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.
Closer for the rest of 2013 (and 2014?)
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jun 22, 2013 11:13:58 GMT -5
Can't wait for koji's end of game celebrations
|
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 22, 2013 12:25:17 GMT -5
All of the Papelbon pining seems to have people only remembering the good. This guy was a high wire act the last two years in Boston wasn't he? Letting inherited runners score? Maybe I am just remembering the bad... No. You're absolutely right. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 22, 2013 15:55:53 GMT -5
But blown leads in the seventh inning never lead to losses, apparently. Well I guess you're righht. Having an inferior reliever blow a 9th inning lead isn't as bad as an inferior reliever blowing a 6th or 7th inning lead. |
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jun 22, 2013 15:56:24 GMT -5
Since Uehara has done so well this season thus far and has become at least the interim close..
Does anyone know if his contract states that Boston cannot offer him arbitration after the season? I'd like for them to work with him now even on a 2Y team option 3rd deal in the 6mAAV deal. 38YO and checkered injury history or not. His career has lock down reliever written in all caps.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 22, 2013 16:14:46 GMT -5
Maine, your point makes all the sense in the world. My issue with it that even if you have your relief ace snuff out that 6 inning rally or 7th inning (honestly it could be a 5th inning rally that turns out to be the key rally of the game), you don't know if you'll run into a higher leverage situation later in the game, and the lesser pitcher you're bringing into the game in the 9th inning is more likely to get into deeper trouble than your relief ace is. You make a good point about the better ability of a relief ace to get out of a big jam, but I would think in today's day and age it's tougher to condition a reliever to be used in a way they're not used to.
In the 1960s or 1970s it was different. If they felt the turning point in the game was occurring in the sixth or seventh inning, the Sox didn't hesitate to bring Dick Radatz into the game to snuff out the fire. Not only would he snuff out the fire in the 6th inning, but he'd pitch all the way into the 9th and finish it. Managers didn't have to concern themselves if there would be a higher leverage situation later in the game - they knew they'd have their relief ace in the game anyways if there was. It's a different game now. I think the last time the Sox had that kind of reliever was Bob Stanley in the early 1980s.
I do agree that there can be too much knee jerk reaction to get the closer in. I mean, in my mind, there's no way I take Felix Doubront out of the game when he's pitching a gem the way he was, but I think Farrell did that because he only trusts Lester or Buchholz or Dempster to throw more than 100 pitches.
Anyways, this is my last post on the subject because I think we're getting away from the main topic (which is my fault) which is closer for 2013 and 2014. I think 2013 can be guessed at decently but 2014 might be the bigger mystery. Perhaps Gammons isn't blowing smoke and the Sox think that Workman could be that guy. Who knows? It'll be interesting to find out.
Maybe it's Miguel Alfredo Gonzalez?!
|
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jun 22, 2013 17:29:18 GMT -5
redsox04071318champsIn those days, (Radatz) RP went more than 1IP and burned out from overuse very quickly also. Think "Mr 200IP" Mike Marshall, even Bill Campbell of the Red Sox, who threw 140IP for Boston 1 year, after throwing almost 170 the year before for the Twins. Guys just can't do that and that's also converted starts like Marshall, Eckersley. The wear and tear of going out there 2-3IP 2-3 days in a row like Campbell and Marshall did just blew out there arms and it would do the same (in all likelihood) to a Gonzalez.
