SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2019-20 Red Sox offseason
|
Post by Addam603 on Nov 27, 2019 13:48:00 GMT -5
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 27, 2019 14:54:03 GMT -5
I see Greg Bird just cleared waivers himself. I would think he would be someone who could alternate nicely with Dalbec or Chavis at first. I know he has been hurt a lot, but great swing and is due for some good luck.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 27, 2019 23:56:34 GMT -5
Johnson's command isn't good enough to get away with an 87-88 mph fastball. It basically has to be perfect or else it's batting practice. If he could sit 90 and top at 92, he'd be golden. Also, he started walking way too many people last season, another thing he can't get away with. Up to 11.9%. The medical reports might have contributed to this move.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 28, 2019 20:39:15 GMT -5
Johnson's command isn't good enough to get away with an 87-88 mph fastball. It basically has to be perfect or else it's batting practice. If he could sit 90 and top at 92, he'd be golden. Also, he started walking way too many people last season, another thing he can't get away with. Up to 11.9%. The medical reports might have contributed to this move. Really savvy move. They figured out that no one was in a position to gamble on him bouncing back, but he's exactly the sort of guy we'd be looking for as an mlfa. He's good enough when he's on his game that his lack of options is not an issue. He'll be able to work to returning to form in a much more structured way than as our long man in the pen.
|
|
|
Post by jbsox on Nov 29, 2019 7:26:20 GMT -5
The Rays use the opener to break in young pitchers who might not be ready for full time starting pitching. What do people think of the idea of using openers for our pitchers in our 30s who have health and durability concerns to help them make it through the long season?
Maybe it could be beneficial for Sale, Price, Eovaldi, and if we sign an additional low cost starter. Have Hernandez be our lefty designated opener, and we could have a righty one too depending on matchups. Our veteran “bulk” pitchers can pitch say the 2nd or 3rd inning through the 6th or 7th, and if they are really on that day let them keep going. It could be a way to help preserve them. Erod being younger in his prime we could look for him to be our bulldog eating more innings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 8:54:19 GMT -5
The Rays use the opener to break in young pitchers who might not be ready for full time starting pitching. What do people think of the idea of using openers for our pitchers in our 30s who have health and durability concerns to help them make it through the long season? Maybe it could be beneficial for Sale, Price, Eovaldi, and if we sign an additional low cost starter. Have Hernandez be our lefty designated opener, and we could have a righty one too depending on matchups. Our veteran “bulk” pitchers can pitch say the 2nd or 3rd inning through the 6th or 7th, and if they are really on that day let them keep going. It could be a way to help preserve them. Erod being younger in his prime we could look for him to be our bulldog eating more innings. I think that I will not watch a Red Sox game that features an opener.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 29, 2019 9:04:59 GMT -5
I sometimes think that a lot of this talk about openers is kind of silly.
At the end of the day you still need five pitchers capable of bulk innings.
I remember when Lou Piniella in a playoff game I think opted to start reliever Ted Powers for an inning or so - just to mess up the Pirates I believe it was.
The bottom line with an opener is that all he is is just a reliever coming in for an inning while the "real" starter comes in during the 2nd inning or 3rd inning so he's facing the bottom of the order instead of the top.
Instead of the starter going 6 and having a 7th inning reliever, you instead have your 7th inning reliever pitch the 1st and your starter pitches the next 6 innings getting them thru the 7th.
Either way you still have to cover those 7 innings. It's not like you're using five pitchers to do that.
For all the openers TB uses they still have a guy like Yarborough soaking up innings.
So yeah, you can start Hernandez for an inning or two but you're still going to need Eovaldi to soak up five innings, but if he's just an opener you'll need some other pitcher to give you length out of the pen. If you don't, you'll kill your pen over the course of time.
