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.
Multiple long relief pitchers in the 2022 bullpen idea
|
|
Post by notnickyorke on Oct 18, 2021 5:42:59 GMT -5
The Red Sox project to find themselves beginning next year with more starting pitching depth then they have had in a long time. It made me think of the bullpen usage in April of this year when Cora was able to use Whitlock and Andriese so effectively to cover for starts not going very deep into games. Having two guys capable of pitching 4 innings after the starter really seemed to make the bullpen work amazing till Andriese started sucking in May and Cora was forced to use Whitlock in more selective high leverage spots as the year went on. How about trying something similar to begin the year with Seabold, Crawford, and whichever of Whitlock or Houke doesn't take a rotation spot? Having 3 pitchers in the bullpen each capable of pitching 3 to 5 innings twice a week seems incredibly valuable. Imagine only having to use one reliever per game for 3/5s of the starts. It would really keep the other 5 bullpen members fresh.
I see it mapping out as follows:
Starters
1. Sale*
2. Eovaldi
3. FA
4. Houke
5. Pivetta
Single inning relivers
1. Barnes
2. Taylor*
3. Braiser
4. D. Hernandez*
5. Sawamura
Multiple inning relievers
6. Whitlock
7. Seabold
8. Crawford
CB can probably find an upgrade on one of Braiser, Hernandez, Sawamura in FA. Overall, it seems like a viable strategy to take advantage of the starting pitch depth that has built up. I know starting pitching depth can evaporate pretty suddenly (Mata, Ward), but using pitchers as long relief on a regular schedule wouldn't prevent them from covering for an injured starter because they would still be fairly stretched out.
|
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 18, 2021 7:27:41 GMT -5
The Red Sox project to find themselves beginning next year with more starting pitching depth then they have had in a long time. It made me think of the bullpen usage in April of this year when Cora was able to use Whitlock and Andriese so effectively to cover for starts not going very deep into games. Having two guys capable of pitching 4 innings after the starter really seemed to make the bullpen work amazing till Andriese started sucking in May and Cora was forced to use Whitlock in more selective high leverage spots as the year went on. How about trying something similar to begin the year with Seabold, Crawford, and whichever of Whitlock or Houke doesn't take a rotation spot? Having 3 pitchers in the bullpen each capable of pitching 3 to 5 innings twice a week seems incredibly valuable. Imagine only having to use one reliever per game for 3/5s of the starts. It would really keep the other 5 bullpen members fresh. I see it mapping out as follows: Starters 1. Sale* 2. Eovaldi 3. FA 4. Houke 5. Pivetta Single inning relivers 1. Barnes 2. Taylor* 3. Braiser 4. D. Hernandez* 5. Sawamura Multiple inning relievers 6. Whitlock 7. Seabold 8. Crawford CB can probably find an upgrade on one of Braiser, Hernandez, Sawamura in FA. Overall, it seems like a viable strategy to take advantage of the starting pitch depth that has built up. I know starting pitching depth can evaporate pretty suddenly (Mata, Ward), but using pitchers as long relief on a regular schedule wouldn't prevent them from covering for an injured starter because they would still be fairly stretched out. This is what I have been talking about for a long time, it is the new reality in building a staff. I would take it one step further and suggest that they look at the 4 and 5 starters as guys that go 4 maybe 5 with quick hooks. In this case Houck and Pivetta who both have not proven to be effective after 4. As the season goes on if someone steps up and is still getting outs after 4 then sure they get more of a leash. So spend the money on ERod or another FA that has a history of going 6+ but fill out the staff with guys who aren't quite there yet like all the guys you have mentioned. IMO the Sox are in a good position to go this route since they are deep at the "4th and 5th" along with a few guys in AAA who should be ready for prime time. More relievers capable of going more than 1 inning if needed is the key along with everything else in this staff building strategy. Another part of this is that Chaim isn't shy about continuing to make moves aimed at finding guys to fit these roles. Basically guys who have 2 effective pitches who have shown they can be productive but not as pure starters. Just look at the league averages for innings pitched by starters, then look at eras for the 5th and 6th innings and it is glaring. One of my favorite sayings is that one plus one equals two, don't deviate as it is unreasonable. edit. Pivetta in 23 5th innings pitched this season gave up 8 HRs and his era was 5.48, 6.94 in the 6th. ERods era in the 4th 6.28 and 7.23 in the 5th. That is a classic 1 + 1 = 2 situation, why go there. |
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Oct 18, 2021 8:18:43 GMT -5
Have you considered Whitlock as a starter?
|
|
|
|
Post by vokuhila on Oct 18, 2021 8:31:42 GMT -5
In this scenario Whitlock and Houck will compete for one open rotation spot.
