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.
5 x 5 = 6 x 6: The Rotation and the Pen
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 20, 2021 10:22:01 GMT -5
It took me forever to realize it, but they seem to have planned from the beginning to go with a 3-man bench and go with 14 pitchers. In an ordinary year, 14 pitchers is crazy, but in a a year where you're trying to limit everyone's innings, it makes perfect sense. That they nabbed both of the best utility guys among FA's, which makes a 3-man bench immensely more workable, suggests they're ahead of the curve in this thinking.
As the thread title points out, there are two ways to reduce innings: pitch 5 innings instead of 6 in a 5 man-rotation, and get 30 starts or so, or go the usual 6 innings in a 6 man rotation and get about 25 starts. (For you math geeks, the equation is actually 5 x 150/5 = 6 x 150 /6.)
There are lots of reasons to stick with a 5-man rotation, the first being that nobody has to alter their between-start routine. Shortening every start an inning also reduces the number of times pitchers see hitters the third time. And there's no one on this staff who screams "let me go deeper into the game!" E-Rod has trouble doing it, and maybe not asking him to do so makes him an even better pitcher. (That's the Bill Jams dictum of not focusing on what guys can't do, but trying to extract the maximum value from what they can.) Richards, Eovaldi, and eventually Sale all have injury histories (although arguably an extra day's rest might be a better option for some of them, Sale especially). Pivetta and Houck haven't pitched much recently at all.
The downside is that if you stick with 5 x 5, you now have to get 150 - 160 extra innings from the extra reliever slot! Well, that means you want several multi-inning relievers in the pen, plus great organizational depth where you have maybe 4 interchangeable guys for the last couple of spots in the pen. Do they have that?
First of all, I don't think there's any way that Tanner Houck goes back to the minors when he can work on his splitter in a multi-inning relief role. Throwing his other pitches to AAA hitters is pointless. Throwing the splitter to MLB hitters in low-leverage situations will develop it quicker. So he starts the season in MLB while Whitlock very likely starts it on rehab.
Now, once Whitlock is in MLB you have Valdez, Bazardo, and Schreiber (if he's not DFA'd to make room for an NRI guy) in AAA when everyone is healthy, and that's very rarely the case. That's not really a lot of pitchers you can shuffle between AAA and MLB. That makes me think that trading Wilson might not be a bad idea, and one of the benefits of adding Kiké and Marwin to the roster is that you're not going to run out of capable OFers and need to call up someone from the minors for an IL stint. Having an extra pitcher with options in AAA would be more valuable. What would make most sense is to come out of ST with an open slot on the 40-man and then see which of the guys with options left pitching for Worcester looks like the best candidate to join that mix.
As for the starters, what I think you'll see is the occasional sixth start, especially when they have 6 healthy starters, and a lot of 5-inning starts to hold down innings.
What will be especially interesting to see is who they stretch out like a starter in ST (Andriese, but anyone else?), and which relievers they stretch out to go 2 and 3 innings routinely. Darwinzon for close games is an obvious one, but I don't see another, although Brice threw 2+ innings in 10 of 22 appearances in 2017.
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 20, 2021 10:36:20 GMT -5
One of the things Mr. Bloom said on the podcast was that it made no sense to place every pitcher in either the "6-inning starter" or "1-inning reliever" buckets, and reserve medium-length roles for (I'm paraphrasing here) lousy pitchers who only pitch in low leverage. Maybe some pitchers excel at 3-inning stints, so why not use them that way? It's been obvious for a while that this has been Tampa Bay's approach, and it's where the Red Sox (and the rest of the game) have been headed as well.
Really, I think it would be helpful to not even think about the pitching staff in terms of starters and relievers, but rather in terms of a spectrum of roles. Darwinzon could certainly be a 3-inning type. I wonder what their thinking is, in this regard, on Whitlock, Pivetta, and Seabold?
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 20, 2021 10:42:35 GMT -5
If they go with a 6-man rotation, it’ll make Godley a star, too, right?
In all seriousness, these options both have pluses and minuses, and I expect every team will be reckoning with the issue of wear etc. That said, I think it adds another potential element of chaos and uncertainty about the coming season. As you say, if teams start to go even shorter with starters, we could see the Snell effect (named for last year’s famous hook): the apparently unnecessary removal of a dominant pitcher for a lesser pitcher. So it’ll be interesting to see if there is a difference in offense in innings 6-7.