So the bottom line is that you're still going to need five guys who can give up 140 plus innings. No matter when they actually start pitching in the game.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Nov 29, 2019 9:21:50 GMT -5
I sometimes think that a lot of this talk about openers is kind of silly. At the end of the day you still need five pitchers capable of bulk innings. I remember when Lou Piniella in a playoff game I think opted to start reliever Ted Powers for an inning or so - just to mess up the Pirates I believe it was. The bottom line with an opener is that all he is is just a reliever coming in for an inning while the "real" starter comes in during the 2nd inning or 3rd inning so he's facing the bottom of the order instead of the top. Instead of the starter going 6 and having a 7th inning reliever, you instead have your 7th inning reliever pitch the 1st and your starter pitches the next 6 innings getting them thru the 7th. Either way you still have to cover those 7 innings. It's not like you're using five pitchers to do that. For all the openers TB uses they still have a guy like Yarborough soaking up innings. So yeah, you can start Hernandez for an inning or two but you're still going to need Eovaldi to soak up five innings, but if he's just an opener you'll need some other pitcher to give you length out of the pen. If you don't, you'll kill your pen over the course of time. So the bottom line is that you're still going to need five guys who can give up 140 plus innings. No matter when they actually start pitching in the game. My idea of a good opener is a guy who is capable of making it thru the lineup once , not just 3 outs. The Sox have many prospects that were starters turned relievers, it would be nice if a few of them could give you decent numbers and 100 innings. I would think Johnson and Velazquez could be those guys also, they have both had their moments.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 29, 2019 9:37:49 GMT -5
I sometimes think that a lot of this talk about openers is kind of silly. At the end of the day you still need five pitchers capable of bulk innings. I remember when Lou Piniella in a playoff game I think opted to start reliever Ted Powers for an inning or so - just to mess up the Pirates I believe it was. The bottom line with an opener is that all he is is just a reliever coming in for an inning while the "real" starter comes in during the 2nd inning or 3rd inning so he's facing the bottom of the order instead of the top. Instead of the starter going 6 and having a 7th inning reliever, you instead have your 7th inning reliever pitch the 1st and your starter pitches the next 6 innings getting them thru the 7th. Either way you still have to cover those 7 innings. It's not like you're using five pitchers to do that. For all the openers TB uses they still have a guy like Yarborough soaking up innings. So yeah, you can start Hernandez for an inning or two but you're still going to need Eovaldi to soak up five innings, but if he's just an opener you'll need some other pitcher to give you length out of the pen. If you don't, you'll kill your pen over the course of time. So the bottom line is that you're still going to need five guys who can give up 140 plus innings. No matter when they actually start pitching in the game. My idea of a good opener is a guy who is capable of making it thru the lineup once , not just 3 outs. The Sox have many prospects that were starters turned relievers, it would be nice if a few of them could give you decent numbers and 100 innings. I would think Johnson and Velazquez could be those guys also, they have both had their moments. You're talking two good innings basically. You're not likely going to have some #6 type starter/normal 7th inning reliever go nine up and nine down. Most likely you're talking getting through 8 or 9 batters in 2 innings. Basically a 2 inning reliever. In a perfect world situation you're talking about a guy getting six guys out so that the starter comes in for the 3rd inning facing the 7/8/9 batters so he's not being as tested as he would be dealing with the best hitters in the lineup coming up right away to face him.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 29, 2019 11:03:01 GMT -5
I sometimes think that a lot of this talk about openers is kind of silly. At the end of the day you still need five pitchers capable of bulk innings. This made me curious to look up how the distribution of innings pitched compared for the Red Sox' and Rays' staffs last season. Here they are by number of pitchers who exceeded a given IP count: 200+ IP: Sox 1, Rays 0 150+: Sox 2, Rays 1 100+: Sox 4, Rays 5 75+: Sox 5, Rays 5 50+: Sox 12, Rays 12 40+: Sox 15, Rays 16 30+: Sox 18, Rays 17 My two takeaways from this: 1) There's hardly any difference in the distribution of innings, despite the different approaches. And glancing at a few random other teams, it looks pretty similar elsewhere as well. 2) The distribution of IP is much more linear than we tend to conceptualize it. I.e., we think of a pitching staff as having 5 starters that will pitch a bunch of innings, with 200 being the platonic ideal, and then a bunch of relievers who will pitch fewer than 60. But in real life the typical team will have maybe 2 guys who really achieve a full starting pitcher load, then a few more who might pitch 100-125 innings, then a couple around 75 innings, then a bunch around 50. Kind of makes me think that there's value in investing less in top of the rotation guys (who might get injured and not give you many innings) and more in #6/7/swing types, who stand a good chance of being called on to give you ~100 innings or more, even if they aren't penciled in as starters at the beginning of the season. So, you know. The opposite of Dombrowski's approach, basically.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 29, 2019 11:07:04 GMT -5
