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.
Rays Bullpen Strategy and Related Discussion
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 16, 2018 12:45:47 GMT -5
Houck is the exact guy I wouldn't want in a Rays style role. He has the body of a major league starting pitcher. He needs to be developed as such until you *know* he can't start as effectively as he could be in a bullpen role.
Messing with his starting routine and throwing him in a multi inning relief appearance role would probably stunt his development, especially if you ultimately want him to end up as a starter. This guy need to build up reps and develop deep pitch counts while learning his craft/developing his pitches.
I'm sorry for everyone thinking the Rays style of doing things is a good idea. I don't think it is a practical idea until the 25 man roster is expanded. You burn kids with options more quickly, you shorten your bench, you put a lot on a manager's plate when asking him to manage a bullpen for a full nine innings with a bullpen.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 16, 2018 13:13:02 GMT -5
You only do that with guys that aren't good enough when players see them more than once and don't get a massive jump in there stuff in short 1 to 2 innings blocks. That doesn't seem like Houck at all.
Also Pedro makes a great point, you can't really do that with a 25 man team. Nevermind this whole Rays with no starters is kinda crazy. They don't start Beeks, yet he pitches 5 innings almost everytime. He's acting like a starter, he's just not starting. Its not like they use in for 2-3 innings twice in five days or something like that. Its like starting Hembree for 2 innings and then bringing in Johnson for 5 innings. You only do that crap if you have too because if injuries and he fact you traded away two starters. Why they just don't start Beeks is beyound me.
|
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Aug 16, 2018 13:17:10 GMT -5
www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-next-prospects-who-could-pull-a-glasnow/Kiley McDaniel touches upon this Rays model in that article. I don't think it changes how you develop the pitchers, but it can alter their use once they get to the big leagues. I would agree that you develop him as an out and out starter, but it is an interesting use of assets and a potentially new avenue for pitcher development at the big league level. If it becomes clear Houck is not effective the 2nd time through an order, this idea is a way to possibly maximize his skillset beyond the traditional starter/reliever profiles. It'll be interesting to see if there is more of this down the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Aug 16, 2018 13:19:07 GMT -5
You only do that with guys that aren't good enough when players see them more than once and don't get a massive jump in there stuff in short 1 to 2 innings blocks. That doesn't seem like Houck at all. Also Pedro makes a great point, you can't really do that with a 25 man team. Nevermind this whole Rays with no starters is kinda crazy. They don't start Beeks, yet he pitches 5 innings almost everytime. He's acting like a starter, he's just not starting. Its not like they use in for 2-3 innings twice in five days or something like that. Its like starting Hembree for 2 innings and then bringing in Johnson for 5 innings. You only do that crap if you have too because if injuries and he fact you traded away two starters. Why they just don't start Beeks is beyound me. They do it so that pitchers like Beeks can pitch into the 6/7th with only facing the best hitters twice instead of a 3rd time. If he's pitching well they take their chance against the bottom of the lineup for a 3rd time instead of the top of the order the 3rd time. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 16, 2018 14:04:57 GMT -5
You only do that with guys that aren't good enough when players see them more than once and don't get a massive jump in there stuff in short 1 to 2 innings blocks. That doesn't seem like Houck at all. Also Pedro makes a great point, you can't really do that with a 25 man team. Nevermind this whole Rays with no starters is kinda crazy. They don't start Beeks, yet he pitches 5 innings almost everytime. He's acting like a starter, he's just not starting. Its not like they use in for 2-3 innings twice in five days or something like that. Its like starting Hembree for 2 innings and then bringing in Johnson for 5 innings. You only do that crap if you have too because if injuries and he fact you traded away two starters. Why they just don't start Beeks is beyound me. They do it so that pitchers like Beeks can pitch into the 6/7th with only facing the best hitters twice instead of a 3rd time. If he's pitching well they take their chance against the bottom of the lineup for a 3rd time instead of the top of the order the 3rd time. I mean, you can start Beeks for 5 innings and only face the heart of the order twice if he has 5 effective innings. There's 15 outs in 5 innings. There's 18 outs in two times through the order. You give up 3 baserunners or less, guess what, you've made it through the order twice without having to face the top of the order again. The Ray's are doing this experiment because they are cheap and they don't want to pay a 5th starter. They are reinventing the wheel because they don't want to pay full price for the rubber tire that they want to put on it. Roleless system? The old arbitration award system pays for innings and performance. This smells of the Rays just trying to figure out how to pay their players less down the road and now. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 16, 2018 16:23:15 GMT -5