If ERod is cruising through 5, but they’ve decided to limit him to 75 pitches (as a somewhat arbitrary number), then shifting to, say, Andriese poses two risks: first, he is simply not as good. But second, on any given day, any pitcher might not have it. So you remove a guy who clearly has had it that day, and roll the dice on someone else. Skip Andriese... say Barnes. We’ve all seen games when he comes in and within 3 pitches we know it’s bad Barnes.
Anyway... if we are looking at a season when teams ate going to be rotating the back half of their bullpens through middle innings, suddenly there could be a lot of flux in outcomes. We can say hey, this team has better ir worse starters, but if they are effectively pitching half a game it matters less.
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 20, 2021 10:48:06 GMT -5
One of the things Mr. Bloom said on the podcast was that it made no sense to place every pitcher in either the "6-inning starter" or "1-inning reliever" buckets, and reserve medium-length roles for (I'm paraphrasing here) lousy pitchers who only pitch in low leverage. Maybe some pitchers excel at 3-inning stints, so why not use them that way? It's been obvious for a while that this has been Tampa Bay's approach, and it's where the Red Sox (and the rest of the game) have been headed as well.
Really, I think it would be helpful to not even think about the pitching staff in terms of starters and relievers, but rather in terms of a spectrum of roles. Darwinzon could certainly be a 3-inning type. I wonder what their thinking is, in this regard, on Whitlock, Pivetta, and Seabold?
This is fine to a point, but being a relief pitcher and a starter is different. At its most extreme, you might as well say since a first baseman is an infielder and a shortstop is an infielder, why mot put Dalbec at short? Some pitchers don’t rebound as well multiple days in a row, just as some don’t have the stamina for longer starts. And many pitchers prefer the mental element of one or the other... either having days of routine to prepare or knowing you might play any day. Not to mention that obviously some stuff works better in one role over the other. I think the opener/flex stuff is always going to be a small, even marginal tool. It is not a bad way to avoid a bad 5th starter, but the old school model (with some minor adjustments) is still largely preferable. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Feb 20, 2021 10:58:41 GMT -5
One of the things Mr. Bloom said on the podcast was that it made no sense to place every pitcher in either the "6-inning starter" or "1-inning reliever" buckets, and reserve medium-length roles for (I'm paraphrasing here) lousy pitchers who only pitch in low leverage. Maybe some pitchers excel at 3-inning stints, so why not use them that way? It's been obvious for a while that this has been Tampa Bay's approach, and it's where the Red Sox (and the rest of the game) have been headed as well.
Really, I think it would be helpful to not even think about the pitching staff in terms of starters and relievers, but rather in terms of a spectrum of roles. Darwinzon could certainly be a 3-inning type. I wonder what their thinking is, in this regard, on Whitlock, Pivetta, and Seabold?
This is fine to a point, but being a relief pitcher and a starter is different. At its most extreme, you might as well say since a first baseman is an infielder and a shortstop is an infielder, why mot put Dalbec at short? Some pitchers don’t rebound as well multiple days in a row, just as some don’t have the stamina for longer starts. And many pitchers prefer the mental element of one or the other... either having days of routine to prepare or knowing you might play any day. Not to mention that obviously some stuff works better in one role over the other. I think the opener/flex stuff is always going to be a small, even marginal tool. It is not a bad way to avoid a bad 5th starter, but the old school model (with some minor adjustments) is still largely preferable. But I think Bloom's whole point is that different pitchers have different strengths and weaknesses and shouldn't be pigeonholed into one of two roles. If there are some pitchers who prefer pitching once every five days and others who prefer pitching every day, why wouldn't there be guys who are at their best pitching 3-inning stints every three days? Thinking of openers just as a way of skipping over a bad #5 starter is missing the point - it's much more about being creative with your game plan to maximize the performance of every unique pitcher on your roster. |
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 20, 2021 11:09:09 GMT -5
This is fine to a point, but being a relief pitcher and a starter is different. At its most extreme, you might as well say since a first baseman is an infielder and a shortstop is an infielder, why mot put Dalbec at short? Some pitchers don’t rebound as well multiple days in a row, just as some don’t have the stamina for longer starts. And many pitchers prefer the mental element of one or the other... either having days of routine to prepare or knowing you might play any day. Not to mention that obviously some stuff works better in one role over the other. I think the opener/flex stuff is always going to be a small, even marginal tool. It is not a bad way to avoid a bad 5th starter, but the old school model (with some minor adjustments) is still largely preferable. But I think Bloom's whole point is that different pitchers have different strengths and weaknesses and shouldn't be pigeonholed into one of two roles. If there are some pitchers who prefer pitching once every five days and others who prefer pitching every day, why wouldn't there be guys who are at their best pitching 3-inning stints every three days? Thinking of openers just as a way of skipping over a bad #5 starter is missing the point - it's much more about being creative with your game plan to maximize the performance of every unique pitcher on your roster. I agree, but again... this can only be done at the margins. A guy who is best 3 innings every 3 days is sort of a tough piece to fit. If his “day” crops up when Sale (full strength) is going, do you work him in? Why? I think a pen can benefit from one of these guys. But once you have a few, it actually hampers flexibility (how many relievers can you carry who prefer not to go multiple days in a row?). |
|
|
|
Post by jdog2020 on Feb 20, 2021 11:30:08 GMT -5
Thoughtful post. I believe that there are several reasons to go with more pitchers to start out the year and go with a short bench. Things will hopefully settle in after a few weeks and the team will be able to make adjustments. I think that pitching should have an advantage more so than usual at the beginning of this particular season. I love the depth the Chaim has built in that area. It will be fun to watch these new faces.
