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 soxjim on Jan 20, 2019 11:22:35 GMT -5
Just to make it clear I'm arguing your comment that "you can't blame the Yanks bullpen." -- You can because the Yanks starters got their clocks cleaned in the playoffs with Severino cracking at the end, and having torely on 36 yo Happ and especially relying on CC in game 4-- instead they tried to live with it and go after a great pen. They have the prospects and relievers in 2017 to make a huge trade like DD did to get Sale. That's the major point. As for Sonny Gray- he was not very good at the time he left Oakland and it showed. The Yanks knew after 2017 he wasn't very good and just looked to build a super pen instead. Gray was not thought of as much. Were you really scared of Gray in 2017 or in 2018? After 2017 if Yanks knew he wasn't that good why not find another starter? In 2018 the SOx went after eovaldi while the yanks went after Lynn. There were many of us-- a lot of people a lot smarter than me that knew Gray wasn't that good especially coming back after injury. This year they could have gone after COrbin AND Britton with $3m to spare instead they get the 36 going on 37 yo Happ and Britton and Otto. You fear Happ? I don't. There's a reason why the Sox bombed him in the playoffs - he's not that good. He's pretty good but he was 36. Anyways as a Sox fan I love the idea they went after happ instead of Corbin. I say thank you Brian Cashman. ANd I;m not sure why you are mentioning to me about 108 wins. I've said here that I don't expect them to duplicate the season thus I don't understand all the complaining from others (not you) of "not being better" despite the fact the sox could overall "may be better" but lose more games. I just think you have vastly overrated the Yanks staff from last year - and this year the Yanks Tanaka and Paxton are injury questions. Severino has consistency questions. ANd Happ and Sabathia are old.To rely on CC as your number 5 isn't showing me a sign of strength for a team that has shown they will spend big. Yet they spent big on the bullpen. They had CC start game 4 in an elimination game last year. That should tell us all we need to know; they wanted to be and even continue to this day to be a bullpen driven team.**There is a reason why they got blitzed last year vs the sox. It was because the yanks looked to build a super pen 1st and not address the prior year their SP issues. ANd i'm not arguing with yo u about kimbrel. I'm arguing your reply to fenway when you spoke of the Yanks didn't lose because of the bullpen. Even if you say they had no other options the fact remains they were heavy into the bullpen and their SP was a weak link---> and it got exposed. Badly. This year I'd think the same thing. Paxton is always hurt. Let's see how he does for a full season. Tanaka is a time bomb. Severino has faded two straight year I think. Happ and CC are old. And yet they have 4 guys that are closer types along with another dude who stunk but the year or two before with Chicago was good (Kahnle) and Chad Green. ***Certainly with all these arms they could have instead looked to move a couple or not signed a couple etc and with a prospect or two gotten a young pretty good starter. To be fair, Gray had a career-high 8.72 K/9 and a 3.43/3.30 ERA/xFIP in 97 innings at the time he was traded to NY. His ERA was elevated, too, because of a poor 65% strand rate. He’d re-established his CB (or rather, gotten back to using 2 different speed/CB locations), and his walk rate was under 3 per 9, with a HR rate of 0.74/9, which is pretty good. He WAS pitching pretty well, more or less in line with his career norms. His home/road splits with the Yankees revealed a horrendous propensity to get shelled in NY, where HR really killed him. This continued in 2018. He was a solid/good pitcher when they acquired him (2.2 fWAR in a half-season, basically a 4-WAR pitcher or a pretty good #2), he just is a terrible fit for the stadium, where he was prone to HR and where contact really hurt him (the INF defense wasn’t good for him, and his walk rate shot up...probably from nibbling). I agree that Gray wasn’t a pitcher I “worried” about, but that’s more because I never really have...he’s not a good choice for the AL East, which is why I never wanted the Sox to acquire him. But look at his home/away splits last year...outside the stadium, he was 3.17 with a .274 wOBAA and a 78/22 K/BB ratio in 71 innings. That’s a pretty good pitcher, especially in front of an INF defense that had Andújar at 3b and a reduced Didi (whose defense is slipping) at SS. NY’s bullpen isn’t necessarily better than it was at the end of last year (it might be; Britton will probably be improved and Ottavino might very well be a step up from Robertson), but the rotation is definitely improved substantially. Happ isn’t great but he’s almost assuredly going to be better than Gray. Paxton is a huge step up over the assortment of guys they had including Lynn. Yeah, Tanaka’s basically a 3 now, but that’s where he slots. CC is a pretty good 5...he’s pitched like a 3/4. And Severino faded last year, but he was terrific the first half, and he was terrific in the second half of 2017. So I don’t think you can assume he’ll fade...he’s just (very) young. Odds are he gets better, not worse...he’s *just* entering his prime years, at 25. It’s true that NY’s ‘pen didn’t save them last year, especially in the playoffs. But there’s a very good chance their starters pitch more innings this year and are more reliable...allowing more rest for the bullpen and fewer innings to guys lower down the totem pole. Like RSchamps, I don’t think the bullpen last year was *the problem*...it was the rotation. That problem has been solved and the most likely result is that that particular solution has positive downstream effects on the ‘pen. We're going to have to agree to disagree in terms of the context of what fenwaydouble posted if that is what we're arguing about? Or maybe we aren't even arguing? I'll put it in bold below the context of my posts. They had to do with thepost from fenwaydouble in bold below. That's the context of my replies. "Relievers are good until they're bad. Relievers are bad until they're good. I had hoped that the Red Sox winning 108 games and the World Series with a bullpen that everybody thought was a disaster would kill this weird trendy belief that a name-brand bullpen is the most important thing you can have (thanks Royals). You guys remember that the Yankees assembled "the greatest bullpen of all-time" last year too, right? " I'm not arguing the Yanks starting staff isn't better than what it was last year nor am I arguing they might pitch more innings. Nor do I think giving the Yanks bullpen less innings will necessarily make them "better." They weren't worn out last year in the post season. But what I am doing is agreeing with the context of what fenwaydouble posted and specifically underlined in bold. And as mentioned by fenwaydouble the context that the Yanks have built a potentially super "best ever" bullpen. Last year we heard hype that their bullpen might be the greatest off all time. This year on paper to start the year--> it's stronger. While they’ve upgraded the starters they've also upgraded a super bullpen. I don't know how many innings the starters will