I sometimes think that a lot of this talk about openers is kind of silly. At the end of the day you still need five pitchers capable of bulk innings. This made me curious to look up how the distribution of innings pitched compared for the Red Sox' and Rays' staffs last season. Here they are by number of pitchers who exceeded a given IP count: 200+ IP: Sox 1, Rays 0 150+: Sox 2, Rays 1 100+: Sox 4, Rays 5 75+: Sox 5, Rays 5 50+: Sox 12, Rays 12 40+: Sox 15, Rays 16 30+: Sox 18, Rays 17 My two takeaways from this: 1) There's hardly any difference in the distribution of innings, despite the different approaches. And glancing at a few random other teams, it looks pretty similar elsewhere as well. 2) The distribution of IP is much more linear than we tend to conceptualize it. I.e., we think of a pitching staff as having 5 starters that will pitch a bunch of innings, with 200 being the platonic ideal, and then a bunch of relievers who will pitch fewer than 60. But in real life the typical team will have maybe 2 guys who really achieve a full starting pitcher load, then a few more who might pitch 100-125 innings, then a couple around 75 innings, then a bunch around 50. Kind of makes me think that there's value in investing less in top of the rotation guys (who might get injured and not give you many innings) and more in #6/7/swing types, who stand a good chance of being called on to give you ~100 innings or more, even if they aren't penciled in as starters at the beginning of the season. So, you know. The opposite of Dombrowski's approach, basically. I guess that kind of verifies what I'm saying? The problem is that the swing guys are as unpredictable as your typical relievers. They're basically guys who aren't good enough to crack the top five of a rotation and don't really have the stuff to dominate out of the bullpen. Brian Johnson and Hector Velazquez are good examples of these kinds of guys. In 2018 they did a fantastic job. In 2019 they weren't even replacement level. So it can come down to who has the best swingmen to use for these types of roles? So yes the Red Sox need better performances out of these guys pitching 100 - 125 inning or so but I'd say these guys are just as unpredictable as your typical reliever.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 29, 2019 11:55:18 GMT -5
This made me curious to look up how the distribution of innings pitched compared for the Red Sox' and Rays' staffs last season. Here they are by number of pitchers who exceeded a given IP count: 200+ IP: Sox 1, Rays 0 150+: Sox 2, Rays 1 100+: Sox 4, Rays 5 75+: Sox 5, Rays 5 50+: Sox 12, Rays 12 40+: Sox 15, Rays 16 30+: Sox 18, Rays 17 My two takeaways from this: 1) There's hardly any difference in the distribution of innings, despite the different approaches. And glancing at a few random other teams, it looks pretty similar elsewhere as well. 2) The distribution of IP is much more linear than we tend to conceptualize it. I.e., we think of a pitching staff as having 5 starters that will pitch a bunch of innings, with 200 being the platonic ideal, and then a bunch of relievers who will pitch fewer than 60. But in real life the typical team will have maybe 2 guys who really achieve a full starting pitcher load, then a few more who might pitch 100-125 innings, then a couple around 75 innings, then a bunch around 50. Kind of makes me think that there's value in investing less in top of the rotation guys (who might get injured and not give you many innings) and more in #6/7/swing types, who stand a good chance of being called on to give you ~100 innings or more, even if they aren't penciled in as starters at the beginning of the season. So, you know. The opposite of Dombrowski's approach, basically. I guess that kind of verifies what I'm saying? The problem is that the swing guys are as unpredictable as your typical relievers. They're basically guys who aren't good enough to crack the top five of a rotation and don't really have the stuff to dominate out of the bullpen. Brian Johnson and Hector Velazquez are good examples of these kinds of guys. In 2018 they did a fantastic job. In 2019 they weren't even replacement level. So it can come down to who has the best swingmen to use for these types of roles? So yes the Red Sox need better performances out of these guys pitching 100 - 125 inning or so but I'd say these guys are just as unpredictable as your typical reliever. Well, it verifies what you're saying in the sense that, yes, having an opener doesn't fundamentally change a team's pitching needs. But it doesn't mean that it isn't a good strategy to have an opener because you still get the match-up advantage early in the game because the other manager can't optimize their lineup for the pitcher they're facing. Which is what I always took the main point of the opener to be. As for the point about the swing guys, I think that verifies the point that I was making. It would be worth it to a team to target the best swing guys or #5 starter types available, both in terms of how much they invest in salaries and how much they focus on analytics in identifying who would thrive in that role.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 29, 2019 13:58:59 GMT -5
