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.
|
Post by lostinnewjersey on Aug 26, 2021 8:53:19 GMT -5
Let's start by acknowledging that none of us really knows what it's like to be a major league relief pitcher. One kind of conventional wisdom says that players need to be comfortable in their roles, and if you put somebody in a different role (e.g., bring in the closer in a non-save situation), he's more likely to mess up. But it must be possible to have a bullpen full of guys who are prepared to enter the game at any time under a variety of circumstances. Some teams seem to be doing this successfully. The Rays have eleven different guys with saves this year. I think this is the model that's going to prevail in the coming years because it's better for on-the-field success, and it's probably cheaper.
So I hope Cora doesn't designate specific roles (closer, 7th inning guy), but uses whoever seems like the best option for each occasion.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,654
Member is Online
|
Closer
Aug 26, 2021 9:07:42 GMT -5
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 26, 2021 9:07:42 GMT -5
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but how would you know what the highest leverage situation of the game is going to be until after the game ends? In other words you're clinging to a 4-3 lead in the bottom of the 7th with the bases loaded and 1 out and you call on your ace reliever. He gets out of the inning and you say, "Yup, that's the biggest situation of the game", but then you pull him after the 8th inning as he's reached 40 pitches and you're still clinging to a 4-3 lead but now in the bottom of the 9th the new pitcher has loaded the bases with no outs and you're making another pitching change. You thought the 7th inning situation was the highest the game was going to have, but whoops, in the 9th a bigger one presented itself. Now what? You don't know truly what the highest leverage situation of the game is going to be until after the game is over. This is why I said it's true to a point - we can't know the future for certain. But in your scenario the 7th inning situation definitely is high leverage, whereas the 9th inning situation is only something that might happen. You definitely need a good reliever in the 7th, regardless of what happens later. By contrast, the way things work now is that you hold your best reliever back for 1-3 run 9th inning leads. If you don't use him in the 7th and lose the lead he never gets in the game. Or, if it's a 2- or 3-run 9th inning lead, you squander him in a low leverage situation. Or like I said, you hold the lead with your best pitcher in the 7th - hell it could be the 5th inning, any inning really as we never quite know until it's over which is the key out or outs of the game. How many games have seen a starter one pitch away from disaster suddenly right the ship and it turns? The only thing you do know for sure is that even if your ace reliever gets you out of a big jam in the 6th or 7th, you still have to get through the 9th and the 9th is the most irreversible inning there is in the game. Screw up in the 6th inning and there might not be a lead to protect in the 9th, but at least your offense gets more turns up to get the runs back. Screw up in the 9th...and you better hope you keep the tie and Hansel Robles is coming in to pitch for the other team. Sometimes you screw up the game in the 9th and there is no chance to come back as you're walking off the field in defeat. Like I said, your best guy saves the game in the 7th but isn't around to save it in the 9th and you have a lesser guy pitch the 9th, get in trouble, and then what? You used up your ace reliever. I know you consider 3 run leads low leverage but that's assuming a pitcher gets into trouble and gets out of it just enough to win. Sometimes that just doesn't happen. I get your point, but I just think it isn't as obvious as thought of. To pull it off you really need two ace relievers, guys of roughly equal ability because no matter how you slice it, it's better to have the lead after 9 than it is after 5 or 6 or 7 or whatever.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 26, 2021 9:29:10 GMT -5
Post by incandenza on Aug 26, 2021 9:29:10 GMT -5
This is why I said it's true to a point - we can't know the future for certain. But in your scenario the 7th inning situation definitely is high leverage, whereas the 9th inning situation is only something that might happen. You definitely need a good reliever in the 7th, regardless of what happens later. By contrast, the way things work now is that you hold your best reliever back for 1-3 run 9th inning leads. If you don't use him in the 7th and lose the lead he never gets in the game. Or, if it's a 2- or 3-run 9th inning lead, you squander him in a low leverage situation. Or like I said, you hold the lead with your best pitcher in the 7th - hell it could be the 5th inning, any inning really as we never quite know until it's over which is the key out or outs of the game. How many games have seen a starter one pitch away from disaster suddenly right the ship and it turns? The only thing you do know for sure is that even if your ace reliever gets you out of a big jam in the 6th or 7th, you still have to get through the 9th and the 9th is the most irreversible inning there is in the game. Screw up in the 6th inning and there might not be a lead to protect in the 9th, but at least your offense gets more turns up to get the runs back. Screw up in the 9th...and you better hope you keep the tie and Hansel Robles is coming in to pitch for the other team. Sometimes you screw up the game in the 9th and there is no chance to come back as you're walking off the field in defeat. Like I said, your best guy saves the game in the 7th but isn't around to save it in the 9th and you have a lesser guy pitch the 9th, get in trouble, and then what? You used up your ace reliever. I know you consider 3 run leads low leverage but that's assuming a pitcher gets into trouble and gets out of it just enough to win. Sometimes that just doesn't happen. I get your point, but I just think it isn't as obvious as thought of. To pull it off you really need two ace relievers, guys of roughly equal ability because no matter how you slice it, it's better to have the lead after 9 than it is after 5 or 6 or 7 or whatever. I think you're overthinking it. You seem to be projecting a special importance on the 9th inning, but every inning counts the same; the fact that the 9th inning comes last doesn't make it more "irreversible" than any other inning. They're all irreversible!
