Kimmi

Teams are not benefiting from having their relievers pitch less. Here is a blurb from a very good article from my man Dave Cameron at Fangraphs: "In fact, if you look at the sum of the components (in the table above, that’s ERA- and FIP-), there’s just no evidence that bullpens are preventing runs at a better rate now than they were before the current roster construction norms came along. Any improvements in quality of performance by the elite relievers have been offset by the fact that more innings are now being given to inferior arms, so the trade-off has essentially resulted in a change of no real benefit. We’re told that defined roles are supposed to make a reliever’s job easier by giving him a usage pattern he can adapt to. This makes sense from an intuitive standpoint, but the results don’t really show much of an effect. Teams have essentially taken two roster spots away from position players and handed them to the bullpen without seeing a tangible improvement in performance from their relievers overall."

No one is talking about closer by committee. For the majority of games, the closer will pitch the 9th inning. Sometimes, however, a game needs to be "saved" in the 8th inning. The closer should be brought in then. There is no reason why the closer can't also stay in the game for the 9th.

It's a valid point that you can't have your closer warming up several times during the game. I don't think you need to have the closer ready before the 7th, because there is still enough of the game left for your offense to have a chance to come back. My gripe is against the idea that a closer cannot be brought into the game during a crucial time in the 7th or 8th inning because he needs to be saved for the 9th inning. The 9th inning save situation may never materialize. Another situation is in extra inning games, when managers won't bring their closers into tie games when they're on the road. Why not? Because they're saving the closer for a save situation which, again, may never materialize. In the meantime, Joe Bum has been brought into the game and has coughed up 4 runs, while your best relief pitcher sits on the bench.

According to The Hardball Times, if you take out the bottom of the 9th inning (due to selection bias), the leverage index increases slightly in the 7th and 8th innings, then drops in the top of the 9th. http://www.hardballtimes.com/tht-live/leverage-index-by-inning/ Also, I have read that, statistically, the meat of the order comes up more often in the 8th inning while the 6-9 guys come up more often in the 9th, but intuitively, that doesn't make sense to me. I haven't been able to verify that one way or the other. I agree with you completely. Why worry about saving your best reliever for a situation that might never materialize when you are facing a crisis in the 8th inning?

Thanks, you blew my cover. I was warmly stowed away in a pile of socks, but they found me after receiving an "anonymous tip". They kicked me off in Virginia.

Considering that our system has been "decimated" by recent graduations and the Kimbrel trade, having 3 prospects in the top 20 and still being ranked a top 10 farm is pretty remarkable.

Well that's because like me, you're one of the few posters here who have any common sense. Note to other posters: That was meant to be a joke.

I agree that this is the Yankees game plan. They are looking to reset their luxury tax penalty in 2017, then go crazy in 2018, starting with Bryce. The new CBA will be adopted in December. Chances are, the luxury tax limit will be raised.

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.

As with the case of Price, if the Sox signed Harper, I would be thrilled. The rational side of me, however, says no, no, no.

I agree with you that Clay needs to stop talking and let his performance on the field do the talking for him. He sounded like he was really hoping that he would not be traded when all the trade speculation was circulating earlier in the offseason. Perhaps being in his contract year and knowing that the team has one more option that they can pick up on him will give him the incentive that he needs.

I am pretty sure the vast majority of fans just want him gone.

I don't know if I would call him a numbskull, but I think he is very fragile, both physically and mentally. His mental fragility shows when he is dealing with a physical injury and when he is on the field and he gets in a little trouble. That said, I have always liked him. He is maddening at times, but when he's "good Clay", watching him pitch is a thing of beauty. I'm not going to hold my breath for 200 innings, or even 180 innings, but if he gives us half a season like he did last season, I will be happy with his signing for this year.

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

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.

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.

I don't really care for him either. While I would love to have that talent on the team, I really hope the Sox don't try to sign him.

I don't really disagree with what you're saying. However, I think from a team's standpoint, it makes more sense to wait until the player reaches his arb years, then try to extend the player, buying out 3-4 of his free agency years.

I don't know CP. This sounds like some kind of a shot towards Buchholz. Even Jon Lester had a career year in his walk year. We all know Clay is fragile. However, I have never gotten the impression that he did not work hard or that he did not care about not being on the field.

Who is Trey Ball? j/k I haven't followed his progress that closely, but my understanding is that he hasn't progressed like the FO was hoping he would. So I guess you can say that his progress has been disappointing so far. I guess you could also call him a bust so far. That said, it is far too early to give up on him. How old is he? Early 20s? He is still young enough that he can turn it around.

You are correct, sir.

Again with the "dead horse" stuff. Seriously, what else is so pressing for us to talk about that we're taking time away from those valuable discussions? We are not hijacking any other conversations in this thread. There is nothing else being discussed.

The number of PAs that each slot gets is absolutely a part of the equation. Here's the data on the average number of PAs per game and roughly the number of PAs for the year for each slot in the batting order: 1 4.83, 782 2 4.72, 765 3 4.61, 747 4 4.49, 727 5 4.39, 711 6 4.26, 690 7 4.14, 671 8 4.02, 651 9 3.90, 632 Here is a link to an article containing some of the data, organized neatly into tables, that goes into optimal lineup construction. http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2012/10/12/3490578/lineup-optimization-part-1-of-2

The role of the closer is overrated, IMO, which is not the same thing as saying that bullpens are overrated. I really do understand the idea of a relief pitcher wanting to know what his specific role is, but the idea that your best reliever can only pitch in the 9th inning because he's your closer is kind of silly.

It is a beautiful time of the year. Every player is in the best shape of his life.