Relief roles

[Rog]

It's obvious that Mark Melancon is the Giants' closer.  What roles make sense for the other relievers?

Will Smith -- The Giants' top set up man when the batting order for the eighth inning favors left-handed hitters.

Derek Law -- The Giants' top set up man when the batting order favors righty hitters.

Hunter Strickland -- Another pitcher capable of setting up.

Steven Okert and Josh Osich -- The situational lefties.

George Kontos and Cory Gearrin -- The middle guys.

Matt Cain or Ty Blach -- The long reliever.


That's a pretty tidy bullpen if they can stay healthy.  Should something happen to Melancon, Smith and Law could likely step up.  Kontos, Gearrin, Okert and Osich could likely take on a bigger role if needed, with the two right-handers likely be the more ready.  If Blach  becomes the long reliever, he might be able to also come in if another lefty is needed to face a lefty hitter or two later in the game.  


Blach might be able to become a versatile weapon.  That said, he made quite a case last season for being the Giants' fifth starter.  If Cain becomes the long man, one could also envision him in a variety of roles.  With Melancon leading the charge, the Giants' bullpen should feature both depth and versatility.  It could easily go from being the team's biggest weakness to one of its strengths.

[klaiggeb]

Not bad.... IF they pitch as they are expected to.

And if they do, we'd be in good shape.

Personally, I'd rather see Blach win that 5 slot in the rotation.

boly

[rxmeister]

I'd like to see Bochy stop the nonsense and actually let his relievers pitch to both righties and lefties next year. Last year was different, and he certainly had relievers with pronounced splits, but there's no reason to worry with this year's bullpen. Obviously this varies based on the hitter and how good he is, but for the most part Bochy should sit his ass down and let his relievers try to pitch out of trouble.

[Rog]

Good thinking regarding having relievers pitch more full innings, Mark. Heck, with that strategy, the Giants might even be able to get along with ONLY (?) 12 pitchers. Gone are Lopez, Romo and Casilla, who have essentially been ROOGY's or LOOGY's at least in recent years. The other pitchers seem able to pitch full innings, with the possible exception of Osich (I think it is, or possibly it's Okert, can't remember which for sure, and my data is limited anyway).

I have made no secret I think that is what Bruce Bochy should have done in the ninth inning of game four with the Cubs. It should make sense this season as well.

So when DOES it make sense to use a LOOGY or ROOGY? Sometimes a situation and/or opposing hitter can dictate that using a LOOGY or ROOGY can be particularly important in a key inning. Sometimes a key pitcher might be available the next day if he limits his pitches rather than pitch a full inning or more, and a LOOGY or ROOGY can actually protect tomorrow. Those are the two that come to my mind. Other may be able to come up with additional reasons.

I certainly do believe Mark is right that such strategies should be less necessary this season than last. That is in great part because the bullpen should be considerably better.

[Rog]

I as well like Ty Blach for the #5 starter position, Boly. My first choice would be a revitalized Matt Cain, but at this point that seems unlikely. Tyler Beede might develop as the season goes along. Not that I think he'll make it, but we likely shouldn't completely forget Albert Suarez. The Giants also have another starter named Suarez who is likely at least a year away but is on the come.

[sfgdood]

December is not the time to have clearly defined roles. Those are played out on the field in spring training and during the season. The only clear role at this point is that Melancon has the 9th inning.

[Rog]

You are right, of course, Randy. But it's nice to have relievers who look as if they could be effective in multiple roles and seem reasonably likely to fall into place as mentioned above.

[sfgdood]

We'll see how nice it looks this coming Spring.

[Rog]

Good point, Randy. I'm optimistic. The Giants have cut their ties with Javier Lopez, Sergio Romo and Santiago Casilla, who were all becoming mere specialists.

[sfgdood]

Good riddance to Romo...I was getting sick of his Pro-LA Mercedes ads

[Rog]

Good riddance to Romo...I was getting sick of his Pro-LA Mercedes ads


Rog -- I missed the pro-LA part. Can you fill me in?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3657/relief-roles#ixzz4U4YwCmB7

[Rog]

By the way, I thought Sergio was really good on his various promos. Probably better than any Giant I can remember. IIRC the one with him in various outfits to fit the Giants' specialty audience games was really funny.

