too much have been hitting above average. I agree that Nava isn't a power threat, but he does get on base a lot, which is more valuable than no OBP and high SLG numbers. Despite those "flaws" you bring up, they are second in runs scored. The offense isn't the problem. I'd worry more about Buchholz, and the lack of depth in the bullpen.

Bard has a history of the yips. When he first started his professional career, his control was awful. Although, we could point out that those numbers came when he was a starter. The transition always seemed like wishful thinking. He had no track record of being a successful starter as a professional, and wasn't that great as a starter at UNC.

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. 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. 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.

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.

He has a good minor league track record, but the FO being down on him is probably because he hasn't translated those numbers to the majors. In 274 PA's he has a .561 OPS. He's also 26, so time is running out on him. I've heard it said that catchers develop later than other players, so maybe he could turn it around, but it's looking more and more likely that he could be an AAAA player. Also, the Pyramids are in Giza. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

If he is, then he should remember that he won 14 games despite a historically bad ERA in 2011. Has anyone had a worse ERA in that many innings?

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.

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.

Sounds more like superstition than any qualitative analysis. 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: 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. 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. Is there a point to bringing this up? This is pretty obvious. This could happen no matter what strategy was being used. The only change would be the inning they are being used. 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."

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.

No one is doing that.

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? Look at the Braves bullpen this year. Is it "essentially guaranteed" that Paul Maholm has better stuff than those pitchers in the bullpen? 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. 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. 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. Thinking in logical absolutes is not a good idea either.

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.

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

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.

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