pitch but in big games the Yanks will be very, very aggressive with their bullpen. CC isn't going to pitch much. Tanaka is a time bomb. Paxton has been hurt a lot. Severino has faded the last two years and Happ is going on 37. While the starters are potentially very good - their bullpen will be hyped again as potentially "the best of all-time." That's a huge discrepancy between starters and bullpen. I don't think the philosophy of the Yanks is going to be "we need to be careful and give our bullpen a rest" as much as "we need to be careful and give our starters a rest." Yes the Yanks didn't lose directly because of the bullpen. They lost because they chose to build a team that was extremely heavy/reliant on the bullpen while looking to just get by with the starters. And Sonny Gray is the classic example of their philosophy last year. It was "Royals-like." Sonny Gray's 1st 2.5 years were superior to his next 3. He wasn't that good after 2015 (I'm not saying he stinks.) . In 2017 Gray still had the "Oakland splits" and when he came to NY - the Yanks saw what he was in 2017. In Yank Stadium in 2017 he had a 5.65 ERA with a 1.29 WHIP with a 2.5 Home Runs allowed average per 9 innings. -- And they did nothing about it before 2018. They chose to keep and get by with him as a mediocre starter. So they built an extreme bullpen and went into 2018 with two high-tier starters of which Tanaka needs rest -- and who else? It wasn't bad but imo it's clear they built their team to dominate 7-9 innings. That’s the context of my post as it pertains to the bold above initially posted by fenwaydouble. And I think fenwaydouble shares my pov here that we prefer to build how the Astros and Sox did the last two years rather than how the Royals/Yanks and Brewers were/are built. Though I know both can be successful and sometimes you doit through necessity. The Brewers may have to while the Yanks it seems choose to. Sort of why I'm not so hot after Kimbrel and am okay with what Sox have done so far. But obviously would like to do better. And I;m not sure based on prior rumors/news we heard of Sox going after a $2m or $3m reliever not sure who would accept that and be good enough.
|
|
|
Post by kenster on Jan 20, 2019 13:37:35 GMT -5
Flip a coin between Holland, Brach, and Wilson. Sipp is a distant 4th. Yet I don't see you signing any of them for 2-3 million.
|
|
|
Post by kenster on Jan 20, 2019 13:38:54 GMT -5
Dombrowski has apparently offered Shawn Kelley an unpaid internship.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,675
|
Post by gerry on Jan 20, 2019 15:05:58 GMT -5
Dombrowski has apparently offered Shawn Kelley an unpaid internship. Even a snarky accusation requires sources.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 20, 2019 20:31:10 GMT -5
To be fair, Gray had a career-high 8.72 K/9 and a 3.43/3.30 ERA/xFIP in 97 innings at the time he was traded to NY. His ERA was elevated, too, because of a poor 65% strand rate. He’d re-established his CB (or rather, gotten back to using 2 different speed/CB locations), and his walk rate was under 3 per 9, with a HR rate of 0.74/9, which is pretty good. He WAS pitching pretty well, more or less in line with his career norms. His home/road splits with the Yankees revealed a horrendous propensity to get shelled in NY, where HR really killed him. This continued in 2018. He was a solid/good pitcher when they acquired him (2.2 fWAR in a half-season, basically a 4-WAR pitcher or a pretty good #2), he just is a terrible fit for the stadium, where he was prone to HR and where contact really hurt him (the INF defense wasn’t good for him, and his walk rate shot up...probably from nibbling). I agree that Gray wasn’t a pitcher I “worried” about, but that’s more because I never really have...he’s not a good choice for the AL East, which is why I never wanted the Sox to acquire him. But look at his home/away splits last year...outside the stadium, he was 3.17 with a .274 wOBAA and a 78/22 K/BB ratio in 71 innings. That’s a pretty good pitcher, especially in front of an INF defense that had Andújar at 3b and a reduced Didi (whose defense is slipping) at SS. NY’s bullpen isn’t necessarily better than it was at the end of last year (it might be; Britton will probably be improved and Ottavino might very well be a step up from Robertson), but the rotation is definitely improved substantially. Happ isn’t great but he’s almost assuredly going to be better than Gray. Paxton is a huge step up over the assortment of guys they had including Lynn. Yeah, Tanaka’s basically a 3 now, but that’s where he slots. CC is a pretty good 5...he’s pitched like a 3/4. And Severino faded last year, but he was terrific the first half, and he was terrific in the second half of 2017. So I don’t think you can assume he’ll fade...he’s just (very) young. Odds are he gets better, not worse...he’s *just* entering his prime years, at 25. It’s true that NY’s ‘pen didn’t save them last year, especially in the playoffs. But there’s a very good chance their starters pitch more innings this year and are more reliable...allowing more rest for the bullpen and fewer innings to guys lower down the totem pole. Like RSchamps, I don’t think the bullpen last year was *the problem*...it was the rotation. That problem has been solved and the most likely result is that that particular solution has positive downstream effects on the ‘pen. We're going to have to agree to disagree in terms of the context of what fenwaydouble posted if that is what we're arguing about? Or maybe we aren't even arguing? I'll put it in bold below the context of my posts. They had to do with thepost from fenwaydouble in bold below. That's the context of my replies. "Relievers are good until they're bad. Relievers are bad until they're good. I had hoped that the Red Sox winning 108 games and the World Series with a bullpen that everybody thought was a disaster would kill this weird trendy belief that a name-brand bullpen is the most important thing you can have (thanks Royals). You guys remember that the Yankees assembled "the greatest bullpen of all-time" last year too, right? " I'm not arguing the Yanks starting staff isn't better than what it was last year nor am I arguing they might pitch more innings. Nor do I think giving the Yanks bullpen less innings will necessarily make them "better." They weren't worn out last year in the post season. But what I am doing is agreeing with the context of what fenwaydouble posted and specifically underlined in bold. And as mentioned by fenwaydouble the context that the Yanks have built a potentially super "best ever" bullpen. Last year we heard hype that their bullpen might be the greatest off all time. This year on paper to start the year--> it's stronger. While they’ve upgraded the starters they've also upgraded a super bullpen. I don't know how many innings the starters will pitch but in big games the Yanks will be very, very aggressive with their bullpen. CC isn't going to pitch much. Tanaka is a time bomb. Paxton has been hurt a lot. Severino has faded the last two years and Happ is going on 37. While the starters are potentially very good - their bullpen will be hyped again as potentially "the best of all-time." That's a huge discrepancy between starters and bullpen. I don't think the philosophy of the Yanks is going to be "we