Both have things to answer:
3rd time through the order for Houck
Significant L/R splits for Whitlock (.521 OPS vs R, .824 OPS vs L)
Spring training will be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Oct 18, 2021 8:58:48 GMT -5
If the long reliever is one of the team's best, then Cora will want to use him like a closer/set up man.
If he's not one of the team's best, then I don't think Cora will be willing to find much multi-inning work for him unless the team is trailing by several runs.
|
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 18, 2021 9:31:20 GMT -5
If the long reliever is one of the team's best, then Cora will want to use him like a closer/set up man. If he's not one of the team's best, then I don't think Cora will be willing to find much multi-inning work for him unless the team is trailing by several runs. This is old fashioned thinking, sorry but it is. Gone are the days of the long/middle reliever being at the bottom of the staff mopping up. Whitlock and Houck this year were incredibly valuable in 2,3,4 inning roles. With starters league wide averaging less than 5 innings a start and arguably the best starter in the league, Cole, only going 6 it is the new reality. If starters only go 4 2/3 on average that leaves a big hole in getting to the 8th for the setup guy. It is also a great way to groom a young starter, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Oct 18, 2021 9:53:19 GMT -5
I think there is merit to the idea, but as a matter of predicting Cora's behavior, I'm not seeing it.
Houck and Whitlock are arguably the team's two best relievers, so it's not hard to find work for them. If the plan is finding 100 innings of scheduled long relief for Kutter Crawford, who will by fiat be a stud with an ERA below 3, then sure that sounds good.
The trouble is convincing Cora to let a guy with a 4.65 ERA pitch 3 innings while the team is up by 2 and his trusted setup relievers, who are maybe a little gassed but say they can go, sit idle in the pen. How have they used Martin Perez?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 18, 2021 10:15:59 GMT -5
This is basically what they tried to do to start this year with Andriese and Whitlock, no? But then Andriese turned into a pumpkin in May and they were left with one guy with limitations.
Agree with Houck/Pivetta/Whitlock comprising 2/3 of the rotation (with health), with the third in the bullpen (and what about rotating them to monitor workload?), but would add a veteran to be the other swingman (would love McHugh coming back for that) and keep Crawford and Seabold in AAA for depth for both roles. Neither has proven that they're ready for the majors yet.
Also I'd be very surprised and a bit pissed if that was the bullpen they went into 2022 with. They could use one or two high-leverage types.
|
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 18, 2021 10:26:03 GMT -5
Prime example, what did Richards do when he wasn't asked to go too many innings? These guys can all dial it up for a few compared to having a mindset of trying to go 6. Those are the guys you need, failed starters who can dial it up for 3.
McHugh is a good example but he was pretty much limited to 2 innings, which is better than 1. Especially when the 2 innings are pitched at the level he was at this season.
|
|
|
|
Post by bellhorndingers21 on Oct 18, 2021 11:50:25 GMT -5
Depending on how much further they go this off season I think adding quality bulk guys out of the bullpen will be a must, especially with guys dramatically increasing their workload from 20-21.
|
|
|
|
Post by soxinsf on Oct 18, 2021 11:50:28 GMT -5
This is basically what they tried to do to start this year with Andriese and Whitlock, no? But then Andriese turned into a pumpkin in May and they were left with one guy with limitations. Agree with Houck/Pivetta/Whitlock comprising 2/3 of the rotation (with health), with the third in the bullpen (and what about rotating them to monitor workload?), but would add a veteran to be the other swingman (would love McHugh coming back for that) and keep Crawford and Seabold in AAA for depth for both roles. Neither has proven that they're ready for the majors yet. Also I'd be very surprised and a bit pissed if that was the bullpen they went into 2022 with. They could use one or two high-leverage types. Agree with so much of this thread. Multiple bulk inning relievers are the future of bullpens. Starters do not get to work against the order a third time unless they are dominant, and even then, having a big lead helps. Otherwise, they are pulled by Captain Hookora. I would see bullpens with multiple bulk inning guys. They can always work one when that fits the situation. Having a bullpen with seven one inning guys is no longer viable. And here is where Chris is so right. A team will still need at least two strong closer types. The Sox lost a lot of games in the second half because Barnes reverted to being Barnes. Blame it on the sticky stuff ban. Blame it on overwork. The result of not having a shutdown closer was the loss of games that we had been winning earlier. (Yes, lack of timely hitting also played a role). |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 18, 2021 11:55:12 GMT -5
ERod third time thru the lineup OPS against over 1000. Hmmm, does that deserve a big contract?