You only do that with guys that aren't good enough when players see them more than once and don't get a massive jump in there stuff in short 1 to 2 innings blocks. That doesn't seem like Houck at all. Also Pedro makes a great point, you can't really do that with a 25 man team. Nevermind this whole Rays with no starters is kinda crazy. They don't start Beeks, yet he pitches 5 innings almost everytime. He's acting like a starter, he's just not starting. Its not like they use in for 2-3 innings twice in five days or something like that. Its like starting Hembree for 2 innings and then bringing in Johnson for 5 innings. You only do that crap if you have too because if injuries and he fact you traded away two starters. Why they just don't start Beeks is beyound me. They do it so that pitchers like Beeks can pitch into the 6/7th with only facing the best hitters twice instead of a 3rd time. If he's pitching well they take their chance against the bottom of the lineup for a 3rd time instead of the top of the order the 3rd time. The last game he went through the order only twice, so how is it any different? The game before that samething he faced only 19 batters. He's not getting a third time through the order. They are using Beeks as a starter, just not having him start games. At this point it just feels like a science project. We did this because we had no other choice, it didn't workout half bad and we are getting a ton of positive press. So heck lets just keep going. Heck I'd be interested if they were really trying something crazy like using Beeks one time through the order twice a week or something like that. This just seems stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 16, 2018 22:03:08 GMT -5
They do it so that pitchers like Beeks can pitch into the 6/7th with only facing the best hitters twice instead of a 3rd time. If he's pitching well they take their chance against the bottom of the lineup for a 3rd time instead of the top of the order the 3rd time. I mean, you can start Beeks for 5 innings and only face the heart of the order twice if he has 5 effective innings. There's 15 outs in 5 innings. There's 18 outs in two times through the order. You give up 3 baserunners or less, guess what, you've made it through the order twice without having to face the top of the order again. The Ray's are doing this experiment because they are cheap and they don't want to pay a 5th starter. They are reinventing the wheel because they don't want to pay full price for the rubber tire that they want to put on it. Roleless system? The old arbitration award system pays for innings and performance. This smells of the Rays just trying to figure out how to pay their players less down the road and now. Check out the fg article: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-next-prospects-who-could-pull-a-glasnow/I don’t entirely disagree with any of the arguments made either way. Yes, the Rays are cheap, but they’re also exploiting a market inefficiency that allows them to hoard talented-but-flawed pitchers at low cost, and maximize their production. That’s smart business, with the benefit of perhaps running into a few diamonds in the rough (Glasnow being the obvious example) should those players address their major flaw. Because they’re young, that’s a very real possibility with an outstanding ROI. I prefer to see Houck start in a traditional way, but I think the idea has merit, especially when it comes to player development. Reducing 3rd-time consequences could reasonably be expected to improve morale, increase team wins, and get a young guy wth SP upside MLB-level reps when he would benefit most. The options issue is an excellent point, but I don’t think it has to be a fatal flaw, especially on a team with multiple long relievers/swingmen (Hembree, Johnson, Velazquez, potentially Workman). |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 16, 2018 23:29:51 GMT -5
I mean, you can start Beeks for 5 innings and only face the heart of the order twice if he has 5 effective innings. There's 15 outs in 5 innings. There's 18 outs in two times through the order. You give up 3 baserunners or less, guess what, you've made it through the order twice without having to face the top of the order again. The Ray's are doing this experiment because they are cheap and they don't want to pay a 5th starter. They are reinventing the wheel because they don't want to pay full price for the rubber tire that they want to put on it. Roleless system? The old arbitration award system pays for innings and performance. This smells of the Rays just trying to figure out how to pay their players less down the road and now. Check out the fg article: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-next-prospects-who-could-pull-a-glasnow/I don’t entirely disagree with any of the arguments made either way. Yes, the Rays are cheap, but they’re also exploiting a market inefficiency that allows them to hoard talented-but-flawed pitchers at low cost, and maximize their production. That’s smart business, with the benefit of perhaps running into a few diamonds in the rough (Glasnow being the obvious example) should those players address their major flaw. Because they’re young, that’s a very real possibility with an outstanding ROI. I prefer to see Houck start in a traditional way, but I think the idea has merit, especially when it comes to player development. Reducing 3rd-time consequences could reasonably be expected to improve morale, increase team wins, and get a young guy wth SP upside MLB-level reps when he would benefit most. The options issue is an excellent point, but I don’t think it has to be a fatal flaw, especially on a team with multiple long relievers/swingmen (Hembree, Johnson, Velazquez, potentially Workman). Can you really say they are taking advantage of a market inefficiency? Or low cost? Glasnow and Beeks cost two of the best starters in a very weak class. The opportunity cost to get those two guys was rather high. I agree limiting starters to only twice through the order makes sense, lots of teams are starting to do that. That's not really what the Rays are doing though. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 17, 2018 0:00:54 GMT -5