need to be careful and give our bullpen a rest" as much as "we need to be careful and give our starters a rest." Yes the Yanks didn't lose directly because of the bullpen. They lost because they chose to build a team that was extremely heavy/reliant on the bullpen while looking to just get by with the starters. And Sonny Gray is the classic example of their philosophy last year. It was "Royals-like." Sonny Gray's 1st 2.5 years were superior to his next 3. He wasn't that good after 2015 (I'm not saying he stinks.) . In 2017 Gray still had the "Oakland splits" and when he came to NY - the Yanks saw what he was in 2017. In Yank Stadium in 2017 he had a 5.65 ERA with a 1.29 WHIP with a 2.5 Home Runs allowed average per 9 innings. -- And they did nothing about it before 2018. They chose to keep and get by with him as a mediocre starter. So they built an extreme bullpen and went into 2018 with two high-tier starters of which Tanaka needs rest -- and who else? It wasn't bad but imo it's clear they built their team to dominate 7-9 innings. That’s the context of my post as it pertains to the bold above initially posted by fenwaydouble. And I think fenwaydouble shares my pov here that we prefer to build how the Astros and Sox did the last two years rather than how the Royals/Yanks and Brewers were/are built. Though I know both can be successful and sometimes you doit through necessity. The Brewers may have to while the Yanks it seems choose to. Sort of why I'm not so hot after Kimbrel and am okay with what Sox have done so far. But obviously would like to do better. And I;m not sure based on prior rumors/news we heard of Sox going after a $2m or $3m reliever not sure who would accept that and be good enough. Eh, I’m not really arguing your point...I think there are a lot of attempts by teams (now that analytics have permeated the game and kind of leveled the evaluation playing field) to find the new market inefficiency. As you say, sometimes it’s due to need (TB and their mixed approach/opener/bullpenning), sometimes due to changes in CW (NY, Mil and the uber-bullpen), and sometimes due to roster constraints (the rover approach the Sox used). I’m more traditionalist when it comes to enjoyment of games...I like seeing a starter battle through a CG with stuff and/or guile. And I’m sure on some level teams are realizing that each approach, in terms of winning, has some validity depending on roster construction (ie, Oakland fortified their bullpen last year in spite of lacking starters because they found it to be a successful formula given their already ‘pen-dependent approach, cost restraints/starter availability, etc.). I actually think the end result of all of this is going to be a fracturing of traditional starter-MR-CL structure into multiple styles, tailored to each teams’ roster. As the available talent changes, the approaches will shift (TB is getting several high-quality young pitchers back, and I expect their approach to shift in accordance). I guess what I’m saying is that I think each of these strategies (along with those on offense, such as developing super-utility guys who are capable of starting at multiple positions, or trying to identify and develop 2-way players to save roster spots, more TTO specialists being starters) will continue to evolve. We’ll see a number of different approaches rather than the one traditional one. I think the uber-bullpen was less an approach-du-jour and is more just one of the first branches from the traditional tree of “(starting) pitching and defense.” Instead, it became “(adequate starters), super bullpen, and defense.” It was still “pitching and defense” in a general sense...but with a twist. Just like Darwin’s finches, I think the pressures of roster constraints, market size, player development strengths, etc are going to further evolve those branches. I mean, it’s happening in the NBA, too, where traditional positional roles are becoming very murky. And in a way, the Pats have done that in football...creating hybrid roles, creating systems around players rather than finding players to plug into a system.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,675
|
Post by gerry on Jan 21, 2019 3:11:49 GMT -5
Well said, a clear look at this period of accelerated (for whatever reasons) evolution of the game. Yet, without all the tiring drumbeat of “changing the game” to attract millennials. Thank you.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 21, 2019 7:03:50 GMT -5
So does everyone remember that when you quote a yard-long post that itself is quoting one or two earlier yard-long posts, you can cut out some of the earlier posts to save us all scrolling time? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 21, 2019 11:02:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by avonbarksdale on Jan 21, 2019 13:04:05 GMT -5
Wow! Still, I remember a discussion about two years ago as the Yankees were assembling one of their first super pens; it was pointed out that there simply are not enough high leverage innings in a season for the upgrading of your 5th, 6th, and 7th best relievers to be worth the extra money those upgrades cost. Maybe this argument didn't consider the new aggressive use of relievers to eat innings for which the starters were once considered responsible. But being hard to hit doesn't necessarily make you capable of an abnormally high workload, so hopefully piling a lot more innings on the relievers will be an unreasonable ask of the Yanks' super pen. And hopefully relatively expensive guys like Brittion and Ottavino will be wasted pitching low-leverage innings and therefore not significantly improve the team's win total.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 21, 2019 13:14:46 GMT -5
Wow! Still, I remember a discussion about two years ago as the Yankees were assembling one of their first super pens; it was pointed out that there simply are not enough high leverage innings in a season for the upgrading of your 5th, 6th, and 7th best relievers to be worth the extra money those upgrades cost. Maybe this argument didn't consider the new aggressive use of relievers to eat innings for which the starters were once considered responsible. But being hard to hit doesn't necessarily make you capable of an abnormally high workload, so hopefully piling a lot more innings on the relievers will be an unreasonable ask of the Yanks' super pen. And hopefully relatively expensive guys like Brittion and Ottavino will be wasted pitching low-leverage innings and therefore not significantly improve the team's win total. It's a little subtle, but Sullivan isn't actually making any statement about how many wins the Yankees bullpen is worth, or diminishing returns on relievers, etc. It's just showing the distance between the Yankees bullpen and an average bullpen to be roughly similar to the distance between Jose Altuve and the average 2B, or Mookie and the average RF.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Jan 21, 2019 15:22:11 GMT -5
I don't get these different WAR stats when it comes to relievers. Looking at the different WARs for C. Kimbrel, it seems that both forms of WAR value Kimbrel at around 2+ per season when averaging out Kimbrel's value over his tenure with Sox. I'm not a real aficionado when it comes to WAR, so I'm confused by this value for Kimbrel.