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 18, 2021 12:08:30 GMT -5
ERod third time thru the lineup OPS against over 1000. Hmmm, does that deserve a big contract? That is notable, though it's only 126 PAs, and for his career it's only .764. It would take a deeper dive than I'm capable of to say whether the 1.000 OPS is just a fluke or something more than that. |
|
|
|
Post by soxinsf on Oct 18, 2021 13:01:06 GMT -5
ERod third time thru the lineup OPS against over 1000. Hmmm, does that deserve a big contract? That is notable, though it's only 126 PAs, and for his career it's only .764. It would take a deeper dive than I'm capable of to say whether the 1.000 OPS is just a fluke or something more than that. This cuts both ways, does it not. One the one hand, here we are agreeing that the third time through a lineup is going to be all but outlawed in the "new baseball", and we are questioning the bringing Erod back because he had truly lousy third time OPS this year. What was his OPS the first two times through? Could we live with that in the era of the quick Hookora? You can bet that the Sox know the dimensions of this set of equations and will measure it against the alternatives. And, regardless of home town discounts and the evil you know is better than the evil you do not know, especially at $15-20 mil per year, if there are teams that see Erod as a real innings eater, then they will offer him a salary based on that and not on a 4 to 5 inning inning role. |
|
|
|
Post by saltalamacchia4mvp on Oct 18, 2021 13:02:39 GMT -5
Happy that we'll at least have some decent internal pitching options next year - seems like in years past we'd have nobody who we could call up and make a halfway decent start. I'd start the year having both Houck & Whitlock as starters and battle it out in camp were someone gets put in the pen to start the year, preferably. Hoping Bloom adds to the depth of the rotation & bullpen as you can never have enough pitching depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 18, 2021 13:16:08 GMT -5
That is notable, though it's only 126 PAs, and for his career it's only .764. It would take a deeper dive than I'm capable of to say whether the 1.000 OPS is just a fluke or something more than that. This cuts both ways, does it not. One the one hand, here we are agreeing that the third time through a lineup is going to be all but outlawed in the "new baseball", and we are questioning the bringing Erod back because he had truly lousy third time OPS this year. What was his OPS the first two times through? Could we live with that in the era of the quick Hookora? You can bet that the Sox know the dimensions of this set of equations and will measure it against the alternatives. And, regardless of home town discounts and the evil you know is better than the evil you do not know, especially at $15-20 mil per year, if there are teams that see Erod as a real innings eater, then they will offer him a salary based on that and not on a 4 to 5 inning inning role. Just want to say I have always been an ERod fan and supporter. Just throwing out information that pertains to perceived value for this offseason. Even with all of that negative information I think he isn't easily replaced. I also agree with the evil you know vs don't know thought, especially in the AL East. I mean really yr in yr out it is a gauntlet outside of the Orioles and with the young stacked BJays it is just going to get tougher. edit. He was about 704 the first 2 times thru, pretty sure. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 18, 2021 13:27:35 GMT -5
I wouldn't be looking at OPS for a guy with an absurdly high BABIP that has nowhere to go but down. ERod had a .382 BABIP, a 25.8% HR/FB and the most staggering number I've ever seen of 43.8% for LOB% for 3TTO which is very unlikely to remain that bad because it's close to impossible.