I guess that kind of verifies what I'm saying? The problem is that the swing guys are as unpredictable as your typical relievers. They're basically guys who aren't good enough to crack the top five of a rotation and don't really have the stuff to dominate out of the bullpen. Brian Johnson and Hector Velazquez are good examples of these kinds of guys. In 2018 they did a fantastic job. In 2019 they weren't even replacement level. So it can come down to who has the best swingmen to use for these types of roles? So yes the Red Sox need better performances out of these guys pitching 100 - 125 inning or so but I'd say these guys are just as unpredictable as your typical reliever. Well, it verifies what you're saying in the sense that, yes, having an opener doesn't fundamentally change a team's pitching needs. But it doesn't mean that it isn't a good strategy to have an opener because you still get the match-up advantage early in the game because the other manager can't optimize their lineup for the pitcher they're facing. Which is what I always took the main point of the opener to be. As for the point about the swing guys, I think that verifies the point that I was making. It would be worth it to a team to target the best swing guys or #5 starter types available, both in terms of how much they invest in salaries and how much they focus on analytics in identifying who would thrive in that role. I wasn't saying it was a good strategy. I was pushing back a little against the post above mine saying that the poster would choose not to watch games started by an opener which is his right, but my point was that it's not this big huge thing that changes the bottom line: you still need five guys at least to pitch in bulk. Like you said the whole idea is to shift the innings pitched to make life easier for the starter. I don't disagree that the Sox need to find the best swing guys around now that they're more valuable to have, although I would argue that we're basically talking two inning relievers or guys who couldn't hack starting like a Travis Lakins or Darwinzon Hernandez, but have a little more stamina in them that they can be useful for more than 3 batters and/or outs. All I can say is we talk out the unpredictability of relievers....well so it is for these swing guys/multiple inning relievers. Obviously on the Red Sox guys like Shawaryn, Lakins and even Darwinzon Hernandez, although I would suspect they'd rather he be a late inning 1 inning reliever, could be these opener guys. But still the key is having guys like Sale, Price, Eovaldi (if he is indeed more than a 2 or 3 inning opener), E-Rod and whoever they acquire to take Porcello's spot do the job of pitching the bulk innings needed. I think there's this thought that the closer is this drastically revolutionary change. I honestly don't think it is. I think it's just a strategic shift but it doesn't drastically change the need to find guys who can pitch innings (like a starting pitcher would). To me it's kind of like all of this shifting. It doesn't add extra guys to the defense. It just places the 9 guys already there in a more strategic way. The way some talk, you'd think there are 10 guys on the field or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Nov 29, 2019 15:36:18 GMT -5
Well, it verifies what you're saying in the sense that, yes, having an opener doesn't fundamentally change a team's pitching needs. But it doesn't mean that it isn't a good strategy to have an opener because you still get the match-up advantage early in the game because the other manager can't optimize their lineup for the pitcher they're facing. Which is what I always took the main point of the opener to be. As for the point about the swing guys, I think that verifies the point that I was making. It would be worth it to a team to target the best swing guys or #5 starter types available, both in terms of how much they invest in salaries and how much they focus on analytics in identifying who would thrive in that role. I wasn't saying it was a good strategy. I was pushing back a little against the post above mine saying that the poster would choose not to watch games started by an opener which is his right, but my point was that it's not this big huge thing that changes the bottom line: you still need five guys at least to pitch in bulk. Like you said the whole idea is to shift the innings pitched to make life easier for the starter. I don't disagree that the Sox need to find the best swing guys around now that they're more valuable to have, although I would argue that we're basically talking two inning relievers or guys who couldn't hack starting like a Travis Lakins or Darwinzon Hernandez, but have a little more stamina in them that they can be useful for more than 3 batters and/or outs. All I can say is we talk out the unpredictability of relievers....well so it is for these swing guys/multiple inning relievers. Obviously on the Red Sox guys like Shawaryn, Lakins and even Darwinzon Hernandez, although I would suspect they'd rather he be a late inning 1 inning reliever, could be these opener guys. But still the key is having guys like Sale, Price, Eovaldi (if he is indeed more than a 2 or 3 inning opener), E-Rod and whoever they acquire to take Porcello's spot do the job of pitching the bulk innings needed. I think there's this thought that the closer is this drastically revolutionary change. I honestly don't think it is. I think it's just a strategic shift but it doesn't drastically change the need to find guys who can pitch innings (like a starting pitcher would). To me it's kind of like all of this shifting. It doesn't add extra guys to the defense. It just places the 9 guys already there in a more strategic way. The way some talk, you'd think there are 10 guys on the field or something like that. From a strategic perspective, I like the idea of an opener (and I think the Sox should investigate its use). But it destroys the romantic idea that many of us grew up with of “the guy” who pitches his team to victory. First 20 wins were under attack, then 200 innings, and finally having a starting pitcher in every game. It makes baseball feel a little less like baseball.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Nov 29, 2019 15:46:21 GMT -5
And I would add this: Part of the magic of baseball is you never know whether those tickets you bought are going to be a piece of history.
