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
|
Post by manfred on Feb 24, 2021 12:23:16 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! Well, if you discount that last year they had four starters who made 9 or more starts, and those were Snell, Morton, Glasnow, and Yarborough, which is a very good, very traditional starting rotation. Throw in Fleming, and there is nothing here that Earl Weaver wouldn’t recognize.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 24, 2021 12:51:04 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! Well, if you discount that last year they had four starters who made 9 or more starts, and those were Snell, Morton, Glasnow, and Yarborough, which is a very good, very traditional starting rotation. Throw in Fleming, and there is nothing here that Earl Weaver wouldn’t recognize. Rays' starters by IP and appearances:
Glasnow - 57/11 Snell - 50/11 Yarbrough - 46/9 Morton - 38/9 Fleming - 25/5 Richards - 16/4
Glasnow, Yarbrough, and Fleming (barely) managed 5 IP per start. Snell averaged about 4.5. How would Earl Weaver have felt about that?
Beeks was injured last year but in 2019 he pitched 92 innings across 30 games. Is that such an unthinkable way to use a pitcher?
It's bizarre to me that the pitching roles as they existed in, say, 2005 are somehow taken as "traditional" and obviously perfectly suited to both the psychological and physiological demands of pitching, when in fact pitching roles have obviously been evolving for decades, and are in fact in another state of transition right now.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 24, 2021 13:00:36 GMT -5
Well, if you discount that last year they had four starters who made 9 or more starts, and those were Snell, Morton, Glasnow, and Yarborough, which is a very good, very traditional starting rotation. Throw in Fleming, and there is nothing here that Earl Weaver wouldn’t recognize. Rays' starters by IP and appearances:
Glasnow - 57/11 Snell - 50/11 Yarbrough - 46/9 Morton - 38/9 Fleming - 25/5 Richards - 16/4
Glasnow, Yarbrough, and Fleming (barely) managed 5 IP per start. Snell averaged about 4.5. How would Earl Weaver have felt about that?
Beeks was injured last year but in 2019 he pitched 92 innings across 30 games. Is that such an unthinkable way to use a pitcher?
It's bizarre to me that the pitching roles as they existed in, say, 2005 are somehow taken as "traditional" and obviously perfectly suited to both the psychological and physiological demands of pitching, when in fact pitching roles have obviously been evolving for decades, and are in fact in another state of transition right now.
That is still a far cry from wandering roles. As we saw this with Snell, maybe they should have gone deeper. I doubt anyone disagrees there have been shifts. But the Rays still, at the foundation, are less radical than they seem. Basically, you are sliding an extra inning or two of relief in. OK. I think the Royals model of 3 consecutive lights out relievers is brilliant. There is a huge problem, though: how to collect those together and pay for them. Even the Yankees dumped Ottavino.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 24, 2021 13:11:27 GMT -5
Why are people determined to read "a spectrum of roles" as "wandering roles" or "no roles at all"? I'm just saying: use pitchers in a variety of ways, according to their strengths, and don't force everyone into one of two roles, 6+ IP starter or 1 IP reliever. I'm not just pulling this out of thin air either - Bloom talked about exactly this in the podcast. It's their explicit plan, both in constructing the current staff and in player development.
Certainly, they (like every team) should go with their strengths. KC had three fantastic relievers in that one season half a decade ago, so that is certainly one way to go. But that's not what the Red Sox pitching staff looks like it'll be in 2021. They ought to play to their own strengths.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 24, 2021 13:14:58 GMT -5
Why are people determined to read "a spectrum of roles" as "wandering roles" or "no roles at all"? I'm just saying: use pitchers in a variety of ways, according to their strengths, and don't force everyone into one of two roles, 6+ IP starter or 1 IP reliever. I'm not just pulling this out of thin air either - Bloom talked about exactly this in the podcast. It's their explicit plan, both in constructing the current staff and in player development.
Certainly, they (like every team) should go with their strengths. KC had three fantastic relievers in that one season half a decade ago, so that is certainly one way to go. But that's not what the Red Sox pitching staff looks like it'll be in 2021. They ought to play to their own strengths.