I mean, you can start Beeks for 5 innings and only face the heart of the order twice if he has 5 effective innings. There's 15 outs in 5 innings. There's 18 outs in two times through the order. You give up 3 baserunners or less, guess what, you've made it through the order twice without having to face the top of the order again. The Ray's are doing this experiment because they are cheap and they don't want to pay a 5th starter. They are reinventing the wheel because they don't want to pay full price for the rubber tire that they want to put on it. Roleless system? The old arbitration award system pays for innings and performance. This smells of the Rays just trying to figure out how to pay their players less down the road and now. Check out the fg article: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-next-prospects-who-could-pull-a-glasnow/I don’t entirely disagree with any of the arguments made either way. Yes, the Rays are cheap, but they’re also exploiting a market inefficiency that allows them to hoard talented-but-flawed pitchers at low cost, and maximize their production. That’s smart business, with the benefit of perhaps running into a few diamonds in the rough (Glasnow being the obvious example) should those players address their major flaw. Because they’re young, that’s a very real possibility with an outstanding ROI. I prefer to see Houck start in a traditional way, but I think the idea has merit, especially when it comes to player development. Reducing 3rd-time consequences could reasonably be expected to improve morale, increase team wins, and get a young guy wth SP upside MLB-level reps when he would benefit most. The options issue is an excellent point, but I don’t think it has to be a fatal flaw, especially on a team with multiple long relievers/swingmen (Hembree, Johnson, Velazquez, potentially Workman). If you're a team that can pump out 6 relievers in the big leagues and another 7 more arms from the minors, then good luck to you. Not many teams can do that. You're just shipping one fresh arm out for another a lot during the baseball weeks of a season with these bullpen games, not to mention you're just screwing with the number of innings you have to cover in the AAA games. You generally don't give the backend of a rotation guy that much rope past the fifth inning anyways, or a generally good team with a good enough bullpen doesn't. Why refine or redefine that logic and throw essentially 4 multi inning relievers in your bullpen all because you're making up for a flaw that is generally covered by most MLB teams. I mean the general job of a major league starter is to cover as many quality innings as possible. Sure that's shrinking due to efficiency these days, but it doesn't change what a starting pitcher job is. What the Rays are doing with this bullpen day is stupid frankly. A lot of pitchers love to know what there role is and when they can generally sense when they're coming into a game and when to get mentally ready to pitch. These Rays bullpen pitchers probably have no idea about when they're getting ready to come in. The only reason why I can only tie the reason that they are doing these things is because of money. They don't want to pay starting pitchers because they are probably overvalued in their eyes. So they now try to change what a starting pitcher is. Great brilliant you cheap franchise. I'd be ticked at the Sox if they only stretched out Houck for 4 innings at a time. Yeap he could be a tiny bit better and efficient in shorter stints, but there's a value concept in innings that's too tempting to pass up with that kind of pitching frame. Imagine throwing Chris Sale in the bullpen for his first year or two like the White Sox did before you realized, "this isn't such a good idea, we need this guy pitching as many innings as he can as a starter." Houck isn't Chris Sale, but the point remains simple. Until Houck proves he can't do it, then don't fix what isn't yet broken with him starting. Edit- The *only* exception to this rule should be the playoffs. You're dealing with a lot of days off in a playoff series, a lot of adrenaline, and the rule in the playoffs as we all learned, there is no defining role in the playoffs. Just win. If the Sox want to put Houck in 2-4 inning stints in the playoffs while starting him all season, then do what you need to do. Heck I've been opining for the Red Sox to do this with Price to get him back to being one of the best pitchers in MLB again. 95+ mph David Price in short stints is one of the hardest pitchers to hit in baseball. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 17, 2018 16:39:19 GMT -5
Check out the fg article: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-next-prospects-who-could-pull-a-glasnow/I don’t entirely disagree with any of the arguments made either way. Yes, the Rays are cheap, but they’re also exploiting a market inefficiency that allows them to hoard talented-but-flawed pitchers at low cost, and maximize their production. That’s smart business, with the benefit of perhaps running into a few diamonds in the rough (Glasnow being the obvious example) should those players address their major flaw. Because they’re young, that’s a very real possibility with an outstanding ROI. I prefer to see Houck start in a traditional way, but I think the idea has merit, especially when it comes to player development. Reducing 3rd-time consequences could reasonably be expected to improve morale, increase team wins, and get a young guy wth SP upside MLB-level reps when he would benefit most. The options issue is an excellent point, but I don’t think it has to be a fatal flaw, especially on a team with multiple long relievers/swingmen (Hembree, Johnson, Velazquez, potentially Workman). Can you really say they are taking advantage of a market inefficiency? Or low cost? Glasnow and Beeks cost two of the best starters in a very weak class. The opportunity cost to get those two guys was rather high. I agree limiting starters to only twice through the order makes sense, lots of teams are starting to do that. That's not really what the Rays are doing though. Archer is an extremely flawed pitcher who has been essentially the same for three years, well below his one terrific season. He’s failed to further develop and there’s some question that the Rays may have internal concerns about him moving forward. He’s not “bad” by any stretch, and he obviously has upside and has a very reasonable contract with control years. But the Pirates gave up three very talented players; i would argue that Glasgow is a reasonable bet to approximate Archer’s value over the course of Archer’s deal, although the performance curves will probably be very differently shaped. And, they got a likely 2nd-division starter-quality OF with first-division upside and a likely floor of a starting/4th OF tweener, also with 5+ years of control. And, they got an extremely talented PTBNL in Baz who was the #4 in the Pirates’ system. That trade, even before Baz, was generally looked at as a TB win; with him it’s almodt universally regarded as such from what I’ve seen. And Beeks is 25, with #4 projection, who has six