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 20, 2021 12:42:21 GMT -5
One of the things Mr. Bloom said on the podcast was that it made no sense to place every pitcher in either the "6-inning starter" or "1-inning reliever" buckets, and reserve medium-length roles for (I'm paraphrasing here) lousy pitchers who only pitch in low leverage. Maybe some pitchers excel at 3-inning stints, so why not use them that way? It's been obvious for a while that this has been Tampa Bay's approach, and it's where the Red Sox (and the rest of the game) have been headed as well.
Really, I think it would be helpful to not even think about the pitching staff in terms of starters and relievers, but rather in terms of a spectrum of roles. Darwinzon could certainly be a 3-inning type. I wonder what their thinking is, in this regard, on Whitlock, Pivetta, and Seabold?
This is fine to a point, but being a relief pitcher and a starter is different. At its most extreme, you might as well say since a first baseman is an infielder and a shortstop is an infielder, why mot put Dalbec at short? Some pitchers don’t rebound as well multiple days in a row, just as some don’t have the stamina for longer starts. And many pitchers prefer the mental element of one or the other... either having days of routine to prepare or knowing you might play any day. Not to mention that obviously some stuff works better in one role over the other. I think the opener/flex stuff is always going to be a small, even marginal tool. It is not a bad way to avoid a bad 5th starter, but the old school model (with some minor adjustments) is still largely preferable. I don't understand what you're trying to say. This is exactly the point - some pitchers "don’t rebound as well multiple days in a row, just as some don’t have the stamina for longer starts. And many pitchers prefer the mental element of one or the other..." So the idea is you figure out what each pitchers' strengths and weaknesses are and you fit them into the role that maximizes their effectiveness.
But it's completely arbitrary to say there are only two possible roles (the "old school model"), the starter who goes deep into games and the 1-inning reliever. Or that if you have a long reliever they should be reserved for low leverage, or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 20, 2021 12:58:59 GMT -5
This is fine to a point, but being a relief pitcher and a starter is different. At its most extreme, you might as well say since a first baseman is an infielder and a shortstop is an infielder, why mot put Dalbec at short? Some pitchers don’t rebound as well multiple days in a row, just as some don’t have the stamina for longer starts. And many pitchers prefer the mental element of one or the other... either having days of routine to prepare or knowing you might play any day. Not to mention that obviously some stuff works better in one role over the other. I think the opener/flex stuff is always going to be a small, even marginal tool. It is not a bad way to avoid a bad 5th starter, but the old school model (with some minor adjustments) is still largely preferable. I don't understand what you're trying to say. This is exactly the point - some pitchers "don’t rebound as well multiple days in a row, just as some don’t have the stamina for longer starts. And many pitchers prefer the mental element of one or the other..." So the idea is you figure out what each pitchers' strengths and weaknesses are and you fit them into the role that maximizes their effectiveness.
But it's completely arbitrary to say there are only two possible roles (the "old school model"), the starter who goes deep into games and the 1-inning reliever. Or that if you have a long reliever they should be reserved for low leverage, or whatever.