Yes, you'd rather have the lead after 9 than after 5 or 6 or 7, but whether you have that lead after 9 depends just as much on what happens in the 5th, 6th, or 7th as it does on what happens in the 9th.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,654
Member is Online
|
Closer
Aug 26, 2021 10:04:28 GMT -5
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 26, 2021 10:04:28 GMT -5
Or like I said, you hold the lead with your best pitcher in the 7th - hell it could be the 5th inning, any inning really as we never quite know until it's over which is the key out or outs of the game. How many games have seen a starter one pitch away from disaster suddenly right the ship and it turns? The only thing you do know for sure is that even if your ace reliever gets you out of a big jam in the 6th or 7th, you still have to get through the 9th and the 9th is the most irreversible inning there is in the game. Screw up in the 6th inning and there might not be a lead to protect in the 9th, but at least your offense gets more turns up to get the runs back. Screw up in the 9th...and you better hope you keep the tie and Hansel Robles is coming in to pitch for the other team. Sometimes you screw up the game in the 9th and there is no chance to come back as you're walking off the field in defeat. Like I said, your best guy saves the game in the 7th but isn't around to save it in the 9th and you have a lesser guy pitch the 9th, get in trouble, and then what? You used up your ace reliever. I know you consider 3 run leads low leverage but that's assuming a pitcher gets into trouble and gets out of it just enough to win. Sometimes that just doesn't happen. I get your point, but I just think it isn't as obvious as thought of. To pull it off you really need two ace relievers, guys of roughly equal ability because no matter how you slice it, it's better to have the lead after 9 than it is after 5 or 6 or 7 or whatever. I think you're overthinking it. You seem to be projecting a special importance on the 9th inning, but every inning counts the same; the fact that the 9th inning comes last doesn't make it more "irreversible" than any other inning. They're all irreversible!
Yes, you'd rather have the lead after 9 than after 5 or 6 or 7, but whether you have that lead after 9 depends just as much on what happens in the 5th, 6th, or 7th as it does on what happens in the 9th.
Not really. If Verdugo had hit a sac fly last night in the 9th and the Sox walked off with the 5-4 victory the blow lead by Colome would have not been irreversible. The Twins wouldn't have had a chance to even the score. If you turn a 4-2 lead into a 5-4 deficit in any other inning you have at least more than 3 outs to work with to catch up. The Twins had no other recourse had Verdugo gotten the winning run home. I think there is this thought process that just about all saves are of the 3 run variety. Well, I would say far more than the majority are 1 or 2 run leads. The average pitcher gives up about 1.4 baserunners per inning or somewhere around that. So there's likely going to be traffic and a real threat that the lead goes bye-bye and at best you get a bottom of the 9th or a top of the 10th if your pitcher blows it or worse the game is flat out lost and the other team is celebrating a dramatic walk-off. In your scenario the guy who's less likely to have traffic may have already pitched or thrown too many pitches to come into the 9th and you have a lesser pitcher, more likely to have traffic on base, in most likely a 1 or 2 run game, more prone to giving up runs, into the game....and say he gets the job done....comes in with a 2 run lead and gets out by the skin of his teeth, they win....but what manager or fan for that matter wants that kind of headache? I know you think that every inning is equal but I maintain that having a lead after 9 is far more important than any other inning unless you're playing extra innings or you have a 7 inning double header. You get nothing for having a lead after 6 innings or even 8. You get a W for having a lead after 9. A 1 or 2 run lead is high leverage in that situation. You can argue 3 runs is not and I can understand that argument although it doesn't take much to put a serious threat into that kind of lead. At the end of the day, this devolves into a chicken or the egg kind of argument, what comes first? If you can't hold the lead in the 7th (or really pick any random inning where you think the game is on the line - it really could be any inning), there's probably no lead to hold in the 9th, or if you hold the lead through 8 but blow it in the 9th then there's still no win to celebrate. Look, I really do see your argument. In a perfect world you have two awesome relievers of equal ability, but let's face it, if you did, you're more likely going to deploy one in the 8th and one in the 9th. A lot of bullpens are set up with hierarchy where one reliever stands out or in the case of the Sox, one did and their true best was under pitching restrictions, can only pitch with a two or three day's rest. And your argument also pretends that relievers don't mind not knowing when they're going to be used and that that type of thing doesn't matter to their mindset or affect their performance. I do believe relievers do like the hierarchy setup and the hope for promotion to the top of the pyramid where the big bucks are when they pitch well.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 26, 2021 10:12:09 GMT -5