Kimbrel's been one of the most consistently dominant closers in the game since he came into the league, so it's hard for me to understand that his value is only a bit more than 2 wins per season. Is that in comparison to an average, typical replacement reliever, or is that in comparison to other closers??
Anyways, it would seem that a team going from someone with a long track record of reliability as a closer, to someone who's never done it full-time at the MLB level is going to be risking more than just a couple of wins during a season in doing so, unless they've got an elite closer prospect. We've all seen what happens when a bullpen implodes over the course of a season, especially when the team's closer self-destructs, and hence why teams trying to get to the playoffs value good relievers so much at the trade deadline every season.
I like the quick, easy reference that WAR gives to quickly assess a player's value, however I'm a little confused about it when it comes to valuing relievers.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 21, 2019 15:42:22 GMT -5
When you have a closer getting Heath Hembree innings, it's not going to add a lot of wins to your team no matter how good he is.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 21, 2019 15:50:23 GMT -5
I don't get these different WAR stats when it comes to relievers. Looking at the different WARs for C. Kimbrel, it seems that both forms of WAR value Kimbrel at around 2+ per season when averaging out Kimbrel's value over his tenure with Sox. I'm not a real aficionado when it comes to WAR, so I'm confused by this value for Kimbrel. Kimbrel's been one of the most consistently dominant closers in the game since he came into the league, so it's hard for me to understand that his value is only a bit more than 2 wins per season. Is that in comparison to an average, typical replacement reliever, or is that in comparison to other closers?? Anyways, it would seem that a team going from someone with a long track record of reliability as a closer, to someone who's never done it full-time at the MLB level is going to be risking more than just a couple of wins during a season in doing so, unless they've got an elite closer prospect. We've all seen what happens when a bullpen implodes over the course of a season, especially when the team's closer self-destructs, and hence why teams trying to get to the playoffs value good relievers so much at the trade deadline every season. I like the quick, easy reference that WAR gives to quickly assess a player's value, however I'm a little confused about it when it comes to valuing relievers. It's simple really, WAR doesn't care at all what innings you're pitching. It's just measuring how well you pitched over how many innings. The "wins" in Wins Above Replacement is very much an abstract concept, not an accounting of who did what to win or lose specific games.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 21, 2019 15:51:51 GMT -5
When you have a closer getting Heath Hembree innings, it's not going to add a lot of wins to your team no matter how good he is. I'm saving this for gameday threads FYI.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 21, 2019 15:59:23 GMT -5
When you have a closer getting Heath Hembree innings, it's not going to add a lot of wins to your team no matter how good he is. Then they should probably be used in higher-leverage innings than Heath Hembree. Such as, the fifth starter shouldn't be pitching in the first inning or the sixth when you have a bullpen like that. Getting shorter stints out of your starters and then managing the bullpen actively rather than in a passive/reactive way, not using all of your relievers every day, setting roles based on matchups rather than "what inning is it," etc. There are a limited number of high-leverage innings, but there are different ways to fill those innings productively. Building from back to front if you're going to manage like Girardi did--waiting until you have a lead to deploy those guys, and then saving those games that you were probably going to win anyway. But... the Yankees are almost always going to have a better pitcher on the mound in the sixth and seventh inning of close games, and that's a huge advantage. Enough of one to counteract the fact the Red Sox have Mookie Betts and Chris Sale? I honestly don't know. But the Yankees aren't going to have Mookie Betts and Chris Sale, so it makes sense for them to structure their roster differently than a team that does.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 21, 2019 16:40:32 GMT -5
So does everyone remember that when you quote a yard-long post that itself is quoting one or two earlier yard-long posts, you can cut out some of the earlier posts to save us all scrolling time? Thanks. 🤣🤣🤣 Yeah, sorry ‘bout that. I thought of it before I started writing and forgot by the end. It IS a lot of scrolling to do.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 21, 2019 18:17:59 GMT -5
I don't get these different WAR stats when it comes to relievers. Looking at the different WARs for C. Kimbrel, it seems that both forms of WAR value Kimbrel at around 2+ per season when averaging out Kimbrel's value over his tenure with Sox. I'm not a real aficionado when it comes to WAR, so I'm confused by this value for Kimbrel. Kimbrel's been one of the most consistently dominant closers in the game since he came into the league, so it's hard for me to understand that his value is only a bit more than 2 wins per season. Is that in comparison to an average, typical replacement reliever, or is that in comparison to other closers?? Anyways, it would seem that a team going from someone with a long track record of reliability as a closer, to someone who's never done it full-time at the MLB level is going to be risking more than just a couple of wins during a season in doing so, unless they've got an elite closer prospect. We've all seen what happens when a bullpen implodes over the course of a season, especially when the team's closer self-destructs, and hence why teams trying to get to the playoffs value good relievers so much at the trade deadline every season. I like the quick, easy reference that WAR gives to quickly assess a player's value, however I'm a little confused about it when it comes to valuing relievers. It's simple really, WAR doesn't care at all what innings you're pitching. It's just measuring how well you pitched over how many innings. The "wins" in Wins Above Replacement is very much an abstract concept, not an accounting of who did what to win or lose specific games. It's useless WAR when there isn't much WPA to go with it. It's about as useful as signing Bryce Harper to be a permanent pinch hitter. I mean the Red Sox can have the best bullpen if they want. Just put Sale, Eovaldi and ERod in the bullpen and go with a Yankees-type of rotation. Oh and hey, that's what they did in the playoffs when it really matters.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Jan 22, 2019 14:16:34 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm sort of understanding it, however WAR still seems like an inappropriate stat when it comes to relievers -- especially for closers. If Kimbrel is doing his job, and racking up 35+ saves a season, with just a few blown saves, then it just seems to me like he's more valuable than just two WAR. Again, I really need to read more about how the different forms of WAR are computed (I made an attempt yesterday to read the breakdown of everything that each form of WAR encompasses and quickly became overwhelmed once I realized how complex and lengthy each one is, and since I didn't have much free time before I had to go to work yesterday, I gave up). For me it just boils down to a simple belief that Kimbrel is worth more than two wins compared to a generic replacement pitcher. It does make sense that a pitcher like Edwin Diaz was approximately two wins better than Kimbrel last year. It seems to me that the amount of Saves and blown Saves a pitcher has in a season aren't really factored in when computing each form of WAR, and instead it's more about peripheral stuff like strikeout percentages and hits and walks. I think I'm perhaps more old fashioned, which is why I value Saves more than the different forms of WAR seem to do -- even though I think that the rules for what is considered a Save are a little lax in some instances. I know that nowadays more value is placed in using a 'closer' in crucial late-inning situations instead of just the typical ninth-inning appearance, which seems to make sense. Over the years I've seen so many different closers fail to convert Save opportunities, which seems to have a huge effect on a team, so I value Saves a lot more than the different forms of WAR do.