Well my point is that at some point your weakness becomes... you aren’t able to help enough to balance the cost of carrying you. This goes back to Eric’s case last year that Godley is great with extra rest between starts. I’d say a starter who needs 5-6 days rest is... not a starter I want. Who wants a dead spot on your roster 6 out of 7 games? Similarly, a guy who is *best* throwing 3 innings every 3 days is *possibly* of value... but the argument could easily be made a guy who is a dead spot 2 out of 3 games to give you innings that may not be valuable (again... do you lift Sale early? Or... do you use a piggyback, meaning now you need a “platoon” guy to get full value out of your 3&3 freak?). The old model DOES have a logic: starters are used as frequently as humanly possible, and relievers are ready as often as humanly possible. The more you mix and match, the fewer guys you actually have any given day. Truthfully, I suspect starters are being *under* used because of the craze for strikeouts/walks/power. I don’t buy that starters can’t throw 200-240 innings safely if they a) don’t max effort most pitches; and b) pitch to more contact. I also don’t buy starters can’t be effective at 100-120 pitches. We live in the era of insane conditioning, yet pitch counts keep dropping. And... all that aside... as I’ve indicated in so many different contexts... there is an aesthetic problem. The game is simply not as interesting when it becomes a football strategy of dime packages etc etc. Starting pitchers are still the QBs of baseball... the game suffers for their decline. Kids don’t wear t-shirts with the names of middle relievers and platoon players on them. |
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Feb 20, 2021 13:26:39 GMT -5
Doesn’t the 26-man roster have a limit of 13 pitchers?
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 20, 2021 13:28:12 GMT -5
I don't understand what you're trying to say. This is exactly the point - some pitchers "don’t rebound as well multiple days in a row, just as some don’t have the stamina for longer starts. And many pitchers prefer the mental element of one or the other..." So the idea is you figure out what each pitchers' strengths and weaknesses are and you fit them into the role that maximizes their effectiveness.
But it's completely arbitrary to say there are only two possible roles (the "old school model"), the starter who goes deep into games and the 1-inning reliever. Or that if you have a long reliever they should be reserved for low leverage, or whatever.
Well my point is that at some point your weakness becomes... you aren’t able to help enough to balance the cost of carrying you. This goes back to Eric’s case last year that Godley is great with extra rest between starts. I’d say a starter who needs 5-6 days rest is... not a starter I want. Who wants a dead spot on your roster 6 out of 7 games? Similarly, a guy who is *best* throwing 3 innings every 3 days is *possibly* of value... but the argument could easily be made a guy who is a dead spot 2 out of 3 games to give you innings that may not be valuable (again... do you lift Sale early? Or... do you use a piggyback, meaning now you need a “platoon” guy to get full value out of your 3&3 freak?). The old model DOES have a logic: starters are used as frequently as humanly possible, and relievers are ready as often as humanly possible. The more you mix and match, the fewer guys you actually have any given day. Truthfully, I suspect starters are being *under* used because of the craze for strikeouts/walks/power. I don’t buy that starters can’t throw 200-240 innings safely if they a) don’t max effort most pitches; and b) pitch to more contact. I also don’t buy starters can’t be effective at 100-120 pitches. We live in the era of insane conditioning, yet pitch counts keep dropping. And... all that aside... as I’ve indicated in so many different contexts... there is an aesthetic problem. The game is simply not as interesting when it becomes a football strategy of dime packages etc etc. Starting pitchers are still the QBs of baseball... the game suffers for their decline. Kids don’t wear t-shirts with the names of middle relievers and platoon players on them. I still really don't understand your perspective here. "Who wants a dead spot on your roster 6 out of 7 games?" Well, Sale is a "dead spot" on the roster 4 out of 5 games. Is 6 out of 7 so much worse? If, hypothetically, Godley were great on 6 days' rest, then he could make about 23 starts and throw 120ish innings. Seems useful!
"The more you mix and match, the fewer guys you actually have any given day." But the fewer you need. If you go with, say, a 5-inning starter, a 3-inning reliever, and a 1-inning reliever, that's just 3 pitchers; whereas the "old school model," combined with pitchers rarely going over 6 innings, means you have 4 or 5 pitchers coming in in the game. At any rate, this balance itself - finding the most flexible combination of roles you can - is among the considerations Bloom/Cora can take into account when they're not slavishly following tradition. It's odd to argue, as you seem to be, that being more flexible in terms of pitching roles... would make the team less flexible.
As for the aesthetics question... I am all for aesthetics. There are things about the game I would want to preserve or to change on aesthetic grounds (stuff that would increase the number of balls in play, for one). But I'm totally unmoved by this argument about pitcher roles. It would be a shame if good pitchers never started games anymore. But Chris Sale is not gonna be converted to a 3-inning guy (unless it's due to some health issue, knock on wood). We're talking about fewer starting roles for the likes of Ryan Weber or Martin Perez. Kids don't wear t-shirts with their names on them either...