Post by patford on Aug 26, 2021 10:12:09 GMT -5
The Red Sox should be focused on next year. For that reason the closer role isn't important at this point. I'd just as soon see some minor league arms given an opportunity to see if their game plays at the MLB level. Maybe Crawford? He's 25 years old. Time to see what he is.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 26, 2021 10:35:31 GMT -5
The Red Sox should be focused on next year. For that reason the closer role isn't important at this point. I'd just as soon see some minor league arms given an opportunity to see if their game plays at the MLB level. Maybe Crawford? He's 25 years old. Time to see what he is. Your commitment to this idea that they should tank the season while literally being in playoff position is the most stubbornly bonkers thing on this site since dmaineah's JBJ loathing.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 26, 2021 10:55:46 GMT -5
Post by patford on Aug 26, 2021 10:55:46 GMT -5
The Red Sox should be focused on next year. For that reason the closer role isn't important at this point. I'd just as soon see some minor league arms given an opportunity to see if their game plays at the MLB level. Maybe Crawford? He's 25 years old. Time to see what he is. Your commitment to this idea that they should tank the season while literally being in playoff position is the most stubbornly bonkers thing on this site since dmaineah's JBJ loathing. I think I've been committed to the idea for about a month. During that time I've only seen more evidence that the team has completely collapsed. It's a team which looks totally mentally and physically exhausted and the problems are snowballing with no sign of things improving.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,654
Member is Online
|
Closer
Aug 26, 2021 11:06:41 GMT -5
via mobile
soxinnj likes this
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 26, 2021 11:06:41 GMT -5
Your commitment to this idea that they should tank the season while literally being in playoff position is the most stubbornly bonkers thing on this site since dmaineah's JBJ loathing. I think I've been committed to the idea for about a month. During that time I've only seen more evidence that the team has completely collapsed. It's a team which looks totally mentally and physically exhausted and the problems are snowballing with no sign of things improving. This is utterly ridiculous. There's no reason they can't be the 2nd wild card. It's not like Oakland, Seattle, or Toronto are the 98 Yankees. Seriously, what advantage do the Sox derive if they lose on purpose? Last year it made sense to root for them to tank, hello Mayer, but now? That's utterly ridiculous.
|
|
dcb26
Rookie
Posts: 226
Member is Online
|
Closer
Aug 26, 2021 18:05:11 GMT -5
Post by dcb26 on Aug 26, 2021 18:05:11 GMT -5
The Red Sox should be focused on next year. For that reason the closer role isn't important at this point. I'd just as soon see some minor league arms given an opportunity to see if their game plays at the MLB level. Maybe Crawford? He's 25 years old. Time to see what he is. Your commitment to this idea that they should tank the season while literally being in playoff position is the most stubbornly bonkers thing on this site since dmaineah's JBJ loathing.Ironic because the whole time this thread has been going on I've been thinking "this conversation just isn't the same without a handful of posts insisting on Eovaldi as the closer." To make this relevant, My main concern is that Barnes hits the IL to rest and hopefully get back to where he needs to be. Ideally they mix and match in the meantime and see if anyone jumps out as an alternative solution if needed.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 26, 2021 18:16:19 GMT -5
Post by patford on Aug 26, 2021 18:16:19 GMT -5
Your commitment to this idea that they should tank the season while literally being in playoff position is the most stubbornly bonkers thing on this site since dmaineah's JBJ loathing.Ironic because the whole time this thread has been going on I've been thinking "this conversation just isn't the same without a handful of posts insisting on Eovaldi as the closer." To make this relevant, My main concern is that Barnes hits the IL to rest and hopefully get back to where he needs to be. Ideally they mix and match in the meantime and see if anyone jumps out as an alternative solution if needed. The problem with the Eovaldi as closer idea is he is the only starting pitcher consistently going even five inning. And that right there is the problem and why the bullpen is in tatters. It's quite obvious that Barnes has never been good back to back or when used heavily. Which makes him the same as most relief pitchers. Even Robles. One night he is 98-99 and one night later he is 95-96 with less command. It's really the loss of command which causes things to spiral. You start to see any pitcher throw 25+ pitches in an inning and by the end of the inning they are gassed. The next night it's even worse. This is a huge and unsolvable problem with the starters going 2-3-4 innings on a frequent basis.