In a game with openers, you’re never going to see a no-hitter or a perfect game. Not even a complete game shut-out. That chance is gone out of the gate.
And no, the combined ones don’t count.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 29, 2019 16:24:00 GMT -5
I wasn't saying it was a good strategy. I was pushing back a little against the post above mine saying that the poster would choose not to watch games started by an opener which is his right, but my point was that it's not this big huge thing that changes the bottom line: you still need five guys at least to pitch in bulk. Like you said the whole idea is to shift the innings pitched to make life easier for the starter. I don't disagree that the Sox need to find the best swing guys around now that they're more valuable to have, although I would argue that we're basically talking two inning relievers or guys who couldn't hack starting like a Travis Lakins or Darwinzon Hernandez, but have a little more stamina in them that they can be useful for more than 3 batters and/or outs. All I can say is we talk out the unpredictability of relievers....well so it is for these swing guys/multiple inning relievers. Obviously on the Red Sox guys like Shawaryn, Lakins and even Darwinzon Hernandez, although I would suspect they'd rather he be a late inning 1 inning reliever, could be these opener guys. But still the key is having guys like Sale, Price, Eovaldi (if he is indeed more than a 2 or 3 inning opener), E-Rod and whoever they acquire to take Porcello's spot do the job of pitching the bulk innings needed. I think there's this thought that the closer is this drastically revolutionary change. I honestly don't think it is. I think it's just a strategic shift but it doesn't drastically change the need to find guys who can pitch innings (like a starting pitcher would). To me it's kind of like all of this shifting. It doesn't add extra guys to the defense. It just places the 9 guys already there in a more strategic way. The way some talk, you'd think there are 10 guys on the field or something like that. From a strategic perspective, I like the idea of an opener (and I think the Sox should investigate its use). But it destroys the romantic idea that many of us grew up with of “the guy” who pitches his team to victory. First 20 wins were under attack, then 200 innings, and finally having a starting pitcher in every game. It makes baseball feel a little less like baseball. I would think this makes it easier for the starter to win 20. If he comes in already trailing he can pitch terrible and still probably not get tagged with the loss. However, even if he comes in with the lead, he's more likely to become the pitcher of record on the plus side as he's likely to get credit for the win for pitching the bulk of the game with the lead - and he can still go five innings easy enough, although he might not even have to. So basically, being an opener is terrible for the won-loss record. You cannot record a win, but can easily get tagged with the loss. While it's the other way around for a starter. Makes it easier to record a win and less likely to record a loss.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 29, 2019 16:25:50 GMT -5
And I would add this: Part of the magic of baseball is you never know whether those tickets you bought are going to be a piece of history. In a game with openers, you’re never going to see a no-hitter or a perfect game. Not even a complete game shut-out. That chance is gone out of the gate. And no, the combined ones don’t count. My other comment aside, I do agree with you. I like seeing a starter able to go nine and/or be able to pitch a shut-out or a no-hitter. I really think the opener is still more for the guy you hope gives you five rather than a guy you count on to go at least six.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 29, 2019 22:53:36 GMT -5
I do wonder if MLB will try and do something to disincentivize the opener somehow if it continues to spread. I'm not sure what that would be though - you can't FORCE the starter to go a certain number of innings. Maybe # of pitches except in the case of an injury?