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 20, 2021 13:39:38 GMT -5
Well my point is that at some point your weakness becomes... you aren’t able to help enough to balance the cost of carrying you. This goes back to Eric’s case last year that Godley is great with extra rest between starts. I’d say a starter who needs 5-6 days rest is... not a starter I want. Who wants a dead spot on your roster 6 out of 7 games? Similarly, a guy who is *best* throwing 3 innings every 3 days is *possibly* of value... but the argument could easily be made a guy who is a dead spot 2 out of 3 games to give you innings that may not be valuable (again... do you lift Sale early? Or... do you use a piggyback, meaning now you need a “platoon” guy to get full value out of your 3&3 freak?). The old model DOES have a logic: starters are used as frequently as humanly possible, and relievers are ready as often as humanly possible. The more you mix and match, the fewer guys you actually have any given day. Truthfully, I suspect starters are being *under* used because of the craze for strikeouts/walks/power. I don’t buy that starters can’t throw 200-240 innings safely if they a) don’t max effort most pitches; and b) pitch to more contact. I also don’t buy starters can’t be effective at 100-120 pitches. We live in the era of insane conditioning, yet pitch counts keep dropping. And... all that aside... as I’ve indicated in so many different contexts... there is an aesthetic problem. The game is simply not as interesting when it becomes a football strategy of dime packages etc etc. Starting pitchers are still the QBs of baseball... the game suffers for their decline. Kids don’t wear t-shirts with the names of middle relievers and platoon players on them. I still really don't understand your perspective here. "Who wants a dead spot on your roster 6 out of 7 games?" Well, Sale is a "dead spot" on the roster 4 out of 5 games. Is 6 out of 7 so much worse? If, hypothetically, Godley were great on 6 days' rest, then he could make about 23 starts and throw 120ish innings. Seems useful!
"The more you mix and match, the fewer guys you actually have any given day." But the fewer you need. If you go with, say, a 5-inning starter, a 3-inning reliever, and a 1-inning reliever, that's just 3 pitchers; whereas the "old school model," combined with pitchers rarely going over 6 innings, means you have 4 or 5 pitchers coming in in the game. At any rate, this balance itself - finding the most flexible combination of roles you can - is among the considerations Bloom/Cora can take into account when they're not slavishly following tradition. It's odd to argue, as you seem to be, that being more flexible in terms of pitching roles... would make the team less flexible.
As for the aesthetics question... I am all for aesthetics. There are things about the game I would want to preserve or to change on aesthetic grounds (stuff that would increase the number of balls in play, for one). But I'm totally unmoved by this argument about pitcher roles. It would be a shame if good pitchers never started games anymore. But Chris Sale is not gonna be converted to a 3-inning guy (unless it's due to some health issue, knock on wood). We're talking about fewer starting roles for the likes of Ryan Weber or Martin Perez. Kids don't wear t-shirts with their names on them either...
I guess I am not stoked about a 23 started 120 inning guy, yeah. I am not saying it is out of the question. But if you go a starter and a 3 inning guy 2 days in a row, day three that is 4 pitchers you can’t use. So you start a guy.... and you hold back the next game’s starter... that means if you have a 10 man staff you have 4 pitchers left after pitch one. At best! |
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966 
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 20, 2021 14:10:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 20, 2021 18:13:16 GMT -5
They were going to implement it last year then got rid of it once covid delayed the start of the season (and rosters were expanded anyway). They didn't bother putting it back yet for this year. Maybe next but we'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Feb 20, 2021 19:54:56 GMT -5
I can see a 6 man rotation at times but to commit to that long term is crazy. As we have saw in other sports and last year there may be postponed games. Just crazy to commit to the extra rest when it may come naturally. I’m ok with starting with 6. And using extra starters on double headers and such. But I want my best guys out there every 5/6 day. There are times it may make sense, but not as a rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 20, 2021 21:08:34 GMT -5
I think they're going to have a 5-man rotation and will slip in Andriese or Whitlock as a 6th on occasion as warranted by the schedule and pitchers' workloads warrant.
And I'll point out that when they selected Whitlock they said they expected him to be ready for the start of the season. I don't see any reason to think it's some kind of foregone conclusion he starts on IL, until we hear something from camp that he's not throwing yet. He had the surgery in July 2019. If he isn't ready to go for opening day that'd actually be pretty worrisome.