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Aug 26, 2021 20:50:24 GMT -5
Feltman has been showing the goods lately in Worcester. He could get some looks next season at a closer role if it continues.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 27, 2021 4:22:38 GMT -5
Post by voiceofreason on Aug 27, 2021 4:22:38 GMT -5
Off subject a little bit but I would love to see the Sox sign Ryan Tepera in the offseason. He will be a FA and possible under the radar guy, although his numbers should put him on the radar. I can definitely see the Sox going by committee next year as I just don't see Chaim breaking the bank on a proven closer not do I see Barnes as the fulltime guy. They just need to drill it into everyones heads to be ready thru out the game for whatever role is needed game by game. Also they might need to think about having more guys who can go 2+ rather than 1 as the starters will be averaging less than 6.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 27, 2021 6:52:07 GMT -5
Off subject a little bit but I would love to see the Sox sign Ryan Tepera in the offseason. He will be a FA and possible under the radar guy, although his numbers should put him on the radar. I can definitely see the Sox going by committee next year as I just don't see Chaim breaking the bank on a proven closer not do I see Barnes as the fulltime guy. They just need to drill it into everyones heads to be ready thru out the game for whatever role is needed game by game. Also they might need to think about having more guys who can go 2+ rather than 1 as the starters will be averaging less than 6. Bloom will likely put together a good bullpen. He did it this year until the starters killed the bullpen.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 27, 2021 10:55:04 GMT -5
Post by joshuacoffee on Aug 27, 2021 10:55:04 GMT -5
A lot of discussion here about telling all bullpen pitchers to be ready to go into the game at any time. Buck Showalter talks about how pitchers really want to know what there role is. I suspect that that is true for most of us in our jobs, and ya, we can go outside that role on occasion, and many of us actually like to grow our role gradually over time, but when there's no reason for being called on to handle things we normally don't handle and that happens often, I suspect most people would get frustrated at that. I would agree, however, that perhaps we need to start rethinking what kind of roles there should be, what skills fit what roles, and how we view different roles. There are probably fewer pitchers with the ability to come into a close game with runers on and clean that up than there are pitchers who can succeed in a traditional save opportunity, but we tend to view the "closer" as more important than a cleanup (not to be confused with mopup) guy. He also tends to get paid better. Incandenza's point (and the subsequent discussion by some others) about the Save stat is great. We are far better at treating what we count as important than counting what is important. It's why other stats like batting average and wins continue to live on at a higher level of importance than they should, because we've been counting them for a very long time. But without going down that rabbit hole... Alex Cora does have a history of thinking outside the box with his pitcher roles (remember, not too long ago, Barnes himself was used in the role of "go get the other teams best hitters out" regardless of inning) and assuming that CB had a hand in shaping Tampa pitching staffs, he has a history of finding really good pitchers who might not be what everyone else is looking for but can be used effectively when properly used.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 27, 2021 13:14:52 GMT -5
Post by voiceofreason on Aug 27, 2021 13:14:52 GMT -5
Off subject a little bit but I would love to see the Sox sign Ryan Tepera in the offseason. He will be a FA and possible under the radar guy, although his numbers should put him on the radar. I can definitely see the Sox going by committee next year as I just don't see Chaim breaking the bank on a proven closer not do I see Barnes as the fulltime guy. They just need to drill it into everyones heads to be ready thru out the game for whatever role is needed game by game. Also they might need to think about having more guys who can go 2+ rather than 1 as the starters will be averaging less than 6. Bloom will likely put together a good bullpen. He did it this year until the starters killed the bullpen. As I have stated before. The Sox actually have more QS from their starters than TBay, both of whom are at the bottom of the league in that stat but TBay has one of the best era's in the AL. It is a matter of philosophy about how to build a pitching staff. It happens to be Chaims philosophy as he created it in TBay btw. If you have a plethora of good but not great pitchers and the majority of them can get thru the lineup once maybe twice then it isn't about starters that traditionally go 7. Currently starting pitchers are averaging less than 5 so it is about having a bunch of guys that could be considered a #4 or #5 or a long reliever but they are one in the same as long as they can dial it up and give you 2 or 3. Houck and Whitlock fit into this category perfectly right now and maybe at some point in the future they become a #3 that goes 6 or 7. Add Seabold to this group next year along with a FA or 2 and the Sox have the depth to do it. Even Richards and Perez have looked better in this role.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 27, 2021 14:33:29 GMT -5
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 27, 2021 14:33:29 GMT -5
They need a new plan next year but I will say Barnes still has value. Maybe a 2 headed closer. Like the year they had Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,322
Member is Online
|
Closer
Aug 27, 2021 14:58:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 27, 2021 14:58:07 GMT -5
They need a new plan next year but I will say Barnes still has value. Maybe a 2 headed closer. Like the year they had Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon. This is my line of thinking as well. Barnes is a valuable reliever and at times very valuable. I just don't trust him over the course of a season to handle the closer role full time as we've seen he seems to tire down and be much less effective.
|
|
|