And the idea of this thread is the obvious result of the move to 26 man rosters. No one should pitch the 3rd time through the order. Every team needs 7-8 starters, with 2-3 of them in the bullpen. I wonder if they will change the rule for pitcher wins to remove the 5 inning requirement at some point because we'll probably have a season where 10-12 wins is the most in the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 18, 2021 14:24:18 GMT -5
I wouldn't be looking at OPS for a guy with an absurdly high BABIP that has nowhere to go but down. ERod had a .382 BABIP, a 25.8% HR/FB and the most staggering number I've ever seen of 43.8% for LOB% for 3TTO which is very unlikely to remain that bad because it's close to impossible. And the idea of this thread is the obvious result of the move to 26 man rosters. No one should pitch the 3rd time through the order. Every team needs 7-8 starters, with 2-3 of them in the bullpen. I wonder if they will change the rule for pitcher wins to remove the 5 inning requirement at some point because we'll probably have a season where 10-12 wins is the most in the league. It's funny that there were all of 39 qualified pitchers by IP in the majors this season. In 2010 there were 92. |
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Oct 19, 2021 4:03:18 GMT -5
I`ve always like the idea of the SP going twice thru the lineup. Especially if you had enough LHP to turn the batters around. If the SP were throwing less pitches could they throw an inning on their throw days. This could sem radical but I`d like to hear other opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Oct 19, 2021 4:28:18 GMT -5
I do think that starters pitching fewer times through the order is the new buzzword and statistical market efficiency, but I am concerned with its potential effect on relievers wear and tear. I think that there is a significant difference between pitching 2 innings on one day, and pitching two innings on separate days (when magnified over the course of a season). The extra warming up over that period would make a significant difference I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 19, 2021 6:38:45 GMT -5
I do think that starters pitching fewer times through the order is the new buzzword and statistical market efficiency, but I am concerned with its potential effect on relievers wear and tear. I think that there is a significant difference between pitching 2 innings on one day, and pitching two innings on separate days (when magnified over the course of a season). The extra warming up over that period would make a significant difference I believe. I would assume that the vast majority of relievers were starters at one point or another during their minor league development and even in the majors. So it would be how they are developed to pitch. Bottom line is you are asking guys to pitch fewer innings more often than starting every 5th day. It will be interesting to see how it plays out moving forward but guys will probably need more than 1 day off after pitching 2 innings I would imagine. McHugh had a great season for TBay and always got at least 3 days after going 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Oct 19, 2021 11:16:43 GMT -5
ERod third time thru the lineup OPS against over 1000. Hmmm, does that deserve a big contract? Four years guaranteed, like only five starters have gotten in the last two years. Most of what I'm seeing on the interweb is that E-Rod is ranked around the 8th or 9th best option this winter. Anyway, there's been lots of bytes sacrificed to this debate in other threads.
We'll see how it goes soon enough. Certainly helped his cause last night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Oct 19, 2021 11:19:25 GMT -5
I`ve always like the idea of the SP going twice thru the lineup. Especially if you had enough LHP to turn the batters around. If the SP were throwing less pitches could they throw an inning on their throw days. This could sem radical but I`d like to hear other opinions. It's become common in the playoffs.
Not sure if it would catch on in the regular season due to concerns about "tomorrow" (which does not exist in the playoffs, of course).
|
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Oct 19, 2021 11:32:33 GMT -5
I like the thread and have wondered about this stuff for a while.
For example, would the Sox consider piggybacking two guys like Houck and Whitlock in one rotation spot? I guess it would make more sense with a R/L duo. Then as the season progresses, maybe one of the two establishes himself as the guy and the second guy becomes a long reliever. Or maybe both are good and both become full-time starters, filling a hole left by an injury to another starter.
An alternative to this is to have three guys in that 5th spot who each throw 3 innings; this would allow all of them to come back once after 2-3 days for an inning or two (although maybe not all of them every time through the rotation).
|
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Oct 19, 2021 11:40:17 GMT -5
In terms of the specific 2022 pitching staff laid out by @nny, I think we're going to see more FAs brought in (new iterations of the Andriese gambit) to compete for spots in the bullpen, not to mention guys that are already here like Claudio, Hartlieb, Bazardo, Schreiber, Rios, Ort.
Also, what I would really like to see is Pivetta becoming the new Papelbon. The Canadian kid is clearly an adrenaline junkie and I think a ceiling as an impact closer would be more valuable than as a 4/5 starter.
As shown above, you've got who as your closer? Barnes again? I don't think that's going to be the plan by the time pitchers and catchers report. Maybe they sign a Jansen but I'm skeptical Chaim pays top-market when he might have a closer on his staff in Pivetta who still has three years of control.
|
|
|