|
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Feb 20, 2021 22:44:06 GMT -5
I think they're going to have a 5-man rotation and will slip in Andriese or Whitlock as a 6th on occasion as warranted by the schedule and pitchers' workloads warrant. And I'll point out that when they selected Whitlock they said they expected him to be ready for the start of the season. I don't see any reason to think it's some kind of foregone conclusion he starts on IL, until we hear something from camp that he's not throwing yet. He had the surgery in July 2019. If he isn't ready to go for opening day that'd actually be pretty worrisome. I heard today talk about Whitlock looking impressive. So he obviously throwing. I can’t see anyway that they don’t give him a chance. The only way he starts on the DL (assuming no further injury)is if it’s using the rules to buy time. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 21, 2021 2:50:13 GMT -5
I think they're going to have a 5-man rotation and will slip in Andriese or Whitlock as a 6th on occasion as warranted by the schedule and pitchers' workloads warrant. And I'll point out that when they selected Whitlock they said they expected him to be ready for the start of the season. I don't see any reason to think it's some kind of foregone conclusion he starts on IL, until we hear something from camp that he's not throwing yet. He had the surgery in July 2019. If he isn't ready to go for opening day that'd actually be pretty worrisome. I just assumed that they would start him with a rehab assignment, and take a look at someone equally as good, for the same reason that dogs lick their genitals -- because they can.
Now, if he seems likely to be significantly better than the guy who would take his spot, of course you don't do that. But I was thinking that's a tough demand to put on a Rule 5 guy. If he opens the season on the roster I'll be delighted, because that means he can step into a better-than-usual-Rule 5-guy role, right from the start.
It's also possible that they couldn't get away with starting him on rehab, but they can argue that ST is not the same as actual competitive ball.
I agree with the occasional use of an extra starter.
I'd like to hear your argument that Houck would be better off refining his splitter in AAA, when he has nothing left to prove down there with any of his principal pitches. He'll presumably throw it a lot in ST. In AAA, you can't really throw it too much more often than you would ordinarily, or else hitters who know that you're down there to work on the pitch will start looking for it, muddying the interpretation of the results. Throwing it to MLB hitters in medium and low leverage, and using it precisely as you plan to, seems like a much better idea to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 21, 2021 12:29:49 GMT -5
1) My point is what you eventually get to - if he's healthy, then no, they can't just send him on a rehab assignment. Now, if he's rusty as hell in camp or something then maybe they'll try to gimmick him into a rehab assignment but again, his surgery is so long ago I don't think you can just put him on the IL citing a TJ surgery that was 20 months ago, especially if he's been throwing all spring.
2) Houck told Rob Bradford this offseason that he was trying to figure out whether to stick with the split or go back to his changeup - he's still not even sure what his third pitch IS. This isn't just a situation where he just needs reps with a pitch - he needs to figure out what he even throws. Houck has all of 25 AAA innings, and those were in a short relief role so I'm sure he was throwing 4-seam/sinker/slider and not throwing the third pitch, and he very clearly wasn't comfortable throwing it at the end of a lost season, which is just as if not more low-leverage, although making one's MLB debut probably negates that part entirely. Plus, that's not his only development key - Paul Abbott noted numerous times his glove-side command of the fastball.
So I don't agree at all that he has nothing to prove at the AAA LEVEL. It's part finishing school, part taxi squad.
Now, I think if there's an injury they'll have no problem bringing him up to the MLB roster. I'm not saying it's imperative he get AAA innings. I'm just reading what the team has actually done - I don't think they sign as many guys as they did if they were planning on Houck breaking camp with the MLB club if there was perfect health.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 24, 2021 3:47:44 GMT -5
1) My point is what you eventually get to - if he's healthy, then no, they can't just send him on a rehab assignment. Now, if he's rusty as hell in camp or something then maybe they'll try to gimmick him into a rehab assignment but again, his surgery is so long ago I don't think you can just put him on the IL citing a TJ surgery that was 20 months ago, especially if he's been throwing all spring. 2) Houck told Rob Bradford this offseason that he was trying to figure out whether to stick with the split or go back to his changeup - he's still not even sure what his third pitch IS. This isn't just a situation where he just needs reps with a pitch - he needs to figure out what he even throws. Houck has all of 25 AAA innings, and those were in a short relief role so I'm sure he was throwing 4-seam/sinker/slider and not throwing the third pitch, and he very clearly wasn't comfortable throwing it at the end of a lost season, which is just as if not more low-leverage, although making one's MLB debut probably negates that part entirely. Plus, that's not his only development key - Paul Abbott noted numerous times his glove-side command of the fastball. So I don't agree at all that he has nothing to prove at the AAA LEVEL. It's part finishing school, part taxi squad. Now, I think if there's an injury they'll have no problem bringing him up to the MLB roster. I'm not saying it's imperative he get AAA innings. I'm just reading what the team has actually done - I don't think they sign as many guys as they did if they were planning on Houck breaking camp with the MLB club if there was perfect health. This argument is good enough that I'll give you two more, one of which I think you'll disagree with!