[sfgdood]

of course you missed them. You would need to watch the actual games to see the ads

[Rog]

Seriously, Randy? I didn't say I missed the commercials. I said I missed the pro-LA part. Am I to assume you missed that part as well?

Two things I have noticed about your posts. Anything that takes much of any thought you tend to ignore. And your comments tend to be more negative than the average winter temperature on the South Pole. You keep telling us that your life rocks, and I hope it does. But usually when someone is doing well, all though negativity doesn't spout out of his mouth.

Your comments are about as positive as Gary Brown's professional baseball career is right now. Gary played last season for the Southern Maryland Blue Crabs in the independent Atlantic League of Professional Baseball League. He hit .249 with a .681 OPS there.

Have you seen a recent picture of Brown? He's either wearing a Bozo wig, or he's got a head of wild hair that makes Colin Kapernick after he takes off his helmet look good.

A few years ago I posted that scouts were split on Gary, predicting anywhere from a floor of a Four A player to a ceiling of a mid-tier starting center fielder. It now looks that even that low floor was too high. More like a sub floor.

Hey, Randy, we all make mistakes here. But few have been as bad as touting Brown, crying when Pablo Sandoval wasn't re-signed, and giving up on the 2014 Giants. Not to mention doing so with such bluster.

I'm sorry to be so critical, Randy. I truly am. But why not try being wiser and more civilized? They would both look good on you.

[sfgdood]

Is that what you call being "positive"...how about you telling us the chances of Hillary Clinton losing to Trump was next to nil? You had that pegged about as well as the Lamestream media

[Rog]

I was truly surprised when Donald Trump beat Hillary (although not apparently in the popular vote). I think Donald is the devil incarnate, but I hope he becomes excellent at running our country.

But being positive is about an attitude, not about choosing one politician or another. When I say be positive, I mean to express more positive thoughts. I know they're in there somewhere. Just let them come out so we can enjoy them.

[rxmeister]

It took two years, but I've seen pictures of Pablo Sandoval lately and he now has the body of a Greek God. Probably why the Red Sox felt free enough to dump their other third basemen. As for Gary Brown, there were rumors the Mets were willing to take him instead of Wheeler for Carlos Beltran, so I blame Sabean for making a hideous mistake more than I blame Brown for flaming out. We've all been wrong on players over the years though. Randy on Brown, DK on Jason Ellison, and nothing worse than me thinking Kershaw wasn't that good!

[Islandboagie]

Randy- Good riddance to Romo...I was getting sick of his Pro-LA Mercedes ads

Boagie- Were you sick of his 2.58 era and 0.955 WHIP over a 9 year span too? Sergio will go down as one of the greatest Giants relievers of all time, and this is how you show your respect?

How many times did we see Matt Kemp flail at sliders off the plate with runners on? And you have the nerve to question Romo's allegiance? I have a feeling you know better.

[sfgdood]

EXACTLY Rx...but since Rog doesn't like me, and the feeling is mutual, btw...he brings up MY blunders. I will at least say this...the Mets were willing to take Brown in trade for Beltran and the Red Sox doled out millions for Pablo, but I'm the one that gets singled out for being wrong. I SAW Brown play with my own eyes and I stand by my statements that the talent IS there...sometimes players just aren't able to get the mental part to match the physical ability and that appears to what happened with Gary. As far as Pablo goes...when you have a player who has come up clutch in the biggest moments of his career and done it for YOUR ball club there is ZERO doubt that he can do it again, so I have no problem at all saying that at the time he was worth the market value. Things change and obviously there were other factors making him less attractive but there is little doubt that when he concentrates on his craft, Pablo can succeed at a high level, with the bat AND the glove.

[sfgdood]

Romo is a pro and so he gave full allegiance to his teammates. However there is little doubt that

A. His elbow gets jacked the more he throws his sliders.
B. He's hanging more and more of those sliders. The one he threw to Kris Bryan hasn't landed yet. And
C. He has no problem disrespecting Northern California in ads.

I'm sick of all three of these things

[Rog]

If the Mets were willing to take Gary Brown instead of Zack Wheeler, the Giants made a huge mistake. Maybe it might make sense to see where the Giants were coming from.