Last year Kimbrel had a good season, and although he wasn't 'lights out' like he was in '17, it was what I consider to be a good year for a typical closer. I can't help imagining that a generic replacement pitcher would have blown several more Saves than Kimbrel did last year, which would have resulted in several more losses for the Red Sox. That's why I have a hard time believing that a WAR value of around two for Kimbrel last year makes sense. Yeah, I know that Kimbrel is at a crossroads in his career at his age, and if he loses another couple of mph on his fb he's going to really have a hard time converting saves because he can't rely on his command of his pitches to compensate.
I don't believe that the Sox would have won more than a hundred games last year, and gone on to win the Series if Kimbrel wasn't on the team, even if they had a whole year of Brasier to compensate. If it was possible to imagine that the Sox hadn't won it all last year, I would really have a hard time believing that the Sox were really trying to win it all with the current bullpen. If money truly is the reason why the Sox didn't sign one of the other big-name relievers this winter, then perhaps they shouldn't have re-signed Pearce, and instead used that money to sign another reliever.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 22, 2019 14:54:36 GMT -5
Here's the thing - usually even a mediocre or replacement level pitcher will save a three-run lead when given three outs, more often than he doesn't. Joe Borowski's 2007 season always stands out to me - he saved most of his attempts despite often giving up runs. And it wasn't because of some "closer's mentality," because he had washed out of the role before. It's just that not giving up runs in the 9th inning isn't a different skill than not giving up runs in the sixth.
Now, if Kimbrel had been replaced with, I dunno, Justin Haley or Marcus Walden moving directly into the highest leverage situations, the Red Sox probably lose more than two of those games. But... your manager would have to be a moron to manage that way, right? If they lost Kimbrel, it would've been Barnes or Kelly moving into the highest leverage role, Brasier coming up earlier, maybe Buttrey coming up when Brasier did, etc. Even doing nothing else, that's probably a 105 win team.
One thing that maybe confuses the point with WAR is that it doesn't really measure team wins - it consolidates runs above replacement level into expected wins. Kimbrel was 19 runs above replacement level in 62 1/3 innings in 2018. You have to agree that sounds about right, no? So, that's going to translate into 2.3 bWAR whether he's given lots of opportunities to participate in wins with the Red Sox, or very few opportunities to do so if he'd pitched for, say, the Orioles.
Part of the reason that closers end up with such high WPAs relative to their WARis that their usage patterns aren't by chance. So, it's not 19 runs spread out over a random distribution of situations. It's 19 runs above replacement in the highest leverage situations, where allowing one run affects the outcome. But...that's not the pitcher's skill, it's the manager's use of his best.
How much you want to give credit for WPA for their usage patterns rather than WAR for the raw number of runs prevented is up to you. Consider Trevor Hoffman as your extreme case, with 28.0 career WAR, but ranking 22nd all time in WPA.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 22, 2019 16:15:37 GMT -5
To add a few things; I fully support Fangraphs theory that teams with elite relief pitchers average an extra war on average for teams. Hence you could say Kimbrels was worth 3.3 bwar last year.
A big part of that is he allows guys like Barnes to pitch other innings when needed. Also a bunch of teams will pull out all the stops before getting to a guy like Kimbrel. If you're a manager wouldn't you use your pinch hitters and runners more in the 7th and 8th innings knowing you have to face a guy like Kimbrel in the 9th? That has a real effect and happens. It's the smart play, the numbers say to do that.
So for me it's not that Barnes replacing Kimbrel is some massive drop off. I bet he can be a good closer. It's we haven't brought in a player to replace Barnes if that happens. You also haven't replaced Kelly.
I'd prefer Kimbrel, he's the best guy available. Yet I can live with just adding some solid bullpen arms and moving other guys up. I can't for the life of me understand doing nothing. I'd be perfectly fine adding two of Holland, Wilson, and Brach. While not ideal they are proven Vets that have upside of being very good. They grestly reduce our risk and you should be able to get them all on one year deals. Yet were talking about signing guys for 2-3 million, which is a tier or two below even those guys. Maybe a guy like Sergio Romo is in that range. He's not a bad option, but he's much older and you run the risk that he just doesn't have it anymore. Better than nothing for sure, yet it just seems kinda crazy to think we can only add guys at 2-3 million in our bullpen with a 240 million payroll, while spending what 100 million on starters. I don't think its too much to ask for a couple of guys making 5 to 8 million and the team spending like 20 million on the bullpen or about what Chapman alone makes.