I actually think that Houck is their fourth or fifth best starter right now, depending on how much magic they can perform on Pivetta. But if everyone is healthy, then that makes Perez your 7th starter when Sale come back, at which point you also have Seybold in the mix and maybe Mata as well. That makes Perex a potentially good trade chip even if you're contending. So I think that in the short term, you do put Houck sixth on the SP depth chart. You really want to continue the unfinished project of extracting Perez's upside, to try to get his good outings frequent enough to turn him into good 4th starter or even a borderline 3, where he can extract you a nice prospect.
I do think Houck would be an upgrade as a mid-leverage multi-inning reliever over whoever's on the roster in his place. What I didn't consider is that you're talking about 0.1 or 0.2 wins. So you're looking for long-term impact, and putting him in an environment where he can always work on his stuff, rather than sometimes, is going to maximize that.
My chief worry about sending Houck down was his reaction, "what have I got to prove down there?" You've named FB command as another thing to work on there, and I've already noted that, in a vacuum, his 4-seamer is a 40 grade pitch. He needs to throw it fairly often to set up his sinker in contrast, which means he has to continue to throw it somewhat unpredictably, but more importantly, he needs to avoid mistakes with it, because a hitter looking for a 4-seamer that gets it in a spot he can handle is going to crush it.
The other thing I believe is that he doesn't need an effective off-speed pitch to be a mid-rotation starter. Justin Masterson's stuff wasn't as good and he didn't have one. Houck's sinker has near-changeup level downward movement, and the slider down and in is a tough pitch for LHB. The notion that he ends up in the pen without a third pitch is, to my mind ... uninformed (stronger characterizations mentally redacted). He ends up with a short career as a mid-rotation guy just like Masterson (and there are other guys who have had short-term rotation success with just a show-me off-speed pitch).
What adding an effective off-speed pitch would do is simply make him a lot better. I think the notion that his ceiling is a #4 starter is even more deserving of unprintable epithets. Guys do improve their control and command, so you can never remove that possibility from a ceiling assessment. He has elite movement on both his sinker and slider -- in the argument for best in MLB --- and if you add a good off-speed pitch, probably a cutter at some point (he already seems to cut his 4-seamer a little), and bump the command from a 40 to a 50 or 55, and what do you get? The straight 4-seamer is probably going to keep him from ever being an ace, but I think he has upside as a solid #2, a guy who'd be the 3rd best starter on a playoff team who would present a very tough matchup.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Feb 24, 2021 9:45:41 GMT -5
One of the things Mr. Bloom said on the podcast was that it made no sense to place every pitcher in either the "6-inning starter" or "1-inning reliever" buckets, and reserve medium-length roles for (I'm paraphrasing here) lousy pitchers who only pitch in low leverage. Maybe some pitchers excel at 3-inning stints, so why not use them that way? It's been obvious for a while that this has been Tampa Bay's approach, and it's where the Red Sox (and the rest of the game) have been headed as well.
Really, I think it would be helpful to not even think about the pitching staff in terms of starters and relievers, but rather in terms of a spectrum of roles. Darwinzon could certainly be a 3-inning type. I wonder what their thinking is, in this regard, on Whitlock, Pivetta, and Seabold?
i think this is real risky. You are going against 50 years of well proven baseball orthodoxy (given relief importance over that time). Forget that there really isn't enough good pitching to begin with. People like roles. In any occupation. How many times have you seen co-workers complain about being asked to do something outside their work parameters. Pitching is pitching for sure, but no can predict how they are gonna pitch day to day, let alone different roles that they may not be accustomed to. Conceding that this year is different because of pandemic and altered routines may be necessary from time to time, i want my best 5 (or 6, if that is the decision) pitching on a schedule and preferably have standard relief roles majority of the time. You run the risk of thinking you can outsmart the randomness of the game. i am not really for it. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 24, 2021 10:33:36 GMT -5
One of the things Mr. Bloom said on the podcast was that it made no sense to place every pitcher in either the "6-inning starter" or "1-inning reliever" buckets, and reserve medium-length roles for (I'm paraphrasing here) lousy pitchers who only pitch in low leverage. Maybe some pitchers excel at 3-inning stints, so why not use them that way? It's been obvious for a while that this has been Tampa Bay's approach, and it's where the Red Sox (and the rest of the game) have been headed as well. Really, I think it would be helpful to not even think about the pitching staff in terms of starters and relievers, but rather in terms of a spectrum of roles. Darwinzon could certainly be a 3-inning type. I wonder what their thinking is, in this regard, on Whitlock, Pivetta, and Seabold?