|
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jun 22, 2013 18:18:09 GMT -5
Maine, your point makes all the sense in the world. My issue with it that even if you have your relief ace snuff out that 6 inning rally or 7th inning (honestly it could be a 5th inning rally that turns out to be the key rally of the game), you don't know if you'll run into a higher leverage situation later in the game, and the lesser pitcher you're bringing into the game in the 9th inning is more likely to get into deeper trouble than your relief ace is. You make a good point about the better ability of a relief ace to get out of a big jam, but I would think in today's day and age it's tougher to condition a reliever to be used in a way they're not used to. So you should hang on to him until the 9th when you know it's not going to be high leverage outs? That doesn't make any sense; get the important outs when you need them and let the rest of the game take care of its self. You can't hold off on using him just because there might be more important outs later because you're never going to know which outs are the most important until the game is over, and at that point it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 22, 2013 18:47:31 GMT -5
Also, I object to this idea that you never know if there's going to be a high pressure situation later in the game. If you're facing the Tigers and Fielder/Cabrera are due up in the eighth inning, there's your pressure situation. It's not like Leyland can make substitutions for those guys. You're looking at a set lineup and counting down nine outs, figuring out when the opposing team has it's best chance to score isn't exactly rocket science.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 22, 2013 21:32:54 GMT -5
Maine, your point makes all the sense in the world. My issue with it that even if you have your relief ace snuff out that 6 inning rally or 7th inning (honestly it could be a 5th inning rally that turns out to be the key rally of the game), you don't know if you'll run into a higher leverage situation later in the game, and the lesser pitcher you're bringing into the game in the 9th inning is more likely to get into deeper trouble than your relief ace is. You make a good point about the better ability of a relief ace to get out of a big jam, but I would think in today's day and age it's tougher to condition a reliever to be used in a way they're not used to. So you should hang on to him until the 9th when you know it's not going to be high leverage outs? That doesn't make any sense; get the important outs when you need them and let the rest of the game take care of its self. You can't hold off on using him just because there might be more important outs later because you're never going to know which outs are the most important until the game is over, and at that point it doesn't matter. How would you "know" that you'd be dealing with lower leverage outs in the 9th? To me a clean slate guarding a one run lead in the 9th is just as high leverage as getting out of a 7th inning jam. You blow it in the 7th you still have a shot. Blow it in the 9th you could be walking off the field. I mean say your Girardi and you have Rivera in the bullpen. Are you going to use him to snuff out a 6th or 7th inning rally and then not have him available for the 9th if the score is still 2-1? Then what do you do if Robertson blows the game in the 9th? What good did the outs in the 7th do? That's the point I'm making. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this issue. That's alright - different opinions make the world go round. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 22, 2013 21:38:18 GMT -5
redsox04071318champsIn those days, (Radatz) RP went more than 1IP and burned out from overuse very quickly also. Think "Mr 200IP" Mike Marshall, even Bill Campbell of the Red Sox, who threw 140IP for Boston 1 year, after throwing almost 170 the year before for the Twins. Guys just can't do that and that's also converted starts like Marshall, Eckersley. The wear and tear of going out there 2-3IP 2-3 days in a row like Campbell and Marshall did just blew out there arms and it would do the same (in all likelihood) to a Gonzalez. Yes, and I'm certainly not suggesting that. Those days are long gone and are never coming back and for the reasons you stated. My point was that those guys would do both functions - be the fireman and the closer at the same time. I remember Bob Stanley qualifying for the ERA title and finishing 2nd in 1982 because he pitched so many innings out of the bullpen. Now managers are faced with having to make tougher decisions. With the Sox this year I think Tazawa and Uehara are similar type pitchers in that they have amazingly excellent K/BB ratio. You'd be fine with either one being the "fireman" and the other being the "closer". The only real difference between them is that Uehara is a veteran who can't go more than one inning and has closer experience while Tazawa is much younger and can go multiple innings - if Farrell lets him. I don't think there's a clear cut relief "ace" situation where the closer is demonstrably better than the next best guy out of the bullpen. Tazawa are Uehara are of similar quality - and I got to say I enjoy them because they are the rare pitchers on the Sox staff who actually throw consistent strikes. Wish the rest of the staff would cut down the walks. |
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jun 22, 2013 21:43:37 GMT -5
So you should hang on to him until the 9th when you know it's not going to be high leverage outs? That doesn't make any sense; get the important outs when you need them and let the rest of the game take care of its self. You can't hold off on using him just because there might be more important outs later because you're never going to know which outs are the most important until the game is over, and at that point it doesn't matter. How would you "know" that you'd be dealing with lower leverage outs in the 9th? To me a clean slate guarding a one run lead in the 9th is just as high leverage as getting out of a 7th inning jam. You blow it in the 7th you still have a shot. Blow it in the 9th you could be walking off the field. I mean say your Girardi and you have Rivera in the bullpen. Are you going to use him to snuff out a 6th or 7th inning rally and then not have him available for the 9th if the score is still 2-1? Then what do you do if Robertson blows the game in the 9th? What good did the outs in the 7th do? That's the point I'm making. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this issue. That's alright - different opinions make the world go round. If you're Girardi and you put Robertson in in the 6th or 7th and he blows the lead, what then? Mo becomes completely useless at that point. And I 'know' they are going to be lower leverage because he's coming in to a clean inning with no one on base - that's the definition of low leverage. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 22, 2013 22:41:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jun 23, 2013 9:05:56 GMT -5
From looking at him pitch recently, it looks like Bailey's pitches are not nearly as sharp or crisp and when you add in a decrease in velocity, you get trouble.
I do however think he is pitching with a bad elbow and will probably need tommy john surgery soon.
I like the idea of Rubby becoming a full time closer, just not sure this is the year to convert him.
If we leave closing in the hands of our two Japanese pitchers, we are shortening up our bullpen and exposing our starters to having to pitch through the 7th. For Lester whose cutter is pancake flat and lost all crispness, that is not an option. For Doubront that means 140 pitches per game. And at some point Lackey is going to get tired after having a year off last season.
