sk7326

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.

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

Well, if you go to Fangraphs, it is more like Pettitte by 1.5 wins. It is a vestige of how the numbers are calculated (Fangraphs uses FIP, Baseball reference adjusts actual runs allowed) ... but your conclusion - that a reliever has to be like twice as good as league average to make up a 3x IP difference is not unreasonable. But the guy has to be lights out in the short role - or else 180 innings of decent starting (which is better than 2013 Pettitte) is still more valuable, both for the value the pitcher creates as well as for the innings he takes from inferior pitchers.

Last night was Lester's best start of the year - he has given up fewer hits and gone the distance ... but that was easily the best stuff he has had all season. The cutter's effectiveness and his feel for the pitch is the stuff that made him a Top 12 or so pitcher in his best years ... last night was the first time it REALLY looked good. The K-rate, even in the starts before tonight, is not what you want to see from him - but last night was definitely progress. Struck out 9 of the 30 batters he faced (30%) ... he was over 25% in his two best seasons, and had gone below 20% since 2012. (K-% is a little more useful here than K/9, just because it accounts for the guys who get hits or walks who should count against your K-total).

when Lester was one of the dozen or so best pitchers in baseball, last night's performance was the rule ... cutter was best it was all year, his location was excellent. Scattered some hits, but not a ton of solid contact. Last night, THAT was #1 level stuff ... if he found something with that cutter again, he becomes a really dangerous pitcher again - more than just a reliable innings guy.

Well the latter yes (actually amazing considering he wasn't hitting at all) ... Bradley has the approach, just needs to see upper level pitching more

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.

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"

I do think most of these teams are in rough shape if you can get the starter out in 5 innings or less ... that said the postseason you'd expect Dempster to be a swing guy, and from his last outings - while he has struggled turning a lineup over two or three times, often he has been pretty good the first time around. And he misses bats regularly and will be throwing more like 93 than 90 in a bullpen gig. The bridge to Koji is pretty strong - although Breslow is the weakest link there. But Workman as a multi inning guy is not bad at all, and Thornton has been solid as a matchup guy.

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.

Well similar numbers but a 20 year old who conquered 2 levels while there are distinctly job openings at those positions (SS/3B) with the big club is different than a 23 year old who is being blocked by the team's best performing position player. Also, 2nd in runs, 2nd in OBP. More speed would be nice, but first base is the hardest base to nab and the Sox do it better than just about everybody. They will be fine. If Vic goes down, there is trouble long term, but they have the depth to fake it and to win a title that might be all you need.

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.

In his September 2011, he proved he could hit potentially. In Pawtucket he showed he could catch. What he has not shown is the ability to hold both jobs at the same time - catching is probably too much work for him. The question is - if he just focused on hitting, could he rake enough to be a passable DH/1B sort. I think it's possible - maybe. But if he is not offering offense from the catcher spot, he offers virtually nothing playing there.

I think fans are always conditioned to be skeptical of their own guys. It feels like other teams have better staff, but the reality might be distorted. Oakland's numbers are good, but you do have to normalize for a VERY pitching friendly context ... Tazawa leaves the ball up in the zone at times (especially oddly enough against Toronto) - which is dangerous in a high leverage situation - but overall has been quite good. Breslow, Koji have been good and honestly, Workman and Thornton for "other guys" in the bullpen are pretty good. What do you want out of your relievers late - pound the strike zone and get some swing and miss. Our top guys have done that (except for Breslow, though he has done it before, and his control has helped compensate some).

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.

Bradley came into this season with a severe lack of reps ... unless he was some sort of Ken Griffey prodigy, hard to start in the show with so little work behind him. The team deciding to leave him down for the AAA playoffs is a reasonable call - there are enough outfielders here for now, and he needs at-bats in important spots (instead of the sporadic work he'd get here). Up here he is backing up two of the team's best players - and he can't really play LF with the relative lack of power the other OFs have to begin with. But he'll be up soon enough, and he definitely I think would be in consideration for one of the remaining playoff roster positions.

Well Cherington has had a bit of a fetish for the proven closer trade ... the A's trade was a dicey one - although Reddick's issues seem somewhat permanent (sloppy approach) an adequate corner outfielder never begets a non-amazing reliever. Same could be said for the Melancon deal, where Lowrie is a starting level infielder when healthy (which of course he almost never is). The Hanrahan trade was more a garbage for garbage deal ... that Melancon has saved a bunch of games does not move me at all. If he has a poor spot as GM, that is it. Converting Bard was not a bad idea so much as not having a plan for it failing and being very indecisive (and frankly, letting Bobby talk to him or send notes or whatever the hell he did).

Getting predictions wrong is a part of life - it's what makes this fun too. If you have a good reliever - and you think he can be a good starter, you really ought to try him starting ... 200 innings of value vs 60 - no contest. The thing is you have to either A) cut bait totally when it is not working (the Red Sox mistake) or be committed to it (the Yankees one with Joba). It's hard to do these sorts of things in a, frankly, insane market like Boston or New York - especially with PR-obsessed management. Yankees should have been willing to stand behind the Joba experiment (and he was very very highly regarded as a STARTER by scouting types, which Bard never really was) and not be wishy washy about it. Fortunately of course, they screwed that up.

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.

Neither of them do - their stuff plays up in short bursts ... like a starter would ... none of those dudes could turn a lineup over more than once. For the most part relievers are failed starters - born and bred relievers (hello, Craig Hansen) are even more limited than that. The all bullpen approach also is very very high risk - if one reliever spits the bit, then you are starting to burn through pitchers very quickly, and do you carry 12 relievers for the occasion, some of those guys with horrid platoon splits? You probably want a starter for at least a little while.

A pure bullpen sort of idea COULD make sense ... for the wild card game, but almost certainly doesn't for the reasons mentioned (your relief pitchers are almost always inferior, otherwise they'd start). And that is only because you get to re-rack your pitching staff if you get to advance. Frankly, for me - it'd make much more sense in that instance to only carry 8 pitchers and load up on specialists (Berry, McDonald) who'd be nice to have for a very specific situation.

Kinda sorta ... a dude with fringy stuff is still getting hit ... even today, Fister had a good stretch, but there was a lot of good contact, poor results. Moore, Price - they can do that to anyone.

The plus-plus stuff is what will keep him employed fortunately for him. A team will take a chance - young guy, something happened. Could it be a buried medical thing, or a mechanical one or whatever.

Life with a lot of lefties - just get thrown a lot of changeups. Team's going to be ok - today was just one of those days.

... this is a very hard lineup to pitch to because there are no real soft spots now that Middlebrooks resembles a major league hitter again. Their approach still paid dividends today! They did not get the hits when they needed them - and some bad luck with the DPs ... but there was no shortage of chances here. We knew this was not going to be an unbeaten finish.