years of control, outstanding K rates in AAA, across-the-board solid-avg stuff, and was the return for 3 mo of a pitcher who had no value to TB. The point of what they’re doing is that they’ve created a system with their staff that optimizes the performance of their players, and allows for them to acquire said players cheaply. That’s what Belicheck does in NE...finds value in other teams’ cast-offs because they don’t fit traditional roles. He finds the ideal role for them, and viola...”good” player. Yes, it is a market inefficiency. I made the point that TB was a lot stronger tan people gave them credit for back when they DFA’d Dickerson, traded Odorizzi, etc. If I recall, you were pretty vocal about how awful they would be and how stupid their approach was. But right now they’re something like 5th in the AL by BaseRuns, and they’re 3 games above .500 in a division with the two best (by record, and 1-3 by run diff) teams in baseball. They’re innovative, and it’s working for them. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 17, 2018 16:53:35 GMT -5
Check out the fg article: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-next-prospects-who-could-pull-a-glasnow/I don’t entirely disagree with any of the arguments made either way. Yes, the Rays are cheap, but they’re also exploiting a market inefficiency that allows them to hoard talented-but-flawed pitchers at low cost, and maximize their production. That’s smart business, with the benefit of perhaps running into a few diamonds in the rough (Glasnow being the obvious example) should those players address their major flaw. Because they’re young, that’s a very real possibility with an outstanding ROI. I prefer to see Houck start in a traditional way, but I think the idea has merit, especially when it comes to player development. Reducing 3rd-time consequences could reasonably be expected to improve morale, increase team wins, and get a young guy wth SP upside MLB-level reps when he would benefit most. The options issue is an excellent point, but I don’t think it has to be a fatal flaw, especially on a team with multiple long relievers/swingmen (Hembree, Johnson, Velazquez, potentially Workman). If you're a team that can pump out 6 relievers in the big leagues and another 7 more arms from the minors, then good luck to you. Not many teams can do that. You're just shipping one fresh arm out for another a lot during the baseball weeks of a season with these bullpen games, not to mention you're just screwing with the number of innings you have to cover in the AAA games. You generally don't give the backend of a rotation guy that much rope past the fifth inning anyways, or a generally good team with a good enough bullpen doesn't. Why refine or redefine that logic and throw essentially 4 multi inning relievers in your bullpen all because you're making up for a flaw that is generally covered by most MLB teams. I mean the general job of a major league starter is to cover as many quality innings as possible. Sure that's shrinking due to efficiency these days, but it doesn't change what a starting pitcher job is. What the Rays are doing with this bullpen day is stupid frankly. A lot of pitchers love to know what there role is and when they can generally sense when they're coming into a game and when to get mentally ready to pitch. These Rays bullpen pitchers probably have no idea about when they're getting ready to come in. The only reason why I can only tie the reason that they are doing these things is because of money. They don't want to pay starting pitchers because they are probably overvalued in their eyes. So they now try to change what a starting pitcher is. Great brilliant you cheap franchise. I'd be ticked at the Sox if they only stretched out Houck for 4 innings at a time. Yeap he could be a tiny bit better and efficient in shorter stints, but there's a value concept in innings that's too tempting to pass up with that kind of pitching frame. Imagine throwing Chris Sale in the bullpen for his first year or two like the White Sox did before you realized, "this isn't such a good idea, we need this guy pitching as many innings as he can as a starter." Houck isn't Chris Sale, but the point remains simple. Until Houck proves he can't do it, then don't fix what isn't yet broken with him starting. Edit- The *only* exception to this rule should be the playoffs. You're dealing with a lot of days off in a playoff series, a lot of adrenaline, and the rule in the playoffs as we all learned, there is no defining role in the playoffs. Just win. If the Sox want to put Houck in 2-4 inning stints in the playoffs while starting him all season, then do what you need to do. Heck I've been opining for the Red Sox to do this with Price to get him back to being one of the best pitchers in MLB again. 95+ mph David Price in short stints is one of the hardest pitchers to hit in baseball. TB had a horrible attrition of their pitching staff pre-season. Like UMass, you panned their moves as awful. Yet they’re .512 in the AL East. They trimmed payroll, slightly improved their performance, fattened their prospect wallet, and set themselves up to be competitive in the near future by amassing multiple moderate to high-talent players with tons of control years. **Their strategy is working**. And their pitchers DO know their roles...you’re assuming they don’t because those roles are non-traditional. Fenwaythehardway’s point (as I see it) is an excellent one. It’s not “should the Sox do the same thing?” It’s “Should the Sox consider the same thing **for the talented player that they have who looks like he could be very successful with it?**” it’s about adapting roles to maximize the success of your available talent. Houston uses a related method (piggybacking) in their minor league development, and it leads to lots of success. And for all the decrying of TB preseason and how they were going to be “one of the worst teams in the league,” it sure looks like they’re having success with it too. It’s possible to adopt, and adapt, an approach without trying to replicate it. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 17, 2018 16:57:23 GMT -5
Also, Chris Sale was promoted in a bullpen role for the experience a la Braves/Cards. The plan was always to start him if he looked capable. I’m pretty sure that worked out for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 17, 2018 17:20:37 GMT -5
