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.
Left-handed reliever discussion
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 30, 2014 7:44:45 GMT -5
All three of these might be possible, but I would keep Hembree or Spruill above Britton or Layne. All three have a better track record and are more likely to help the major league team. Butler is a possibility, but if you cut him you are risking that you may have to force feed Swihart to the majors before he's ready. Good. I am on the phone with BC letting him know of your in depth report. CLICK. Might have been a bad connection. I was not impressed by Hembree either. He has lost velocity. I think the Sox go outside for one or two relievers of the power oriented variety. Mod Edit: Moonstone - It is not your job to moderate the boards. People are entitled to their opinion and you don't need to police the quality of that opinion. Knock it off. (This would have been sent as a PM, but you've made it clear you don't check those.)
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 30, 2014 7:48:05 GMT -5
I don't understand why this debate has become britton vs Layne. What about Dan Butler? Or even Hembree or Spruill.
Because we got sent to the movies without enough money to buy the Andrew Miller flavored deluxe bucket of kettle corn. So, all movie long, we're going to be complaining about which looks more edible - the Drake Britton flavored gum on the floor or the Tommy Layne flavored milk dud stuck in the seat crack.
That's a good analogy. Especially considering that they now want 20 bucks for a large popcorn and two drinks at the movies sheesh.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 30, 2014 17:42:14 GMT -5
WPA doesn't calculate the cost of having to use another player versus righties. There is no publicly available stat for an abnormal reliever who works effectively but in very few situations. No Eric, my assertion was not wrong. You used two examples neither of which was able to accumulate a bWAR over 1 even without deducting for taxing the rest of the bullpen. Are you really and truly honestly unaware THAT I CALCULATED THAT COST AND SHOWED IN MY PREVIOUS POST THAT IT WAS UTTERLY NEGLIGIBLE? And you've been going on about how LOOGYs have NO value, and when you're called out on that, suddenly you move the goalposts to 1 bWAR? THERE WERE ONLY 65 RELIEVERS IN ALL OF MLB WHO DID THAT LAST YEAR. So now you're arguing that the other 100+ were all worthless? They are not "attacks"--they are attempts to point out to you that what constitutes debate here for you is repeating the same points over and over again while refusing to actually engage in an actual discussion. How "tiresome" do you think it feels to read one of your assertions, spend five minutes looking at the relevant data, do a quick calculation that shows your assertion is wrong, post that analysis, and have you respond to it ... by simply repeating the same assertion NOT ONCE BUT TWICE?
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 30, 2014 19:35:52 GMT -5
Good. I am on the phone with BC letting him know of your in depth report. CLICK. Might have been a bad connection. I was not impressed by Hembree either. He has lost velocity. I think the Sox go outside for one or two relievers of the power oriented variety. Can you help clarify this a bit for me? Who are these available power lefty relievers? Hey Larry thank you for your input. I think that you may have missed the overall context. Moonstone stated that he would rather have Hembree or Spruill both RH than Layne or Britton (LH) after previously extolling Britton's "tools". Of the four I would rather have LH Layne based upon his body of work in the minors and majors. But overall I would love to have some power/strikeout relievers to augment what we now have and I don't care what side they throw from. If we could find a lefty to replace Miller...wow great!... but unlikely. Our bullpen as currently constructed lacks that essential (IMO) power element. It is our Achilles heel. Mujica is meh, Koji is setting with the sun, Tazawa is good but not great especially in back to backs, and the others either unproven or suspect based on FIP. This is THE AREA we need to bolster to compete in 2015 IMO.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 30, 2014 22:16:14 GMT -5
Because of Holt's versatility as the utility player, it wouldn't be outrageously stupid for the Sox to end up carrying only 4 outfielders and instead carry a 13 man pitching staff as long as one of those outfielders was Nava or Craig (backup 1B). Not likely but not totally dumb either.
NOT A TRADE PROPOSAL, an example: Hypothetically, we could trade Victorino and Craig for a Zimmerman or Cueto plus a prospect which would allow us to carry our three outfield starters, Nava as the 4th outfielder/backup first baseman to backup all righthanded hitters. We could then move Kelly or Masterson to the pen which would be a decent pen upgrade in itself.
We'd still have JBJ, Cecchini, Brentz at Pawtucket and Holt as our utility guy/5th outfielder.