I could see the players union wanting that too. The opener could be seen as a tactic to keep starting pitcher salaries down, in their eyes.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Nov 30, 2019 7:20:35 GMT -5
I hope that the opener is not a significant discussion this offseason. However, I also hope that it is not limited as it allows low revenue teams to compete and use its roster to its best.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 30, 2019 10:54:27 GMT -5
I do wonder if MLB will try and do something to disincentivize the opener somehow if it continues to spread. I'm not sure what that would be though - you can't FORCE the starter to go a certain number of innings. Maybe # of pitches except in the case of an injury? I could see the players union wanting that too. The opener could be seen as a tactic to keep starting pitcher salaries down, in their eyes. I wouldn't mind a rule saying you can sub a player out and keep him available If the opposing starter faces fewer than X batters. That way teams can't just use the opener to screw with platoon-heavy teams. The rule comes from when the starter was expected to go the whole game, so I think it makes sense to update substitution rules to fit with modern pitcher usage.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Nov 30, 2019 10:57:00 GMT -5
I wasn't saying it was a good strategy. I was pushing back a little against the post above mine saying that the poster would choose not to watch games started by an opener which is his right, but my point was that it's not this big huge thing that changes the bottom line: you still need five guys at least to pitch in bulk. Like you said the whole idea is to shift the innings pitched to make life easier for the starter. I don't disagree that the Sox need to find the best swing guys around now that they're more valuable to have, although I would argue that we're basically talking two inning relievers or guys who couldn't hack starting like a Travis Lakins or Darwinzon Hernandez, but have a little more stamina in them that they can be useful for more than 3 batters and/or outs. All I can say is we talk out the unpredictability of relievers....well so it is for these swing guys/multiple inning relievers. Obviously on the Red Sox guys like Shawaryn, Lakins and even Darwinzon Hernandez, although I would suspect they'd rather he be a late inning 1 inning reliever, could be these opener guys. But still the key is having guys like Sale, Price, Eovaldi (if he is indeed more than a 2 or 3 inning opener), E-Rod and whoever they acquire to take Porcello's spot do the job of pitching the bulk innings needed. I think there's this thought that the closer is this drastically revolutionary change. I honestly don't think it is. I think it's just a strategic shift but it doesn't drastically change the need to find guys who can pitch innings (like a starting pitcher would). To me it's kind of like all of this shifting. It doesn't add extra guys to the defense. It just places the 9 guys already there in a more strategic way. The way some talk, you'd think there are 10 guys on the field or something like that. From a strategic perspective, I like the idea of an opener (and I think the Sox should investigate its use). But it destroys the romantic idea that many of us grew up with of “the guy” who pitches his team to victory. First 20 wins were under attack, then 200 innings, and finally having a starting pitcher in every game. It makes baseball feel a little less like baseball.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Nov 30, 2019 10:58:06 GMT -5
If you want to go to a place where baseball feels a little less like baseball, try going to the Rays park. It feels like an indoor gym.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 30, 2019 11:22:02 GMT -5
That's because, like the old Kingdome in Seattle, it's a cement mausoleum. Now the new stadium? Sign me up: an open-air sun-shielded playground. This looks beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 30, 2019 11:47:10 GMT -5
I do wonder if MLB will try and do something to disincentivize the opener somehow if it continues to spread. I'm not sure what that would be though - you can't FORCE the starter to go a certain number of innings. Maybe # of pitches except in the case of an injury?I could see the players union wanting that too. The opener could be seen as a tactic to keep starting pitcher salaries down, in their eyes. Probably a requirement that whoever starts the game goes five complete innings, and then a list of exemptions... if you throw more than X pitches total they can take you out whenever, more than X pitches in a single inning, more than X runs given up, etc. As to the bit about the players union wanting this... I actually think everyone should want this. I think that if you were to fully optimize pitcher usage within the current bounds of the rules, it would make baseball almost unwatchable. For instance, one tiny bit of inefficiency that hasn't been touched is the convention of not lifting your pitcher in the middle of an AB except in the case of an injury. But really, you should always change pitchers mid AB. People have looked at it and it's definitely a huge disadvantage for the hitter, and some college teams have apparently started doing this. But does anyone really want to watch that version of baseball? Critical AB, pitcher gets strike two... and then we bring in an opposite handed pitcher, bringing the game to a screeching halt and putting the hitter in a completely impossible situation?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 13:10:10 GMT -5