If you're a team that can pump out 6 relievers in the big leagues and another 7 more arms from the minors, then good luck to you. Not many teams can do that. You're just shipping one fresh arm out for another a lot during the baseball weeks of a season with these bullpen games, not to mention you're just screwing with the number of innings you have to cover in the AAA games. You generally don't give the backend of a rotation guy that much rope past the fifth inning anyways, or a generally good team with a good enough bullpen doesn't. Why refine or redefine that logic and throw essentially 4 multi inning relievers in your bullpen all because you're making up for a flaw that is generally covered by most MLB teams. I mean the general job of a major league starter is to cover as many quality innings as possible. Sure that's shrinking due to efficiency these days, but it doesn't change what a starting pitcher job is. What the Rays are doing with this bullpen day is stupid frankly. A lot of pitchers love to know what there role is and when they can generally sense when they're coming into a game and when to get mentally ready to pitch. These Rays bullpen pitchers probably have no idea about when they're getting ready to come in. The only reason why I can only tie the reason that they are doing these things is because of money. They don't want to pay starting pitchers because they are probably overvalued in their eyes. So they now try to change what a starting pitcher is. Great brilliant you cheap franchise. I'd be ticked at the Sox if they only stretched out Houck for 4 innings at a time. Yeap he could be a tiny bit better and efficient in shorter stints, but there's a value concept in innings that's too tempting to pass up with that kind of pitching frame. Imagine throwing Chris Sale in the bullpen for his first year or two like the White Sox did before you realized, "this isn't such a good idea, we need this guy pitching as many innings as he can as a starter." Houck isn't Chris Sale, but the point remains simple. Until Houck proves he can't do it, then don't fix what isn't yet broken with him starting. Edit- The *only* exception to this rule should be the playoffs. You're dealing with a lot of days off in a playoff series, a lot of adrenaline, and the rule in the playoffs as we all learned, there is no defining role in the playoffs. Just win. If the Sox want to put Houck in 2-4 inning stints in the playoffs while starting him all season, then do what you need to do. Heck I've been opining for the Red Sox to do this with Price to get him back to being one of the best pitchers in MLB again. 95+ mph David Price in short stints is one of the hardest pitchers to hit in baseball. TB had a horrible attrition of their pitching staff pre-season. Like UMass, you panned their moves as awful. Yet they’re .512 in the AL East. They trimmed payroll, slightly improved their performance, fattened their prospect wallet, and set themselves up to be competitive in the near future by amassing multiple moderate to high-talent players with tons of control years. **Their strategy is working**. And their pitchers DO know their roles...you’re assuming they don’t because those roles are non-traditional. Fenwaythehardway’s point (as I see it) is an excellent one. It’s not “should the Sox do the same thing?” It’s “Should the Sox consider the same thing **for the talented player that they have who looks like he could be very successful with it?**” it’s about adapting roles to maximize the success of your available talent. Houston uses a related method (piggybacking) in their minor league development, and it leads to lots of success. And for all the decrying of TB preseason and how they were going to be “one of the worst teams in the league,” it sure looks like they’re having success with it too. It’s possible to adopt, and adapt, an approach without trying to replicate it. I don't see Tampa Bay's strategy of bullpen games helping at all. It's hard to know the trickle down effect from the bullpen games, but I'm sure it isn't a net positive. Yesterday the Rays used a LHP with a ERA over 6 named Kolarek in a closing situation and somehow got away with it. I'm sure this same pitcher could be used in the third inning of some game in the near future. The Rays bullpen have no roles. That's their role. That's a tough place to be in, not knowing when you're coming in. I'm sorry, but it's hard to tell me otherwise. The Rays are having moderate success because they are doing what they always do. Trading old talent before it becomes untradeable and turn it into something with a good enough ceiling to bet on as a prospect. They did it with Price, Longoria, Forsythe, Colome, Ramos, Eovaldi, and now Archer. They also do this by spending in the one area they're equal in with every MLB team in the international minor league free agency. They do this by stinking badly and stocking up on high draft picks and compensatory picks handed to them by the league because they cry poor in the CBA. The Rays had nothing to lose or play for while making all these trades. Now years later it's paying off to the point where they don't completely stink. Congrats I guess. Now they have to find a way and make a championship run without spending a ton of money. No one has pulled this off and won a title doing this, not Oakland, not Tampa Bay. Very little of this success can be put on this bullpen experiment. I almost expect this experiment to end when they actually start getting serious about winning and they feel they are close enough to get to the playoffs again. Edit- The biggest reason why the Rays are over .500 is because of that first round draft pick that is leading their rotation in Blake Snell. Without him, they are probably a below .500 team and we are talking about how much of a failed experiment this is. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 17, 2018 19:35:19 GMT -5