First, regarding Brown. There was a big discrepancy in how scouts viewed Gary, and apparently the Giants scouts were on the positive side. I have little doubt that as Randy said, he showed great tools at San Jose. After all, at the time of the trade he was in the middle of his MVP season with the Little Giants. He could run like the wind, throw decently and at High A San Jose, hit a lot.

But some scouts had concerns, beginning with his time at Fullerton State. The primary concern was that he didn't have enough patience at the plate. In his final season there, he walked only nine times -- although his 12 strikeouts were exceptional. He had blazing speed, but was a very inefficient base stealer. In short, his sum was less than the total of his parts.

Regarding Wheeler, the Giants have had an ability to predict which pitchers would have arm problems. Francisco Liriano is the guy who most comes to mind. With arm health, he could have been one of the best pitchers in the game. But, as the Giants predicted, he hasn't had it. Maybe they thought Joe Nathan would have problems and thus included him with Francisco in the A.J. Pierzynski trade. But Liriano is far from the only good pitcher for whom the Giants predicted arm issues.

And Zack has indeed had them. At the time of the trade, he had struck out a lot of batters in his two partial seasons, but he was also wild and not wildly effective. His ERA's at both Augusta and San Jose were identical 3.99's. Now his arm problems have limited him to 286 major league innings, albeit with a 3.50 ERA and 271 strikeouts. He's walked 125 though, so control remains an issue.

So it's easy to see why the Giants may have chosen Brown over Wheeler. If Gary could have put things together, he could likely have come close to the Giants' projections for him. It's tough to trade a guy in the middle of an MVP season when the other alternative was having a hard time throwing strikes.

I beat Randy up over Brown not so much because he misjudged him. Randy was far from the only one -- including plenty of professional scouts -- to do so. Where I think Randy went wrong was in not admitting his mistake. And actually, not so much even that he didn't admit the mistake, but that he wasn't willing to admit even the POSSIBILITY he'd made a mistake.

If I had seen Gary play, I no doubt would have been impressed too. But I also try to temper my judgments with the scouting reports and opinions of others. And I look at the stats.

Looking back, Gary's stats weren't horrible. No, not the MVP stats. Obviously they were wonderful. I simply saw his 77/46 K/BB ratio at San Jose as a possible confirmation of the negative scouting reports I had read. I could also have taken them as an improvement over his 12/6 K/BB ratio the previous season and his having only nine walks in his final season at Fullerton.

Frankly, I may have lucked out in my evaluation of Gary. But the one thing I didn't do was overlook the negative scouting reports. I don't think Randy was even aware of them, and if so, he chose to overlook them. And with the excellent 2011 season Brown had, one can see why. But clearly those negative scouting reports, while they were far from unanimous, had merit.

I don't have an prospect books from before the 2012 season, but prior to 2011 Baseball America cited his Gold Glove potential and exceptional speed. They also mentioned however that he had some lower body movements that might get in the way of his hitting.

John Sickels cited similar positives, but said that "even just being a little more patient will help him a lot."

The Minor League Baseball Analyst cited his contact skills, but also said he "could stand to tone down his aggressiveness."

Nothing truly damning there, to be sure. But I think it is worth retaining some skepticism when a hitter is overly aggressive as Brown was/is. Especially when that player is projected as a lead off man to take advantage of his speed.

I'm sure I'm seen as hard-headed here, but I do a lot of study and am still willing to listen to others unless there is a pretty strong case against what they say. I think the lesson we can learn from Gary Brown is to not get carried away with what we see with our own eyes. We all know baseball here, but we're not professional scouts. Even if we were, there is room for disagreement between them. Remember that Mike Piazza, the greatest hitting catcher in baseball history, was drafted in the last round, and only as an afterthought.

We would all benefit from broadening our perspectives, valuing not only what we see with our own (amateur) eyes, but what the scouts see and what the metrics say.

Here is something I have been meaning to post here, and this seems like a good context.

Much of the conspiracy theory regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy was that the fatal shot clearly moved his head BACKWARD, which is the opposite direction one would have expected if the shot came from behind him where Lee Harvey Oswald was. What John Wolf, the president of Itek's optical division saw when watching the Zapruder tape was that Kennedy's head initially moved forward with such speed that it couldn't be seen with the naked eye, which registered only the backlash that resulted. Wolf replied to newcaster Dan Rather, "I don't know what I see. I know what I measure."