This of course assumes EVERYBODY is healthy this coming spring.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 30, 2014 23:30:29 GMT -5
Because of Holt's versatility as the utility player, it wouldn't be outrageously stupid for the Sox to end up carrying only 4 outfielders and instead carry a 13 man pitching staff as long as one of those outfielders was Nava or Craig (backup 1B). Not likely but not totally dumb either. NOT A TRADE PROPOSAL, an example: Hypothetically, we could trade Victorino and Craig for a Zimmerman or Cueto plus a prospect which would allow us to carry our three outfield starters, Nava as the 4th outfielder/backup first baseman to backup all righthanded hitters. We could then move Kelly or Masterson to the pen which would be a decent pen upgrade in itself. We'd still have JBJ, Cecchini, Brentz at Pawtucket and Holt as our utility guy/5th outfielder. This of course assumes EVERYBODY is healthy this coming spring. But what's the point of carrying a 13-man pitching staff? 12 is already probably too much.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 31, 2014 0:23:59 GMT -5
Seems like it's about a break even to carrying more players than you have ABs for. It only takes one reliever with options to play games with that all year long. We'd essentially be converting our 26 logical players to a significantly stronger 25. We've solved the outfield crunch, found an ace, upgraded the pen and kept our future totally intact including the dollars coming off the books next off season.
That would also make a two-fer Britton upgrade all the more appealing Britton & one righty reliever for a better lefty, Diekman, for example. Better yet if the right handed reliever had no options, Varvaro, for example. Kelly or Masterson would be their replacement.
As it is now, we have 14 position players for 13 slots. Vazquez, Hanigan, Ortiz, Napoli, Craig, Nava, Pedroia, Xander, Pablo, Hanley, Mookie, Castillo, Victorino & Holt.
Therefore, IF EVERYONE IS HEALTHY, reducing by two and upgrading the pitching seems pretty viable to me. On a healthy team and in the normal course of events, bullpens are much more likely to get overused/taxed than position players. Be honest here, how many times have any of us thought a particular pitcher was being overused over the past seasons ?
I suppose a different way to look at it is that the 25th player would mostly be the 13th pitcher but in actuality would be the taxi slot for whatever we need at any given time. We have enough talent to rotate that continuously without optioning a critical player for two weeks. Vazquez get a bruise ? option Layne, call up Butler. Two days later send back Butler, call up Sprull, etc,etc.
In terms of flexibility only, having Holt is as valuable as Zobrist or teams that have no DH only player.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 31, 2014 6:50:02 GMT -5
But what is the 8-man bullpen after your trade? What is the point, say, of keeping Spruill and Layne in Boston and playing with a shorthanded bench? Are you going to need all eight relievers in a given game as often as you'll have wished you had one more bench option?
Sure, they could do it. I'm not sure of the point.
It'd be more likely for a team without a set DH, who instead rotates players through that spot to do that. PawSox wind up in that situation a lot, and the 3-man bench winds up playing like 4,but then guys go 3 days or more without pitching. In AAA you do that to retain players though - again, I'm not sure why this team needs to try it.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 31, 2014 7:45:32 GMT -5
You wouldn't need 8 relievers in a single game. Just in recent years Breslow, Tazawa and Koji all got noticeably gassed in a 12 man rotation. Given the roster comp I mentioned, with three guys on the bench, you could pinch hit for the catcher, substitute catchers and still have a man on the bench such that there is a way to insert that man in an emergency, such that there's a player at every position with experience at that position no matter who got hurt. Try to come up with a situation where that isn't the case and that includes if Holt was the pinch hitter.
The non pitching advantage is that you are splitting the ABs among fewer players which keeps them fresher and happier. We're a very flexible team, have everything covered without Holt and Holt gives us double coverage everyplace (Napoli can catch in an extreme emergency).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 31, 2014 10:20:26 GMT -5
But having an 8-man bullpen wouldn't change how you use Koji and Tazawa at least, right? You're going to use your setup men and closer the same way almost no matter what - with a one-run lead in the 8th, do you really Farrell is going to think, "if I had a 7-man bullpen, I'd use Taz here, but we've got 8 guys so I'm going to use Spruill instead and get Tazawa some rest." If a guy is unavailable, he's going to be unavailable no matter how many guys are in the 'pen.
I'll take a crack at it: I'm assuming your 8-man bullpen right now would be something like Uehara, Tazawa, Mujica, Varvaro, Breslow (L), guy with options (Workman-or-Layne (L)-or-Spruill), Britton (L), displaced starter (Kelly-or-Masterson).
I guess the assumption is that kicking the starter into the bullpen gives you another high-leverage guy, but I'd counter that you don't need to go 8-deep to do that. What the 8-man bullpen is doing is keeping you from having to cut or trade one of, say, Breslow or Britton, or not have the roster spot for the option guy in Workman/Layne/Spruill if you keep both, in order to kick Masterson/Kelly to the 'pen. All you're really doing is adding another guy to use in the sixth inning - you're going to keep your 12 best(-ish - I still think they might keep Britton and option Layne if it comes to it, unless Layne significantly outpitches him) pitchers.
As for keeping the hitters fresher, think about how long some relievers go without work even in a seven-man bullpen. Was the seven-man bullpen really horribly taxed back when Takashi Saito almost never pitched back-to-backs? Problems with usage aren't really solved by adding an average reliever to the mix.