Could Beato or Rowland Smith help the Sox in the sixth and seventh?
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 23, 2013 11:01:06 GMT -5
Here's the thing: you know with 100% certainty that 7th inning situation is going to be high leverage. You don't know that a ninth inning high-leverage situation is going to come up, and more likely than not it won't. It's like pinch-running for your catcher in a late-innings high-leverage situation-- yeah, maybe that move will come back to bite you in the ass eventually, but at the moment, it makes it much more likely that you win the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jun 23, 2013 11:04:54 GMT -5
I don't understand the desire to make Rubby a closer at all; they haven't even completed the process of stretching him out to start, and people want him converted to a reliever. Why not convert Webster instead (honestly, he's given us way more - and still not anywhere near enough - reason to convert him), or maybe Barnes, or Ranaudo? Maybe we should just start Ball out as a closer right from day one? Maybe we convert all of them? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I see this all the time, and it makes no sense to me whatsoever; why would you ever convert someone to a reliever (especially someone with that much potential) before it became absolutely necessary, and they had proven to you that they couldn't be a starter? Not to mention the fact that closers are way overrated and ridiculously misused, so his talent would be further wasted.
|
|
|
|
Post by onbase on Jun 23, 2013 11:46:46 GMT -5
Here's the thing: you know with 100% certainty that 7th inning situation is going to be high leverage. You don't know that a ninth inning high-leverage situation is going to come up, and more likely than not it won't. It's like pinch-running for your catcher in a late-innings high-leverage situation-- yeah, maybe that move will come back to bite you in the ass eventually, but at the moment, it makes it much more likely that you win the game. The obvious solution is to have more than one pitcher who can handle high leverage situations, and realistically you aren't going to the post season with one relief ace and a bunch of losers. But how do you "know" that the 9th inning is unlikely to be high leverage? If it's close enough in the middle innings to justify using a relief ace, does that guarantee a three run or more lead in the 9th? What am I missing? |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 23, 2013 12:23:12 GMT -5
I mean, you could quibble with the language, but it's the point others have made before: starting a clean inning with a one-run lead is going to be lower leverage than a one-run lead with men on base or in scoring position, which is the situation where you'd use your relief ace.
But that aside, the broader point is that it's not guaranteed to be a high-leverage situation in the ninth, but if it is during the 7th or 8th, you should use one of your better relievers rather than saving them for a hypothetical situation that might not come to pass. Remember, it's less important that your best reliever pitch the highest-leverage situation in a game, but rather that you want your best relievers to generally pitch the higher-leverage situations in games. Yet managers will often use their Mortensen-esque relievers in a tied game or in key early-inning situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 23, 2013 12:30:31 GMT -5
The obvious solution is to have more than one pitcher who can handle high leverage situations, and realistically you aren't going to the post season with one relief ace and a bunch of losers. But how do you "know" that the 9th inning is unlikely to be high leverage? If it's close enough in the middle innings to justify using a relief ace, does that guarantee a three run or more lead in the 9th? What am I missing? There's a number of things to consider here. 1. The closer model tends to prevent teams from bringing in their best reliever at the time he's most useful, IE with runners on base. Always handing him a clean inning in the ninth reduces the amount of high-leverage situations he faces. 2. The closer model also tends to prevent your best reliever from pitching to the opposing team's best hitters. Going into the eighth inning, it's not a mystery as to when Miguel Cabrera or Chris Davis or Mike Trout or Bryce Harper or whoever is due up. Use your best reliever against those guys. Don't use him to pitch to the .650 OPS catcher due up in the ninth. 3. Ditto for matchups. There was all this talk of Miller versus Uehara in the ninth. Well, why are we deciding based on inning? If there's going to be a bunch of lefties up in the eighth, use Miller in the eighth. If they're coming up in the ninth, use him in the ninth. Especially with the lack of pinch-hitters in today's game, playing matchups this way can be a huge strategic advantage. But you can't do that when using the closer model. 4. If you're going to your best reliever earlier, and you're getting out of the mindset of "this is my eighth inning guy, this is my ninth inning guy", you can give your best reliever a chance to face more batters. Junichi Tazawa is probably the best reliever that the Red Sox currently have. He's also ridiculously efficient. So hypothetically, there's one down, runners first and second in the eighth. Bring in Tazawa. After he retires those last two batters on six pitches, just bring him back for the ninth. Oh wait, we can't do that because Uehara is The Closer. So your most effective reliever throws more warmup pitches than game pitches, and you've burned two relievers when you probably only needed one, and now tomorrow's starter has to go deep because the bullpen is tired. There's just so many things wrong with how modern bullpens are run, and they're all related to A) assigning particular innings to particular pitchers for no real reason and B) managing to an arbitrary stat. You can talk all you want about how you can't come back from a blown lead in the ninth, but I'm sorry, a three run lead with no one on base is not a pressure situation. Teams average less than five runs per NINE innings in today's game. It would never even occurs to managers to use their best reliever in that situation if no one had ever attached a "save" to it, which is really just an accident of history because forty years ago when they came up with this damn rule, one-inning relievers didn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jun 23, 2013 13:30:02 GMT -5
Good discussion. I'm on the side of some innovation. If it's a one run game in the 8th and the middle of the order is coming up, I want the best reliever taking that inning. I'm also longing for the days when the starter usually was still around in the 7th and 8th. It wasn't that long ago but I get the game has changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 23, 2013 14:45:58 GMT -5
These are all good points, but I think the definition of high leverage means different things to different people. To me trying to hold a 2-1 lead in the 9th while starting the inning clean is every bit as high leverage as trying to get that key out in the 6th or 7th inning with the reason being that if you mess up the 9th there might not be another opportunity to come back and win the game. To me that is extremely high leverage. You have no safety net. Again to me, a lead after 9 innings is much more valuable than a lead after 7 innings.