I believe too many of our judgments come primarily from what we (think we) see. Sometimes we tend to ignore what the experts see and are often not even cognizant of what the metrics measure.

Major League Baseball is very slow to react. The game is older than basketball, much older than football. But MLB has finally come around and realized that the combination of scouting and analytics is better than either alone. One might say that scouting softens the analytics, and analytics filter the scouting.

What most bothers me about the approach of some here is that they don't give proper credence to and sometimes even ridicule analytics. Analytics aren't a be-all or end-all. But neither is scouting, particularly our own amateur version. When we find disagreement with what we "see," we should gather more information and re-examine our vision. If everyone agrees with us, the odds improve -- although not usually to 100% -- that we are right. But when others disagree, we should usually re-examine our position. That means learning more and looking at the situation from every angle we can find.

Sometimes we will change our position. Other times we won't. But either way, we'll almost always learn something. It has been said by the far wiser than we that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The greater our knowledge, the better our odds.

We shouldn't be afraid to learn, even if it goes against our grain. Maybe PARTICULARLY if it goes against our grain.

The more we do so, the better chance we'll finally "get it (right)."

[Rog]

Your analysis of Sergio Romo is excellent, Boagie. He has indeed been one of the best relievers in Giants history.

Sergio hasn't reached 1000 innings and almost certainly never will, but do we know the number of pitchers who have pitched 1000 innings and posted a WHIP as low as 0.955? The correct answer is zero. None. Not even among pitchers in the dead ball era.

Among live ball pitchers, the leader is the incomparable Mariano Rivera with 1.0003. Next in line is Clayton Kershaw at 1.0068, followed by Pedro Martinez at 1.05544. Since Sergio's career WHIP carried out to four places is 0.9553, we can correctly say that only two pitchers in the modern era have thrown 1000 innings and have an ERA that is within 0.10000 of Sergio, who has thrown 439 innings.

In other words, only two pitchers in the live ball era who have thrown over 1000 innings have come within 10% of Sergio's WHIP. Now Sergio hasn't been as good as THAT implies, but clearly he's been outstanding.

[Rog]

Randy is also correct that his slider has put great strain on his arm, and Sergio has recently been reduced to being effective only against right-handed batters. At the right price, he could still be a valuable asset. Simply bring him into an inning where he is likely to face primarily right-handed hitters -- and have a lefty ready to take his place if the situation so dictates.

Now, where Randy is either wrong or knows something I don't is where Pablo disrespected Northern California with his Toyota ads. The one thing Randy may also have overlooked is how wonderful Sergio has been in his promotions supporting the Giants.

I'm waiting for Randy to point out to us where and how it is that Sergio disrespected Northern California, but as usual, he is avoiding the issue.

[Rog]

since Rog doesn't like me


Rog -- I forgive you, Randy, and I hope you forgive me as well.

[Rog]

Regarding Pablo, we've seen that he can be a very effective fielder, and if he has slimmed down, there is no reason to believe he can't do so again. What he HASN'T done is hit southpaws in eight of his nine seasons. And that is the primary reason the Giants shouldn't have signed him. You just don't pay $95 million to a platoon player, even if he's on the strong side of the platoon.

I don't know why Randy didn't see that. Even worse, I don't know how the GIANTS didn't see it. Maybe they finally got wise at the end and just let Pablo go.

In 2009, Pablo was a TERROR against southpaws. He hit a Bondsian .389 with a 1.028 OPS that season. Over the other eight seasons of his career (including two partial seasons), he has hit just .240 with a .615 OPS against them. He has actually hit for a higher average (.248) against southpaws than he has hit right-handed.

In his last full season (2015), he dropped to .197 with a hard to see .465 OPS. Perhaps Pablo would be better off hitting left-handed against lefties. (Let's not forget, by the way, that Pablo IS left-handed. He learned to play baseball right-handed so he could play more positions -- or perhaps, sadly, even because a right-handed glove was the only one available when he learned to play the game.)

I wish Pablo all the luck in the world. Despite his personal foibles, it was hard not to like him as a Giant. He displayed an infectious personality, and overall he played very well for the team. He hit .294 with an .811 OPS for them, and was a postseason hero in both 2012 and 2014. He even had a couple of very good defensive seasons.