TB had a horrible attrition of their pitching staff pre-season. Like UMass, you panned their moves as awful. Yet they’re .512 in the AL East. They trimmed payroll, slightly improved their performance, fattened their prospect wallet, and set themselves up to be competitive in the near future by amassing multiple moderate to high-talent players with tons of control years. **Their strategy is working**. And their pitchers DO know their roles...you’re assuming they don’t because those roles are non-traditional. Fenwaythehardway’s point (as I see it) is an excellent one. It’s not “should the Sox do the same thing?” It’s “Should the Sox consider the same thing **for the talented player that they have who looks like he could be very successful with it?**” it’s about adapting roles to maximize the success of your available talent. Houston uses a related method (piggybacking) in their minor league development, and it leads to lots of success. And for all the decrying of TB preseason and how they were going to be “one of the worst teams in the league,” it sure looks like they’re having success with it too. It’s possible to adopt, and adapt, an approach without trying to replicate it. I don't see Tampa Bay's strategy of bullpen games helping at all. It's hard to know the trickle down effect from the bullpen games, but I'm sure it isn't a net positive. Yesterday the Rays used a LHP with a ERA over 6 named Kolarek in a closing situation and somehow got away with it. I'm sure this same pitcher could be used in the third inning of some game in the near future. The Rays bullpen have no roles. That's their role. That's a tough place to be in, not knowing when you're coming in. I'm sorry, but it's hard to tell me otherwise. The Rays are having moderate success because they are doing what they always do. Trading old talent before it becomes untradeable and turn it into something with a good enough ceiling to bet on as a prospect. They did it with Price, Longoria, Forsythe, Colome, Ramos, Eovaldi, and now Archer. They also do this by spending in the one area they're equal in with every MLB team in the international minor league free agency. They do this by stinking badly and stocking up on high draft picks and compensatory picks handed to them by the league because they cry poor in the CBA. The Rays had nothing to lose or play for while making all these trades. Now years later it's paying off to the point where they don't completely stink. Congrats I guess. Now they have to find a way and make a championship run without spending a ton of money. No one has pulled this off and won a title doing this, not Oakland, not Tampa Bay. Very little of this success can be put on this bullpen experiment. I almost expect this experiment to end when they actually start getting serious about winning and they feel they are close enough to get to the playoffs again. Edit- The biggest reason why the Rays are over .500 is because of that first round draft pick that is leading their rotation in Blake Snell. Without him, they are probably a below .500 team and we are talking about how much of a failed experiment this is. Lol...”If their best player weren’t playing so well, they wouldn’t be as good.” Beyond how ridiculous that sounds, 1) he’s always been highly rated so his season isn’t exactly a surprise, 2) he’s been worth 2.7 fWAR, not even the three wins they’re above .500, and 3) they’re at 9th in MLB by BaseRuns, at .561. So they’re not remotely as bad as you claimed at the beginning of the year, and they’re clearly better than you’re willing to accept right now. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 17, 2018 19:43:09 GMT -5
I don't see Tampa Bay's strategy of bullpen games helping at all. It's hard to know the trickle down effect from the bullpen games, but I'm sure it isn't a net positive. Yesterday the Rays used a LHP with a ERA over 6 named Kolarek in a closing situation and somehow got away with it. I'm sure this same pitcher could be used in the third inning of some game in the near future. The Rays bullpen have no roles. That's their role. That's a tough place to be in, not knowing when you're coming in. I'm sorry, but it's hard to tell me otherwise. The Rays are having moderate success because they are doing what they always do. Trading old talent before it becomes untradeable and turn it into something with a good enough ceiling to bet on as a prospect. They did it with Price, Longoria, Forsythe, Colome, Ramos, Eovaldi, and now Archer. They also do this by spending in the one area they're equal in with every MLB team in the international minor league free agency. They do this by stinking badly and stocking up on high draft picks and compensatory picks handed to them by the league because they cry poor in the CBA. The Rays had nothing to lose or play for while making all these trades. Now years later it's paying off to the point where they don't completely stink. Congrats I guess. Now they have to find a way and make a championship run without spending a ton of money. No one has pulled this off and won a title doing this, not Oakland, not Tampa Bay. Very little of this success can be put on this bullpen experiment. I almost expect this experiment to end when they actually start getting serious about winning and they feel they are close enough to get to the playoffs again. Edit- The biggest reason why the Rays are over .500 is because of that first round draft pick that is leading their rotation in Blake Snell. Without him, they are probably a below .500 team and we are talking about how much of a failed experiment this is. Lol...”If their best player weren’t playing so well, they wouldn’t be as good.” Beyond how ridiculous that sounds, 1) he’s always been highly rated so his season isn’t exactly a surprise, 2) he’s been worth 2.7 fWAR, not even the three wins they’re above .500, and 3) they’re at 9th in MLB by BaseRuns, at .561. So they’re not remotely as bad as you claimed at the beginning of the year, and they’re clearly better than you’re willing to accept right now. It's not a stretch to say that they're below a .500 team without Snell though. I'm not putting down Snell at all, in fact he is the man down there, but I am questioning how good the Rays are without him and I am fully questioning their flawed plan. This is why it's hard to quantify value sometimes. The Rays are winning a ton when Snell starts a ballgame, yet he's only worth 3 wins according to fWAR. I'm sure if you asked any Rays fan, he has been the only bright spot in the 2018 season so far. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 17, 2018 20:30:41 GMT -5
Hey guys so my original question was not “sure, the Ray’s non traditional pitcher usage works in practice, but what about in theory?”