Who does that? What team is divided into 6 inning guys and 1 inning guys? I guess the problem I have is I understand you as meaning one of two things: blow up the model (which you say you don’t mean) or carry on. I don’t recall a day in my life when bullpens didn’t have swing guys. Bob Stanley closed, threw in the middle, threw multiple innings, started. What is the innovation you are asking for?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 24, 2021 13:27:33 GMT -5
Why are people determined to read "a spectrum of roles" as "wandering roles" or "no roles at all"? I'm just saying: use pitchers in a variety of ways, according to their strengths, and don't force everyone into one of two roles, 6+ IP starter or 1 IP reliever. I'm not just pulling this out of thin air either - Bloom talked about exactly this in the podcast. It's their explicit plan, both in constructing the current staff and in player development.
Certainly, they (like every team) should go with their strengths. KC had three fantastic relievers in that one season half a decade ago, so that is certainly one way to go. But that's not what the Red Sox pitching staff looks like it'll be in 2021. They ought to play to their own strengths.
Who does that? What team is divided into 6 inning guys and 1 inning guys? I guess the problem I have is I understand you as meaning one of two things: blow up the model (which you say you don’t mean) or carry on. I don’t recall a day in my life when bullpens didn’t have swing guys. Bob Stanley closed, threw in the middle, threw multiple innings, started. What is the innovation you are asking for? Have some 3-inning guys who are not simply the last guy on the staff ("traditional" long relievers) but are well suited for that role - maybe, e.g., because they are great one time through the order but fall apart after that. On top of that you can use openers or "starter by committee," which are other innovations that have already taken root in the game.
Listen, I didn't think this was that radical an idea! But I've gotten pushback from others, including yourself, who have said that it "goes against 50 years of well-proven baseball orthodoxy" and that it wouldn't work because of "physiology." So you tell me: is my proposal (which is also Bloom's proposal) too far out there because it goes against human physiology and 50 years of orthodoxy, or is it completely banal because Bob Stanley was doing it 40 years ago?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 24, 2021 13:36:07 GMT -5
Who does that? What team is divided into 6 inning guys and 1 inning guys? I guess the problem I have is I understand you as meaning one of two things: blow up the model (which you say you don’t mean) or carry on. I don’t recall a day in my life when bullpens didn’t have swing guys. Bob Stanley closed, threw in the middle, threw multiple innings, started. What is the innovation you are asking for? Have some 3-inning guys who are not simply the last guy on the staff ("traditional" long relievers) but are well suited for that role - maybe, e.g., because they are great one time through the order but fall apart after that. On top of that you can use openers or "starter by committee," which are other innovations that have already taken root in the game.
Listen, I didn't think this was that radical an idea! But I've gotten pushback from others, including yourself, who have said that it "goes against 50 years of well-proven baseball orthodoxy" and that it wouldn't work because of "physiology." So you tell me: is my proposal (which is also Bloom's proposal) too far out there because it goes against human physiology and 50 years of orthodoxy, or is it completely banal because Bob Stanley was doing it 40 years ago?
It depends. If you are saying mix and match.... have a guy start and go 6 Monday, close Thursday, then go 3 Saturday? That pushes it. I think the issue I have is that you would move beyond having a guy or two who have this *as their role* and the idea that you’d have a staff that flexes. To me, there are two problems. First, there are only some guys who can do it. And second, as I said earlier, I think it is actually inefficient. Look, few guys can go 2+ innings multiple days in a row for long. So if you take a very good guy and have him go 2.1 innings every three days it seems like a waste. I’d rather have him either go 6+ if he has a mix that goes well multiple times through the lineup OR ~1 if he dominates in short stints... when you could have him pitch nearly 50% of your games. Add: interestingly, I keep thinking Andrew Miller is the ideal example. But I look back at his stats and see in his peak years he was often averaging well *under* an inning per appearance. He did hit 70 games a few times. That is hugely valuable... and he certainly came in at all times. I’m all for experimenting with using your “closer” at key moments earlier in games — the decisive moment is often not conveniently the 9th. But he’s likely still a 1-inning guy.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 24, 2021 13:43:08 GMT -5
Who does that? What team is divided into 6 inning guys and 1 inning guys? I guess the problem I have is I understand you as meaning one of two things: blow up the model (which you say you don’t mean) or carry on. I don’t recall a day in my life when bullpens didn’t have swing guys. Bob Stanley closed, threw in the middle, threw multiple innings, started. What is the innovation you are asking for? Have some 3-inning guys who are not simply the last guy on the staff ("traditional" long relievers) but are well suited for that role - maybe, e.g., because they are great one time through the order but fall apart after that. On top of that you can use openers or "starter by committee," which are other innovations that have already taken root in the game.