i think this is real risky. You are going against 50 years of well proven baseball orthodoxy (given relief importance over that time). Forget that there really isn't enough good pitching to begin with. People like roles. In any occupation. How many times have you seen co-workers complain about being asked to do something outside their work parameters. Pitching is pitching for sure, but no can predict how they are gonna pitch day to day, let alone different roles that they may not be accustomed to. Conceding that this year is different because of pandemic and altered routines may be necessary from time to time, i want my best 5 (or 6, if that is the decision) pitching on a schedule and preferably have standard relief roles majority of the time. You run the risk of thinking you can outsmart the randomness of the game. i am not really for it. Alex Cora has already said his pitchers will have "roles". He mentioned that pitchers like the structure rather than the uncertainty of knowing how they will be used. He might have to change roles for pitchers if it isn't working (for example if Barnes isn't cutting it as a closer, I'm sure he'll turn to somebody else rather than just dying with it). It's easy for us to say they should pitch whenever, but pitchers are creatures of habit and don't like be yo-yoed around, and Cora is pretty sensitive to that. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 24, 2021 11:41:59 GMT -5
One of the things Mr. Bloom said on the podcast was that it made no sense to place every pitcher in either the "6-inning starter" or "1-inning reliever" buckets, and reserve medium-length roles for (I'm paraphrasing here) lousy pitchers who only pitch in low leverage. Maybe some pitchers excel at 3-inning stints, so why not use them that way? It's been obvious for a while that this has been Tampa Bay's approach, and it's where the Red Sox (and the rest of the game) have been headed as well.
Really, I think it would be helpful to not even think about the pitching staff in terms of starters and relievers, but rather in terms of a spectrum of roles. Darwinzon could certainly be a 3-inning type. I wonder what their thinking is, in this regard, on Whitlock, Pivetta, and Seabold?
i think this is real risky. You are going against 50 years of well proven baseball orthodoxy (given relief importance over that time). Forget that there really isn't enough good pitching to begin with. People like roles. In any occupation. How many times have you seen co-workers complain about being asked to do something outside their work parameters. Pitching is pitching for sure, but no can predict how they are gonna pitch day to day, let alone different roles that they may not be accustomed to. Conceding that this year is different because of pandemic and altered routines may be necessary from time to time, i want my best 5 (or 6, if that is the decision) pitching on a schedule and preferably have standard relief roles majority of the time. You run the risk of thinking you can outsmart the randomness of the game. i am not really for it. I specifically said "a spectrum of roles," not that they wouldn't have roles at all. Think: Snell's role on the Rays. Or openers.
But also, if there are guys who are psychologically optimized for a closer role, surely there are guys who are psychologically optimized for being flexible in their usage, right? Maybe that's what the Red Sox think of Andriese, who they've said would be used as a sort of utility bullpen guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 24, 2021 11:45:54 GMT -5
i think this is real risky. You are going against 50 years of well proven baseball orthodoxy (given relief importance over that time). Forget that there really isn't enough good pitching to begin with. People like roles. In any occupation. How many times have you seen co-workers complain about being asked to do something outside their work parameters. Pitching is pitching for sure, but no can predict how they are gonna pitch day to day, let alone different roles that they may not be accustomed to. Conceding that this year is different because of pandemic and altered routines may be necessary from time to time, i want my best 5 (or 6, if that is the decision) pitching on a schedule and preferably have standard relief roles majority of the time. You run the risk of thinking you can outsmart the randomness of the game. i am not really for it. I specifically said "a spectrum of roles," not that they wouldn't have roles at all. Think: Snell's role on the Rays. Or openers.
But also, if there are guys who are psychologically optimized for a closer role, surely there are guys who are psychologically optimized for being flexible in their usage, right? Maybe that's what the Red Sox think of Andriese, who they've said would be used as a sort of utility bullpen guy.
It is not just psychology. It is physiology. Some guys lack stamina. Some guys’ arms don’t bounce back multiple days in a row. And the two roles require different prep going into a season. There *are* rubber arm guys who bounce around. But I’d also note that these guys tend to be guys who are not as good as the classic role players... not good enough to be plugged into the rotation, nor good enough to close, be a set up guy. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 24, 2021 12:09:17 GMT -5
I don't know, this conversation seems oddly abstract, considering that what I'm talking about is what the Rays have already been doing the last several seasons, and teams across the league are generally moving in this direction. It seems to work out okay!
|
|
|