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 17, 2018 23:03:33 GMT -5
Can you really say they are taking advantage of a market inefficiency? Or low cost? Glasnow and Beeks cost two of the best starters in a very weak class. The opportunity cost to get those two guys was rather high. I agree limiting starters to only twice through the order makes sense, lots of teams are starting to do that. That's not really what the Rays are doing though. Archer is an extremely flawed pitcher who has been essentially the same for three years, well below his one terrific season. He’s failed to further develop and there’s some question that the Rays may have internal concerns about him moving forward. He’s not “bad” by any stretch, and he obviously has upside and has a very reasonable contract with control years. But the Pirates gave up three very talented players; i would argue that Glasgow is a reasonable bet to approximate Archer’s value over the course of Archer’s deal, although the performance curves will probably be very differently shaped. And, they got a likely 2nd-division starter-quality OF with first-division upside and a likely floor of a starting/4th OF tweener, also with 5+ years of control. And, they got an extremely talented PTBNL in Baz who was the #4 in the Pirates’ system. That trade, even before Baz, was generally looked at as a TB win; with him it’s almodt universally regarded as such from what I’ve seen. And Beeks is 25, with #4 projection, who has six years of control, outstanding K rates in AAA, across-the-board solid-avg stuff, and was the return for 3 mo of a pitcher who had no value to TB. The point of what they’re doing is that they’ve created a system with their staff that optimizes the performance of their players, and allows for them to acquire said players cheaply. That’s what Belicheck does in NE...finds value in other teams’ cast-offs because they don’t fit traditional roles. He finds the ideal role for them, and viola...”good” player. Yes, it is a market inefficiency. I made the point that TB was a lot stronger tan people gave them credit for back when they DFA’d Dickerson, traded Odorizzi, etc. If I recall, you were pretty vocal about how awful they would be and how stupid their approach was. But right now they’re something like 5th in the AL by BaseRuns, and they’re 3 games above .500 in a division with the two best (by record, and 1-3 by run diff) teams in baseball. They’re innovative, and it’s working for them. I never really liked Archer as I have said a ton in the past, yet you can't deny how much other teams valued him. They turned down big offers for years for him and got a really good offer for him now. The package they got shows his value and the opportunity cost of getting Glasgow. You can't have it both ways, which is what you are trying to do. They traded one of there best assets to get the guy. I love the move from them, but you can't say the cost was low. I just have to ask, was it a market inefficiency that has made Glaslow walk less people in Tampa? It certainly isn't how the Rays are using him. Maybe he just needed a fresh start or maybe it's just a hot streak! How is it a market inefficiency? This isn't the A's litterally getting guys off the scrap heap for litterally nothing like in money ball. The trades were smart and good, but the opportunity cost was high. They could have got a lot of good packages for those two guys in this market. Beeks was a high rated guy for us, you are acting like he was seen as crap or something. That is a market inefficiency were teams are greatly undervaluing certain players. Given what Britton went for, Beeks was a fair price for maybe the top starter traded at the deadline. I'm going to trust DD on this one, he has a great track record! Odorizzi is currently at 1bwar on his way to a 1.5 bwar season and they got a prospect not in there top 30 for 2 years of team control. You can try and act like that was a great trade and helps them, but I just don't see it. You don't think adding a solid starter helps them? A year ago they were making win now moves at the deadline. They aren't a better team this year. The chance they win that trade is slim. It was a pure salary dump by a cheap team, not that I blame them, but it wasn't good value. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 20, 2018 10:16:05 GMT -5
Archer is an extremely flawed pitcher who has been essentially the same for three years, well below his one terrific season. He’s failed to further develop and there’s some question that the Rays may have internal concerns about him moving forward. He’s not “bad” by any stretch, and he obviously has upside and has a very reasonable contract with control years. But the Pirates gave up three very talented players; i would argue that Glasgow is a reasonable bet to approximate Archer’s value over the course of Archer’s deal, although the performance curves will probably be very differently shaped. And, they got a likely 2nd-division starter-quality OF with first-division upside and a likely floor of a starting/4th OF tweener, also with 5+ years of control. And, they got an extremely talented PTBNL in Baz who was the #4 in the Pirates’ system. That trade, even before Baz, was generally looked at as a TB win; with him it’s almodt universally regarded as such from what I’ve seen. And Beeks is 25, with #4 projection, who