Meanwhile, your bench is Hanigan, Nava (switch-hitting, but basically left-handed), and Holt (L). You pretty much lack a right-handed option off the bench and you no longer have the ability to give more than two non-catchers a day off. A guy getting dinged up and having to miss three games pretty much requires you to option that 13th pitcher and call a bench guy up. I know you said that, but are you ok with having to make a roster move to get a guy simply because you have a player who's day-to-day? I'm not. Personally, I'd rather have Shane Victorino on the roster to make starts in the outfield than have Drake Britton to walk guys in the sixth inning of blowouts.
I figure you can do three things better with an 8-man bullpen: 1) match-up more - I don't really see this bullpen going left-right-left in the seventh anyway though; 2) have a quicker hook with the starter - meanwhile, the Sox notably went out and got three guys who had 200 IP seasons on their resumes this offseason; and 3) not have to scramble for someone as often when you have long extra-inning games or blowouts when you wear out the bullpen - but I'd argue this is mitigated by the fact that you're now much thinner on the bench and would need to do more there.
Some people decry how unnecessary the 12-man pitching staff is. I don't see the reason to have 13 pitchers, other than for a few games if roster rules make things tricky (e.g., player you really want to call up was optioned 8 days ago or something).
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 31, 2014 10:23:48 GMT -5
If you have an extreme LOOGY in your bullpen, each of the other guys has to pitch about 4 more innings over the course of the season, which is to say, retire one extra batter every two weeks. This cost is not included in calculations of value because it's too small to measure. I'm not sure that you can distribute the LOOGY's replacement innings evenly throughout the bullpen like that, though; it seems more complicated than that. To be valuable, the limited outs the LOOGY gets has to be in the high leverage situations, the 7th and especially the 8th. So the other pitcher coming in after him (or pitching right before him) likely has to be one of your non-closer high-leverage guys ... which generally is just 2 guys on the staff. The presence of a LOOGY would theoretically allow a Chad Bradford type to be valuable in high-leverage situations as the right-hander paired with a LOOGY, but then you're really limiting your bullpen with specialty guys. But I think a more relevant point is that teams are increasingly sensitive to the idea that innings do not matter as much as appearances when thinking of reliever usage. Getting two guys out is not really much less taxing than getting three guys out in an inning, and it seems that having a LOOGY would very likely create disproportionately more appearances for the staff by breaking up innings. What the Sox seem to want are pitchers who can take care of at least an inning to limit the number of guys you have to get warmed up and into any one game.
|
|
|
Post by gator39 on Dec 31, 2014 11:30:43 GMT -5
It has been pointed out if they DFA Butler they might be forced to rush Swihart to the majors in the event of an injury. Are people that confident that Dan Butler would get claimed? Plus even if he was isn't that why you sign a guy like Luke Montz? Otherwise why do you need 3 catchers in Pawtucket?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 31, 2014 12:10:54 GMT -5
It has been pointed out if they DFA Butler they might be forced to rush Swihart to the majors in the event of an injury. Are people that confident that Dan Butler would get claimed? Plus even if he was isn't that why you sign a guy like Luke Montz? Otherwise why do you need 3 catchers in Pawtucket? The Diamondbacks have Tuffy Gosewisch and Oscar Hernandez as the catchers on their roster. Hernandez is 21 and played in A ball last year. Gosewisch is basically replacement level. I'd put money on them claiming Butler.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 31, 2014 13:05:57 GMT -5
It has been pointed out if they DFA Butler they might be forced to rush Swihart to the majors in the event of an injury. Are people that confident that Dan Butler would get claimed? Plus even if he was isn't that why you sign a guy like Luke Montz? Otherwise why do you need 3 catchers in Pawtucket? The Red Sox pretty much always have three catchers in Pawtucket if everyone is healthy, pre-September. you keep someone like Montz on the phantom DL in case one of the four MLB/AAA catchers gets hurt so that you don't have to do some crazy chain promotion in order to deal with it for three weeks. The reason is that catchers can't just fungibly be replaced like guys at other positions. You can call up a slick-fielding Low A organizational guy for a month to play the outfield, knowing he'll be a black hole in the lineup. You can't really call up a Low A catcher, even if he's strong defensively, because he needs to work with the pitching staff and his game-calling, among other things, may not be advanced enough to do that yet. And yeah, I bet there's a major league team that has room for Butler on the 40. Remember, all they need is for him to be better than the third or fourth catcher on their 40-man and they can just make an easy switch.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 31, 2014 20:28:21 GMT -5
Lavarnway, who we valued less than Butler, has been claimed three times since and I seriously doubt if any of the claiming teams were thinking first base. I'll bet he's our taxi catcher until he's out of options. He's a decent defensive catcher that knows our staff and pretty much exactly what you'd want from your #4 catcher.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jan 2, 2015 7:42:43 GMT -5
Certainly Neil Cotts and Joe Thrasher are long-shots, but aren't they both Spring Training invites? They are both lefties who have had success. One could definitely surprise. Britton is probably the one that goes. He has always been too hit-and-miss for me. Potential? Yes. Consistency? No. Probably let go or traded for a "C" or "B-" maybe even today.
|
|
|