I've seen a bunch of recent posts about starters in the bullpen for the playoffs. First you have to get to the playoffs, second we had three relievers pitch lights out last year. One is gone, one of the others people want to make a closer. So you need to replace two key relievers still even to duplicate last years model. Guys that have the ability to be Barnes and Kelly. Heck that's assuming Braiser can be good again and who knows about that.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 23, 2019 1:20:45 GMT -5
I've seen a bunch of recent posts about starters in the bullpen for the playoffs. First you have to get to the playoffs, second we had three relievers pitch lights out last year. One is gone, one of the others people want to make a closer. So you need to replace two key relievers still even to duplicate last years model. Guys that have the ability to be Barnes and Kelly. Heck that's assuming Braiser can be good again and who knows about that. Barring major injuries I don't see why the SOx won't get in the playoffs. They are projected as a 95-96 win team for a reason. Their starting pitching and hitting are superior. Secondly, as we see relievers are a crapshoot. You mention Kelly. If my stats are right, from June 1st on he had an ERA of 6.13 with a WHIP of 1.74. That stinks. So other than the 8 game run he had in that timeline -- overall he was bad for about 3.5 months. So when you speak of "got to make the playoffs" - Kelly didn't help much so his regular season shouldn't be hard to replace. . And just to show how much of a crapshoot relievers are - you and I would like to have Kimbrel back (though I only want him for 1 year because I feel Sox want to get under the cap in 2020 and I don't want money spent on more than a 1 year Kimbrel.) and yet we see how Kimbrel pitched in the post season while Kelly surprised us by essentially "being Kimbrel." You can;t predict that just as you say about Brasier -- but it's the same about every reliever you cite to a degree. SO why not wait? We've seen over the years pitchers come out of nowhere. If the Sox were any good in 2015 they would have maybe done something with Rich Hill. In 2016 we had Stephen Wright turn into an all-star. In 2017 we got Fister. And now Brasier. So why not wait and see if anyone comes through? Kelly was so bad from June on that he wasn't even on the playoff team to start with. He was the last pitcher assigned because of injury. There is a chance that any relief pitcher Sox would have traded for late last year would have cost the Sox big time vs having Kelly. You can't predict that because relievers are so hard to predict. So I'm all for waiting to either get a good deal or making a future trade if need be. Over the years the Sox have done well without the "bullpen names" in which someone came out of nowhere to be either "solid" or dominant" while we've seen Kimbrel types melt. Look at 2004 - Lowe had a miserable year then he came though in postseason and who did the Sox get to? - TWICE - Rivera - the greatest closer in MLB history "blew it." Then in 2007 not much was expected of Okajima- he was 4th on the depth chart when team was created- he ended up being an all-star in his rookie year. In 2013 Uehara was the 6th/7th inning guy that ended up having one of the super relief seasons ever of a closer. And the 7th inning guy late was Brandon Workman. Brandon Workman. I don't know at the time but I think Feltman right now would have a higher grade or at least equal to 2013 Workman in terms of projection though I could be wrong. Anyways Workman was not someone we would've penciled in for 7th inning reliever. Unless you get the elite reliever and even then they fail-- you just don't know.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 23, 2019 3:46:35 GMT -5
I've seen a bunch of recent posts about starters in the bullpen for the playoffs. First you have to get to the playoffs, second we had three relievers pitch lights out last year. One is gone, one of the others people want to make a closer. So you need to replace two key relievers still even to duplicate last years model. Guys that have the ability to be Barnes and Kelly. Heck that's assuming Braiser can be good again and who knows about that. Barring major injuries I don't see why the SOx won't get in the playoffs. They are projected as a 95-96 win team for a reason. Their starting pitching and hitting are superior. Secondly, as we see relievers are a crapshoot. You mention Kelly. If my stats are right, from June 1st on he had an ERA of 6.13 with a WHIP of 1.74. That stinks. So other than the 8 game run he had in that timeline -- overall he was bad for about 3.5 months. So when you speak of "got to make the playoffs" - Kelly didn't help much so his regular season shouldn't be hard to replace. . And just to show how much of a crapshoot relievers are - you and I would like to have Kimbrel back (though I only want him for 1 year because I feel Sox want to get under the cap in 2020 and I don't want money spent on more than a 1 year Kimbrel.) and yet we see how Kimbrel pitched in the post season while Kelly surprised us by essentially "being Kimbrel." You can;t predict that just as you say about Brasier -- but it's the same about every reliever you cite to a degree. SO why not wait? We've seen over the years pitchers come out of nowhere. If the Sox were any good in 2015 they would have maybe done something with Rich Hill. In 2016 we had Stephen Wright turn into an all-star. In 2017 we got Fister. And now Brasier. So why not wait and see if anyone comes through? Kelly was so bad from June on that he wasn't even on the playoff team to start with. He was the last pitcher assigned because of injury. There is a chance that any relief pitcher Sox would have traded for late last year would have cost the Sox big time vs having Kelly. You can't predict that because relievers are so hard to predict. So I'm all for waiting to either get a good deal or making a future trade if need be. Over the years the Sox have done well without the "bullpen names" in which someone came out of nowhere to be either "solid" or dominant" while we've seen Kimbrel types melt. Look at 2004 - Lowe had a miserable year then he came though in postseason and who did the Sox get to? - TWICE - Rivera - the greatest closer in MLB history "blew it." Then in 2007 not much was expected of Okajima- he was 4th on the depth chart when team was created- he ended up being an all-star in his rookie year. In 2013 Uehara was the 6th/7th inning guy that ended up having one of the super relief seasons ever of a closer. And the 7th inning guy late was Brandon Workman. Brandon Workman. I don't know at the time but I think Feltman right now would have a higher grade or at least equal to 2013 Workman in terms of projection though I could be wrong. Anyways Workman was not someone we would've penciled in for 7th inning reliever. Unless you get the elite reliever and even then they fail-- you just don't know. Kelly was dominant the first two months of the year. Yea relievers can be up and down. Yet not every reliever is capable of doing what Kimbrel, Barnes, Braiser, and Kelly could when they are on fire. For example Hembree and Workman are fine back of the bullpen types. They can get hot and pitch very well. Yet they can't dominate like those four can. So at minimum you need enough high end goes so your chances of having a good bullpen isn't we'll find two more Braiser type guys this year. Right now that is the approach. I just have to ask when have the Red Sox done well with no names coming out of no where to solid to dominate? By my count it was Foulke, Papelbon, Koji, and Kimbrel that were our anchors for our last four Championships. With guys like Embree, Williamson, and Timlin being the veteran help. I mean 2007 had Okajima he would qualify as he was thought of as just a friend to keep our star pitcher happy. 