has six years of control, outstanding K rates in AAA, across-the-board solid-avg stuff, and was the return for 3 mo of a pitcher who had no value to TB. The point of what they’re doing is that they’ve created a system with their staff that optimizes the performance of their players, and allows for them to acquire said players cheaply. That’s what Belicheck does in NE...finds value in other teams’ cast-offs because they don’t fit traditional roles. He finds the ideal role for them, and viola...”good” player. Yes, it is a market inefficiency. I made the point that TB was a lot stronger tan people gave them credit for back when they DFA’d Dickerson, traded Odorizzi, etc. If I recall, you were pretty vocal about how awful they would be and how stupid their approach was. But right now they’re something like 5th in the AL by BaseRuns, and they’re 3 games above .500 in a division with the two best (by record, and 1-3 by run diff) teams in baseball. They’re innovative, and it’s working for them. I never really liked Archer as I have said a ton in the past, yet you can't deny how much other teams valued him. They turned down big offers for years for him and got a really good offer for him now. The package they got shows his value and the opportunity cost of getting Glasgow. You can't have it both ways, which is what you are trying to do. They traded one of there best assets to get the guy. I love the move from them, but you can't say the cost was low. I just have to ask, was it a market inefficiency that has made Glaslow walk less people in Tampa? It certainly isn't how the Rays are using him. Maybe he just needed a fresh start or maybe it's just a hot streak! How is it a market inefficiency? This isn't the A's litterally getting guys off the scrap heap for litterally nothing like in money ball. The trades were smart and good, but the opportunity cost was high. They could have got a lot of good packages for those two guys in this market. Beeks was a high rated guy for us, you are acting like he was seen as crap or something. That is a market inefficiency were teams are greatly undervaluing certain players. Given what Britton went for, Beeks was a fair price for maybe the top starter traded at the deadline. I'm going to trust DD on this one, he has a great track record! Odorizzi is currently at 1bwar on his way to a 1.5 bwar season and they got a prospect not in there top 30 for 2 years of team control. You can try and act like that was a great trade and helps them, but I just don't see it. You don't think adding a solid starter helps them? A year ago they were making win now moves at the deadline. They aren't a better team this year. The chance they win that trade is slim. It was a pure salary dump by a cheap team, not that I blame them, but it wasn't good value. I’m not saying Beeks, Glasnow, or any of these players is “crap.” I’m saying that their value is tarnished by major flaws that make them, as constituted, unsuitable for traditional starting roles. They’re tweeners...too potentially valuable to move to the bullpen but not consistent or reliable enough to start. In the eyes of many teams, they’re simply not highly desirable. Now, Glasnow has pedigree and huge upside, so he is a valuable commodity. But less so than he was two years ago. Beeks doesn’t have the pedigree or huge upside, but has been adaptable and successful. I would argue that both are relatively undervalued because of their flaws and inability to fit into traditional SP roles. Not *valueless*, undervalued. There’s potential benefit to using a pitcher like Houck in the same way that Beeks or Glasnow is being used. Not as a permanent role, but as an adjunct to development. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 21, 2018 14:05:50 GMT -5
Telson your whole point was they were low cost and Rays were taking advantage of market inefficiencies. Beeks wasn't some buy low guy because he couldn't be a starter or high end reliever. His value was at an all-time high because he was dominating AAA hiters as a starter. Nevermind they are basically using both pitchers as starters, in fact Glasnow actually started his last game. Glasnow was a buy low guy, but it wasn't at a low cost or due to market inefficiencies. It was just he couldn't control his walks as a starter or in limited innings. Which if you can't do that, there isn't a role that will make you better. He may very well put it all together, we've seen it happen a lot, but it won't be because of the Rays pitching strategy. I like the moves, but the Rays just made the best deals they could. If they went after a bunch of guys like Shepard, those would be low cost and market inefficiencies type guys. They just aren't doing that. They are just starting a reliever, then bringing in a starter in the case of Beeks. They are using him once every 5 days like a starter.
I actually don't mind bringing up a starter as a reliever to get his feet wet. That has worked out well for certain teams to build up confidence. Just I'd use him for 1 or 2 innings, not 4-5 innings like a starter. That way his stuff plays up increasing his effectiveness. Next year Shawaryn looks like our first starter in the minors to be called on. So I wouldn't mind seeing him get his feet wet this September in the Majors. Heck I'd love to see how his stuff plays up in that role, he could be a weapon.
|
|
|