Listen, I didn't think this was that radical an idea! But I've gotten pushback from others, including yourself, who have said that it "goes against 50 years of well-proven baseball orthodoxy" and that it wouldn't work because of "physiology." So you tell me: is my proposal (which is also Bloom's proposal) too far out there because it goes against human physiology and 50 years of orthodoxy, or is it completely banal because Bob Stanley was doing it 40 years ago?
I guess I'm not following what the issue is. The Sox basically have five starters (excluding Sale) who they hope can pitch five or six innings every start, a bunch of 3 or 4 out guys, and two others that can give them an occasional short 4 - 5 inning start or pitch in long relief in Andriese and Whitlock. A Hernandez can probably give the Sox more than 3 or 4 outs but Darwinzon throws so many pitches that he's probably at 25 pitches just to get through one inning. If you have five capable starters you don't really need to use an opener, but if you do all you're doing is having your true starting pitcher pitch the 2nd thru the 6th or 7th rather than simply starting the game in the first inning, so you still have a one or two inning reliever starting the game and a typical starter going afterward, or more likely a "bulk" guy in Whitlock or Andriese who can soak up 4 innings or so, but you're only going to do that if injuries hit hard.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 24, 2021 14:12:51 GMT -5
Have some 3-inning guys who are not simply the last guy on the staff ("traditional" long relievers) but are well suited for that role - maybe, e.g., because they are great one time through the order but fall apart after that. On top of that you can use openers or "starter by committee," which are other innovations that have already taken root in the game.
Listen, I didn't think this was that radical an idea! But I've gotten pushback from others, including yourself, who have said that it "goes against 50 years of well-proven baseball orthodoxy" and that it wouldn't work because of "physiology." So you tell me: is my proposal (which is also Bloom's proposal) too far out there because it goes against human physiology and 50 years of orthodoxy, or is it completely banal because Bob Stanley was doing it 40 years ago?
It depends. If you are saying mix and match.... have a guy start and go 6 Monday, close Thursday, then go 3 Saturday? That pushes it. I think the issue I have is that you would move beyond having a guy or two who have this *as their role* and the idea that you’d have a staff that flexes. To me, there are two problems. First, there are only some guys who can do it. And second, as I said earlier, I think it is actually inefficient. Look, few guys can go 2+ innings multiple days in a row for long. So if you take a very good guy and have him go 2.1 innings every three days it seems like a waste. I’d rather have him either go 6+ if he has a mix that goes well multiple times through the lineup OR ~1 if he dominates in short stints... when you could have him pitch nearly 50% of your games. Add: interestingly, I keep thinking Andrew Miller is the ideal example. But I look back at his stats and see in his peak years he was often averaging well *under* an inning per appearance. He did hit 70 games a few times. That is hugely valuable... and he certainly came in at all times. I’m all for experimenting with using your “closer” at key moments earlier in games — the decisive moment is often not conveniently the 9th. But he’s likely still a 1-inning guy. I specifically said "a spectrum of roles" and have already had to repeat myself twice. How many times do I have to say it? Different roles for different guys. That is not necessarily "a staff that flexes."
Now one of those roles might be a flex role. Indeed, that seems to be the plan for Andriese. Maybe that's the role he's best suited for! But I never even came close to implying that every pitcher should be used in this way.
As for this: I don't understand why this is a "waste." This guy could theoretically pitch 100 innings, which is more than the usual 60-inning reliever. And even the 1-inning guys are frequently held back from being used several games in a row anyway.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 24, 2021 14:20:35 GMT -5
Have some 3-inning guys who are not simply the last guy on the staff ("traditional" long relievers) but are well suited for that role - maybe, e.g., because they are great one time through the order but fall apart after that. On top of that you can use openers or "starter by committee," which are other innovations that have already taken root in the game.