2013 had Tazawa and Miller, but those aren't come out of no where guys. One was a top prospect, the other a former top prospect. I'd feel better if our no name guys were former top 10 prospects with electric stuff. I look at it that your best bet is Veterans that are proven or taking starters and making them relievers. Finding a true no name like Braiser that is dominant is a rather rare thing. Sure if you look at all of Baseball it happens, you don't build a killer team and then bet you'll just find a few guys for your pen. You don't want to spend big and you want one year deals ok. Sign a few guys that have good track records, those guys can have huge years all the time. Have we brought in any Veterans that have dominated before? The way were going it's like you'll have to count on a guy like Lakins, Shawaryn, or Feltman stepping up. Who knows maybe they do, but that is risky. I'd feel better if one of those guys had even pitched in the Majors yet. Like I still can't understand why Lakins wasn't called up, which makes me wonder if we are too high on him. The Yankees are a very good team. If our bullpen implodes we could easily lose the division and be looking at a one game playoff. I don't know about you, I want no part of that.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 23, 2019 8:58:26 GMT -5
Kelly was dominant the first two months of the year. Yea relievers can be up and down. Yet not every reliever is capable of doing what Kimbrel, Barnes, Braiser, and Kelly could when they are on fire. For example Hembree and Workman are fine back of the bullpen types. They can get hot and pitch very well. Yet they can't dominate like those four can. So at minimum you need enough high end goes so your chances of having a good bullpen isn't we'll find two more Braiser type guys this year. Right now that is the approach. I just have to ask when have the Red Sox done well with no names coming out of no where to solid to dominate? By my count it was Foulke, Papelbon, Koji, and Kimbrel that were our anchors for our last four Championships. With guys like Embree, Williamson, and Timlin being the veteran help. I mean 2007 had Okajima he would qualify as he was thought of as just a friend to keep our star pitcher happy. 2013 had Tazawa and Miller, but those aren't come out of no where guys. One was a top prospect, the other a former top prospect. I'd feel better if our no name guys were former top 10 prospects with electric stuff. I look at it that your best bet is Veterans that are proven or taking starters and making them relievers. Finding a true no name like Braiser that is dominant is a rather rare thing. Sure if you look at all of Baseball it happens, you don't build a killer team and then bet you'll just find a few guys for your pen. You don't want to spend big and you want one year deals ok. Sign a few guys that have good track records, those guys can have huge years all the time. Have we brought in any Veterans that have dominated before? The way were going it's like you'll have to count on a guy like Lakins, Shawaryn, or Feltman stepping up. Who knows maybe they do, but that is risky. I'd feel better if one of those guys had even pitched in the Majors yet. Like I still can't understand why Lakins wasn't called up, which makes me wonder if we are too high on him. The Yankees are a very good team. If our bullpen implodes we could easily lose the division and be looking at a one game playoff. I don't know about you, I want no part of that. I know Kelly was good for 2 months -- but he stunk for 3.5 months. He wasn't just bad, He was god awful bad. So bad he was being left off the roster for Stephen Wright who was hurt most of the year. And I don;t understand your point about Barnes and Brasier. I thought you were concerned that they weren't that reliable? As far as "dominate" - I don;t understand that either. Workman in 2013 did well. If a relief pitcher gets outs isn;t that good enough? Because "good enough" isn't "dominant" that means it's not "good enough?" Even the names vs no names. You become "a name" after you do well. So I think you're saying Barnes and Brasier are acceptable as "good enough / dominant?" Well after season ends guys such as Thornburgh, Wright, Workman, and even Feltman , might one or two or even three be "good enough?" If this year they miraculously win it all and we look to go under the cap next year not signing much in the bullpen might we look back and say for any of these guys that turns out ot be successful ; Well Thornburgh was a name before. And Wright was a name because he was an all-star. And Workman was a name because what he showed in 2013. And Feltman was a name because he was such a high pick for a reliever and was anticipated to be being dominant. And as fas as the Yanks-- they were a good team last year too. And if there starting pitching staff implodes they will probably be in one game playofff or worse too. Three of their top 5 starters have injury issues and a 4th is going to be 38 and a 5th has worn down a but the last 2 years. But would getting anyone left that is not named Kimbrel ensure anything? And for that matter does Kimbrel even with anyone else the SOx pick up in FA even if it is the best of what os left ensure the SOx will win the division? The SOx can always find someone during the season. And I do think it's possible Sox don't make the playoffs but I'd have thought that even with Kimbrel and Kelly. The Yanks are potentially a monster and Tampa Bay is damn good. Our division is loaded.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2019 10:53:49 GMT -5
Kelly was dominant the first two months of the year. Yea relievers can be up and down. Yet not every reliever is capable of doing what Kimbrel, Barnes, Braiser, and Kelly could when they are on fire. For example Hembree and Workman are fine back of the bullpen types. They can get hot and pitch very well. Yet they can't dominate like those four can. So at minimum you need enough high end goes so your chances of having a good bullpen isn't we'll find two more Braiser type guys this year. Right now that is the approach. I just have to ask when have the Red Sox done well with no names coming out of no where to solid to dominate? By my count it was Foulke, Papelbon, Koji, and Kimbrel that were our anchors for our last four Championships. With guys like Embree, Williamson, and Timlin being the veteran help. I mean 2007 had Okajima he would qualify as he was thought of as just a friend to keep our star pitcher happy. 2013 had Tazawa and Miller, but those aren't come out of no where guys. One was a top prospect, the other a former top prospect. I'd feel better if our no name guys were former top 10 prospects with electric stuff. I look at it that your best bet is Veterans that are proven or taking starters and making them relievers. Finding a true no name like Braiser that is dominant is a rather rare thing. Sure if you look at all of Baseball it happens, you don't build a killer team and then bet you'll just find a few guys for your pen. You don't want to spend big and you want one year deals ok. Sign a few guys that have good track records, those guys can have huge years all the time. Have we brought in any Veterans that have dominated before? The way were going it's like you'll have to count on a guy like Lakins, Shawaryn, or Feltman stepping up. Who knows maybe they do, but that is risky. I'd feel better if one of those guys had even pitched in the Majors yet. Like I still can't understand why Lakins wasn't called up, which makes me wonder if we are too high on him. The Yankees are a very good team. If our bullpen implodes we could easily lose the division and be looking at a one game playoff. I don't know about you, I want no part of that. I know Kelly was good for 2 months -- but