Yes I know the argument is that if you don't get your closer in then what difference does it make. I counter that with if you get Rivera to get that last out of the 6th or 7th, but then you're still clinging to dear life in the 9th inning and you don't have him available if lesser pitcher gets into trouble, then what?
It starts feeling like the chicken or the egg argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 23, 2013 14:52:15 GMT -5
Yes I know the argument is that if you don't get your closer in then what difference does it make. I counter that with if you get Rivera to get that last out of the 6th or 7th, but then you're still clinging to dear life in the 9th inning and you don't have him available if lesser pitcher gets into trouble, then what? Right, but the argument is that your scenario is not guaranteed to occur (maybe your team scores a few more runs to make the 9th a low leverage situation, maybe the other team scores some runs off of your 8th inning guy and you're trailing entering the 9th), whereas we know for sure that the 6th/7th inning situation is high leverage. There's no point saving your best reliever for a hypothetical situation that might not come to pass-- you should just pitch him in the first high leverage situation which emerges. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 23, 2013 15:08:22 GMT -5
Yes I know the argument is that if you don't get your closer in then what difference does it make. I counter that with if you get Rivera to get that last out of the 6th or 7th, but then you're still clinging to dear life in the 9th inning and you don't have him available if lesser pitcher gets into trouble, then what? Right, but the argument is that your scenario is not guaranteed to occur (maybe your team scores a few more runs to make the 9th a low leverage situation, maybe the other team scores some runs off of your 8th inning guy and you're trailing entering the 9th), whereas we know for sure that the 6th/7th inning situation is high leverage. There's no point saving your best reliever for a hypothetical situation that might not come to pass-- you should just pitch him in the first high leverage situation which emerges. I think that's akin to pinch-hitting for somebody like a Pedro Ciriaco in the 5th inning with the bases loaded because that opportunity may not present itself again and then get stuck with an even inferior hitter in a key spot later on. Or pinch-running for Ortiz too damn soon and then watching it come back to bite you in the butt later. |
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jun 23, 2013 15:23:33 GMT -5
That inning we just watched is a perfect example of what we are talking about. They couldn't use Uehara there to face the heart of Detriot's lineup in a 1 run game because 'he's the closer' now, so instead they went with lesser relievers and the game is tied, and we have to hope the offense comes back for Uehara to even get a chance in this game now. Use Uehara there and we (likely) still have the lead and (assuming you aren't an idiot and going to use Bailey, which is apparently too much to assume with Farrell) you can get by in the 8th and 9th pitching Breslow/Miller/Wilson/whoever against the bottom parts of their lineup.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jun 23, 2013 15:40:02 GMT -5
Who was it that advocated using Miller as a closer? The hit batsman and the wild throw to first exemplify his vulnerabilities. And I hate to see him come in with men on base.....Speaking of which, why aren't
we giving Bailey a mental break....oh yeah...we have no one else. Prediction....We will trade for a reliever shortly. To get a decent one, we will probably have to lose a couple of our top 10 prospects.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 23, 2013 15:42:44 GMT -5
I think that's akin to pinch-hitting for somebody like a Pedro Ciriaco in the 5th inning with the bases loaded because that opportunity may not present itself again and then get stuck with an even inferior hitter in a key spot later on. Or pinch-running for Ortiz too damn soon and then watching it come back to bite you in the butt later. I'd have no problem pinch-running for Ortiz in the eighth or ninth innings and the Sox down a run. Pinch-hitting is a thornier problem since most hitters hit worse in pinch-hitting situations than they would otherwise, but I'd have no problem doing so in a key situation, either. |
|
|