Well, it verifies what you're saying in the sense that, yes, having an opener doesn't fundamentally change a team's pitching needs. But it doesn't mean that it isn't a good strategy to have an opener because you still get the match-up advantage early in the game because the other manager can't optimize their lineup for the pitcher they're facing. Which is what I always took the main point of the opener to be. As for the point about the swing guys, I think that verifies the point that I was making. It would be worth it to a team to target the best swing guys or #5 starter types available, both in terms of how much they invest in salaries and how much they focus on analytics in identifying who would thrive in that role. I wasn't saying it was a good strategy. I was pushing back a little against the post above mine saying that the poster would choose not to watch games started by an opener which is his right, but my point was that it's not this big huge thing that changes the bottom line: you still need five guys at least to pitch in bulk. Like you said the whole idea is to shift the innings pitched to make life easier for the starter. I don't disagree that the Sox need to find the best swing guys around now that they're more valuable to have, although I would argue that we're basically talking two inning relievers or guys who couldn't hack starting like a Travis Lakins or Darwinzon Hernandez, but have a little more stamina in them that they can be useful for more than 3 batters and/or outs. All I can say is we talk out the unpredictability of relievers....well so it is for these swing guys/multiple inning relievers. Obviously on the Red Sox guys like Shawaryn, Lakins and even Darwinzon Hernandez, although I would suspect they'd rather he be a late inning 1 inning reliever, could be these opener guys. But still the key is having guys like Sale, Price, Eovaldi (if he is indeed more than a 2 or 3 inning opener), E-Rod and whoever they acquire to take Porcello's spot do the job of pitching the bulk innings needed. I think there's this thought that the closer is this drastically revolutionary change. I honestly don't think it is. I think it's just a strategic shift but it doesn't drastically change the need to find guys who can pitch innings (like a starting pitcher would). To me it's kind of like all of this shifting. It doesn't add extra guys to the defense. It just places the 9 guys already there in a more strategic way. The way some talk, you'd think there are 10 guys on the field or something like that. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said, and I do think there’s an important distinction. Yes, you need guys to eat up innings in the 4/5 spots. But the division of innings can be very fluid. CW approach to a staff has pigeonholed guys into SP (6+ inning guys) and relievers (the vast majority being 20-30 pitch guys). There’s been, it seems to me, a decrease in “bulk” relievers, the relatively quality guys who pitch 100-140 innings largely out of the bullpen...old school swingmen (remember Mark Eichorn?) who weren’t just viewed as failed starters, but valuable components for games where the starter junked early. The SP/RP line has gotten more stark with time. But I think the opener strategy TB came up with is a sort of re-imagining of that (very) old-school approach. There is a certain market inefficiency whereby post-hype high-end prospects (like Glasnow) with significant flaws (for him it was command), or solid “SP” prospects with good command, ability to throw 100 pitches regularly, who fail due to middling stuff/lacking a platoon-neutralizing pitch like a CH/no true out pitch (Jalen Beeks) lose value and their *niche*, because of the stringency of CW definition of niches. Historically, those guys have washed out or been converted for a role (say, 7-8th inning reliever for Glasnow) that underutilized their skillset (he’s capable of 100+ pitches but only throwing 20-30). The opener-bulk strategy is specifically designed for addressing an early platoon advantage, and then limiting the bulk guy to two times through the order. To me, that seems like an *ideal* approach for two types of pitchers: 1) aging veterans who’ve suffered a loss in stuff and are thus highly susceptible to the 3rd-time penalty (and thus come *really* cheaply in FA or through trade), and 2) young pitchers like Glasnow (or, say, Houck maybe, or Darwinzon) who have significant upside if they can address their critical flaw. It’s also very useful for a guy like Beeks who, without the 3rd-time penalty, can give you 4-5 innings of 3 or high-end 4 quality work (maybe 120 innings a year), rather than being a borderline AAAA guy. I don’t understand the pushback on openers. True aces and even quality 2/3 guys will always have a place in the game. But if a team can convert their two “5th starter/long reliever/basically replacement level when forced into a traditional role” guys into what amounts to “one” 240-inning #3 starter, that has tremendous value. Roster size won’t allow TOO much of that, but it’s a good way to get the same number of innings (traditional might mean one guy ends up your cruddy 160-inning 0.5 WAR 5th starter and the other a 0 WAR 80-inning swingman/spot starter/low end middle reliever). In that sense, you’re getting “bulk” innings but spreading them more evenly. And because the situations that are most likely to reveal their flaws (3rd time for the first guy, riding pine/bouncing from role to role and AAA to MLB for the second) are minimized, instead you get two 1-1.5 WAR 120-inning guys. Same pitchers, more wins. It’s also a great way to break in prospects or rebuild post-hype sleepers, and to turn aging pillow-contract guys into legit quality contributors.
|
|
|