he stunk for 3.5 months. He wasn't just bad, He was god awful bad. So bad he was being left off the roster for Stephen Wright who was hurt most of the year. And I don;t understand your point about Barnes and Brasier. I thought you were concerned that they weren't that reliable? As far as "dominate" - I don;t understand that either. Workman in 2013 did well. If a relief pitcher gets outs isn;t that good enough? Because "good enough" isn't "dominant" that means it's not "good enough?" Even the names vs no names. You become "a name" after you do well. So I think you're saying Barnes and Brasier are acceptable as "good enough / dominant?" Well after season ends guys such as Thornburgh, Wright, Workman, and even Feltman , might one or two or even three be "good enough?" If this year they miraculously win it all and we look to go under the cap next year not signing much in the bullpen might we look back and say for any of these guys that turns out ot be successful ; Well Thornburgh was a name before. And Wright was a name because he was an all-star. And Workman was a name because what he showed in 2013. And Feltman was a name because he was such a high pick for a reliever and was anticipated to be being dominant. And as fas as the Yanks-- they were a good team last year too. And if there starting pitching staff implodes they will probably be in one game playofff or worse too. Three of their top 5 starters have injury issues and a 4th is going to be 38 and a 5th has worn down a but the last 2 years. But would getting anyone left that is not named Kimbrel ensure anything? And for that matter does Kimbrel even with anyone else the SOx pick up in FA even if it is the best of what os left ensure the SOx will win the division? The SOx can always find someone during the season. And I do think it's possible Sox don't make the playoffs but I'd have thought that even with Kimbrel and Kelly. The Yanks are potentially a monster and Tampa Bay is damn good. Our division is loaded. For the record I'd take the Red Sox' rotation over the Yankees, too. A healthy Chris Sale and there's no question. We hear Chris Sale is healthy. Is he? If so, for how long? You talk about injury risks with the Yankees' staff? The Red Sox have it, too. The Yankees have a full season of Happ, which they didn't have last year. He's older but still a really good pitcher. They have a full season of Paxton or at least as full as his seasons normally are as he is an injury risk, but when he pitches he's damn good. They also have a full season without Sonny Gray, which is a big plus. The Sox haven't worried about Price or Porcello's durability. As far as durability goes I'd say Tanaka and Severino are comparable. I'd say that Price keeps pitching although you wonder if his elbow is giving out. We're still waiting for Tanaka's TJ surgery which hasn't happened. I'd say both Porcello and Severino wore down last year as the season went on, although Severino wore down sooner, rebounded and that had little left for the playoffs. E-Rod has been injury prone himself. Usually it's something fluky, but it keeps happening. Sabathia is now their #5 starter which is a better role for him at this point. So when you factor in depth the Sox have Johnson, Wright possibly, and Velazquez as their main options. I think the Yankees get Jordan Montgomery back at some point and they have a couple of decent up and down arms in Adams and Loisaga. The point of all this is that while the Sox on paper do have a clear advantage all it takes is for Chris Sale to have issues more serious than previously thought to change the equation of this. And that's when the focus really shifts to the bullpens. Honestly, money aside, as the bullpens are currently constructed, whose bullpen would you prefer: the Sox or Yanks? As long as the Sox' starters stay reasonably healthy the Sox have the advantage to negate the Yanks' bullpen advantage. The Yankees' pen is stable while I anticipate the Sox bullpen will be fluid, with the hope that they have it figured out by September, which can work. The concern I have is that while the Sox are figuring out their bullpen, games that didn't slip away last year due to Kimbrel locking them down or just dumb luck - lead by 3 runs, give up 1 or 2 and still win as opposed to blowing 5-4 8th or 9th inning leads, which they managed to avoid last year, will occur this year, leading to a very tight pennant race that will require more stress on Red Sox starting pitchers. And that stress could make it tougher for them to do their rover act and then bounce back and make their start. And that's assuming they're either not the Wild Card or if they are they survive the Wild Card game. I think the Sox are just working with a much thinner margin for error this season. Last season was like spring training in September where Cora was doing open auditions for the setup role, which Wright won, while resting all of his pitchers so that they had plenty left in the tank for October. With an 8 game lead you can do that. When it's neck and neck or you're chasing it's harder to do that. I think while that while the Sox are figuring things out some games will slip that weren't slipping last year. Maybe part of that is just the law of averages but I do think it will show a bit that the Sox will be sorting out their pen instead of having it ready to go, so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Jan 23, 2019 11:14:14 GMT -5
I appreciate all the reply's -- so many good points, and a few things I wasn't aware of before. I grew up watching Smith, Reardon, and unfortunately Stanley & Schiraldi, so back then it was all about saves and ERA when it came to relievers. I think WPA is a very important stat for relievers, whereas WAR seems too stiff to be used for specialist players, of which closers and firemen are one of -- the same as pinch-hitters, pinch-runners, etc. Closers, or firemen are specialists that aren't really scheduled to play in a game like the position players and S.Pitchers are. Instead the manager picks when he feels that reliever is going to be the best option for the situation.
The creation(s) of WAR definitely had a novel and unique approach to rating players, and at first I ignored it cause it seemed too ludicrous of a concept to be able to compare all players in all aspects with just one stat, to be believable. The only real issue I still have with it has been with judging relievers, for a few key reasons.
It does seem like pedigree, and 'stuff' have a higher correlation of predicting when relievers come out of nowhere and become great relievers, like Treinan and Miller. If I correctly understood what I've read about players like Brasier, who supposedly was known for his fastball, but Sox (Bannister?) felt like developing his slider would really help him become more dominant. Counting on finding players coming out of nowhere to be good firemen is great when the backbone of the bullpen is already set, and so developing a Brasier is awesome for depth and also low cost. The construct of the current Sox bullpen has not been proven in that someone is going to have to step up and become the new leader, and everybody else kind of moves up a notch in importance, relatively speaking. Barnes still hasn't shown the consistency/control, and maybe rely's too much on a pretty good fastball to get by, to be an obvious choice for the closer role, imo. That opinion is based on what I've seen of him, and what I've read from the Sox forum from so many members about him as regular season games are being played and the firemen are being brought in. Brasier was pretty successful last season as the closer for Pawtucket, and before that in Japan supposedly.
So it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out this season. Obviously DD and Cora have agreed on plan/strategy, and in them I trust.
|
|
|