Listen, I didn't think this was that radical an idea! But I've gotten pushback from others, including yourself, who have said that it "goes against 50 years of well-proven baseball orthodoxy" and that it wouldn't work because of "physiology." So you tell me: is my proposal (which is also Bloom's proposal) too far out there because it goes against human physiology and 50 years of orthodoxy, or is it completely banal because Bob Stanley was doing it 40 years ago?
I guess I'm not following what the issue is. Buddy, you and me both. All I did was repeat what Bloom said on the podcast. Then jerrygarciaparra said this was risky because it went against orthodoxy, and manfred said it went against physiology, and then manfred decided it was just normal pitching staff usage after all, and then manfred went back to saying traditional 6-inning and 1-inning roles were generally best. So I'm not really sure what the issue is either.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 24, 2021 14:21:23 GMT -5
It depends. If you are saying mix and match.... have a guy start and go 6 Monday, close Thursday, then go 3 Saturday? That pushes it. I think the issue I have is that you would move beyond having a guy or two who have this *as their role* and the idea that you’d have a staff that flexes. To me, there are two problems. First, there are only some guys who can do it. And second, as I said earlier, I think it is actually inefficient. Look, few guys can go 2+ innings multiple days in a row for long. So if you take a very good guy and have him go 2.1 innings every three days it seems like a waste. I’d rather have him either go 6+ if he has a mix that goes well multiple times through the lineup OR ~1 if he dominates in short stints... when you could have him pitch nearly 50% of your games. Add: interestingly, I keep thinking Andrew Miller is the ideal example. But I look back at his stats and see in his peak years he was often averaging well *under* an inning per appearance. He did hit 70 games a few times. That is hugely valuable... and he certainly came in at all times. I’m all for experimenting with using your “closer” at key moments earlier in games — the decisive moment is often not conveniently the 9th. But he’s likely still a 1-inning guy. I specifically said "a spectrum of roles" and have already had to repeat myself twice. How many times do I have to say it? Different roles for different guys. That is not necessarily "a staff that flexes."
Now one of those roles might be a flex role. Indeed, that seems to be the plan for Andriese. Maybe that's the role he's best suited for! But I never even came close to implying that every pitcher should be used in this way.
As for this: I don't understand why this is a "waste." This guy could theoretically pitch 100 innings, which is more than the usual 60-inning reliever. And even the 1-inning guys are frequently held back from being used several games in a row anyway.
But — again — I’m not the only one who simply doesn’t see what you are saying that isn’t just as it is. Different roles for different guys? That is the history of sport. I mean, as you say, they signed Andriese. He is not a new type to the Sox or baseball. The reason you keep having to repeat yourself is that I’m waiting for something more complicated than water is wet.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 24, 2021 14:23:13 GMT -5
I guess I'm not following what the issue is. Buddy, you and me both. All I did was repeat what Bloom said on the podcast. Then jerrygarciaparra said this was risky because it went against orthodoxy, and manfred said it went against physiology, and then manfred decided it was just normal pitching staff usage after all, and then manfred went back to saying traditional 6-inning and 1-inning roles were generally best. So I'm not really sure what the issue is either. I did not say it goes *against* physiology. I said that is a consideration. If what you are saying is after five starters, a closer, a set-up guy, it is great to have a swing man or two.... yay! We agree, and so does the cosmos.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 24, 2021 14:28:35 GMT -5
I specifically said "a spectrum of roles" and have already had to repeat myself twice. How many times do I have to say it? Different roles for different guys. That is not necessarily "a staff that flexes."
Now one of those roles might be a flex role. Indeed, that seems to be the plan for Andriese. Maybe that's the role he's best suited for! But I never even came close to implying that every pitcher should be used in this way.
As for this: I don't understand why this is a "waste." This guy could theoretically pitch 100 innings, which is more than the usual 60-inning reliever. And even the 1-inning guys are frequently held back from being used several games in a row anyway.
But — again — I’m not the only one who simply doesn’t see what you are saying that isn’t just as it is. Different roles for different guys? That is the history of sport. I mean, as you say, they signed Andriese. He is not a new type to the Sox or baseball. The reason you keep having to repeat yourself is that I’m waiting for something more complicated than water is wet. Then why did you object to what I said in the first place?!
Look, I know it's lost to the ages now, but I'll do you the favor of retrieving my original comment from all the way back on the previous page of this thread, and you can tell me which part of it you disagree with, and we can try this again:
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Feb 24, 2021 15:34:11 GMT -5
i took spectrum of roles to mean that pitchers could be used in any fashion throughout the season. Apologize if that was misunderstood. I think tweaking with old orthodoxy is fine.....as long as it has usefulness.
Bloom won't have the same success as the Rays did last year, if he doesn't have the talent. Our pitching was awful last year. If there is something that can be done to improve that, it is worth consideration. However, it isn't hard to forget, the Rays decision to remove Snell (who didn't want to come out and it was his last start of the year) was subject to much ridicule. There come a point in all of this where there is diminishing returns. What is known is that if you have 5 good starters (or should i say your 5 best starter types), you should pitch them as much as you can.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 24, 2021 15:53:12 GMT -5
i took spectrum of roles to mean that pitchers could be used in any fashion throughout the season. Apologize if that was misunderstood. I think tweaking with old orthodoxy is fine.....as long as it has usefulness. Bloom won't have the same success as the Rays did last year, if he doesn't have the talent. Our pitching was awful last year. If there is something that can be done to improve that, it is worth consideration. However, it isn't hard to forget, the Rays decision to remove Snell (who didn't want to come out and it was his last start of the year) was subject to much ridicule. There come a point in all of this where there is diminishing returns. What is known is that if you have 5 good starters (or should i say your 5 best starter types), you should pitch them as much as you can. No worries! But yeah, I meant a variety of different roles on the pitching staff, not that one guy would have a variety of roles.
I think the general lesson is: "Play to your strengths." Whatever those strengths are. If we had 3 lockdown relievers like the 2015 Royals then we could organize pitcher usage around that. We don't, though, so it's a question of what this team's strengths are. That's why I mused about Seabold, Pivetta, etc. in the original comment... maybe those are guys they have non-traditional ideas about? Maybe Mata would be another tweener who could be best in a once-through-the-order role?
Snell's non-traditional role was basically: starter but he only ever goes twice through the order. Their mistake was being too rigid about that at an absolutely crucial moment. I wouldn't want a team to ever become so fixated on assigned roles that they aren't able to think flexibly in the moment - whether those roles are new-fangled or traditional ones.
|
|
iii
Rookie
Posts: 46
|
Post by iii on Feb 24, 2021 18:23:34 GMT -5
Think about this; 5 man rotation with a 6th man floater. Start your 1st 5 "starters" 4 or 5 turns and than bring in the floater to replace each starter in turn. Each starter takes a turn off, the floater (Sale ?) gets an extra day off between starts and than he takes a turn off. The 5 "starters" get a turn off, that may be more beneficial than an extra day or only going 6 or 7 innings. Sale would get the benefit of both and extra day off between starts and a turn off. Maybe keep him fresh for the playoffs. 5 man rotation using 6 men.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 24, 2021 18:59:10 GMT -5
I'm not sure, and I could be wrong, but I think Cora said something in his press conference today in Spanish about how the rotation might have 5, might have 6, or might be more "creative."
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on May 10, 2021 10:47:31 GMT -5
Think about this; 5 man rotation with a 6th man floater. Start your 1st 5 "starters" 4 or 5 turns and than bring in the floater to replace each starter in turn. Each starter takes a turn off, the floater (Sale ?) gets an extra day off between starts and than he takes a turn off. The 5 "starters" get a turn off, that may be more beneficial than an extra day or only going 6 or 7 innings. Sale would get the benefit of both and extra day off between starts and a turn off. Maybe keep him fresh for the playoffs. 5 man rotation using 6 men. I hunted down this thread to speculate whether they would do exactly this. Five guys who pitch in a five-man rotation, except they get every fifth start off, and pitch an inning or two in relief instead. Chis Sale pitches every sixth game, replacing each guy in turn. It's become viable because Pivetta and Perez are pitching well (enough).
By the time Sale is ready, Houck should be ready as well, so in a good-case scenario they can trade Perez. That would include everyone being healthy, and Seabold being MLB ready as the 7th guy on the depth chart, with Whitlock as the 8th.
|
|
|