But those who believed the Giants should re-sign him were relying more on their eyes and emotions than on the facts. Even more so than Denard Span, Pablo is a platoon player.

I should note that in that last full season, he his a respectable .266 with a .744 OPS against right-handers. If he could learn to hit lefties again, he could once again be a very good player. But since his last truly special offensive season in 2011, his hitting against lefties has just killed his ability to be a top player.

[klaiggeb]

The slider is, indeed, hard on the arm.

Beginning in the late 1960's pitching coaches began moving prospects AWAY from that pitch in lieu of the change up.

Krukow talks about how hard that pitch was on the elbow, all the time.

And me?

My final slider blew out my elbow in one of the last starts I made in the Air Force in the late 1970's.

And I had a good one.

Not as good as my massive, over the top curve ball, but awfully good.

Sharp, and big.

I felt and heard a 'pop' in the right elbow.

No pain, just a pop.

But with that pop came the end to my great, at times un-hittable breaking stuff.

Oh I still had both pitches... but that sharp big..big break was gone.

Great pitch, the slider... but the price the pitcher pays is huge.


Romo was one of our best ever...

But as the saying goes, "in the end, the Piper must be paid."

boly

[Rog]

Sorry the slider blew out your arm, Boly. Sounds like you were really good prior thereto.

I liked the point about losing your other stuff thereafter. Sorry it happened to you, of course, but that isn't something I had previously considered. Do you think Tommy John surgery could have saved your career had it been around then, or were you heading past your prime anyway?

One thing we probably don't consider enough is how pitchers are now pushing their arms to and sometimes past the breaking point. The faster the arm moves, the more strain it places on itself, and obviously at the speeds guys are now throwing, they're putting a lot of strain on the shoulder and perhaps particularly the elbow.

Especially, as you mentioned, with the slider. Starting pitchers often have bigger repertoires these days as well. I'm wondering if that helps or hurts the arm. Since I presume each pitch puts a different type of strain on the arm, I would think it might help to diffuse the particular types of strains. Then again, maybe that could lead to a bigger blowout when it happens.

I believe I read that close to a third of major league pitchers have Tommy John surgery at some point during their careers. We wonder why there are so many pitching injuries, and perhaps not pitching enough innings to build up the arm is part of it. But I wonder if it's more a matter of more strain being placed on the arm. Remember, innings before age 25 were originally limited because studies showed that pitchers who ramped up their innings too quickly at too young an age were more subject to injuries.

I would be curious as to the thoughts Boly and others have on how an arm can be best protected. I read a book on the subject a decade or so ago, but I can no longer find it, and I suspect theories have changed some anyway. I think there is a new book out on the subject, but I haven't yet read it. I did correspond briefly with Will Carroll, who was considered an expert on baseball health, but that's been a long time, and our conversations focused more on Tim Lincecum than anything else.

Anyway, thoughts? This is a subject I've really just scratched the surface one and have a whole lot more to learn. Thanks.

[klaiggeb]

Rog, sorry to take so long to answer your question. Today is Sunday, January 8th, and Candee and I just got back from our cruise yesterday.

From all that I've read, learned and studied the best way to protect the arm is proper mechanics.

The best examples I've EVER seen are Tom Seaver, Gaylord Perry, Sandy Koufax and Nolan Ryan.

All had basically the same, long armed, smooth deliveries without ANY sudden jerks to the arm at the point of release.

As opposed to guys like Russ Ortiz and Kerry Wood. Both had goofy, stop start deliveries that put tremendous strain on the elbow and other parts.



What I see in the vast majority of today's pitchers are poor upper and lower body mechanics.

Too many "jerky, slam to a stop" moments by the arm.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

boly

[Rog]

I was getting sick of his Pro-LA Mercedes ads


Rog -- Randy, you keep talking about these pro-LA ads, but you continue to refuse to say why they are pro-LA.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3657/relief-roles#ixzz4VHLrN3MX

[Rog]

What I see in the vast majority of today's pitchers are poor upper and lower body mechanics.

Too many "jerky, slam to a stop" moments by the arm.


Rog -- Jerkiness would seem not only to put added pressure on the arm, but I sometimes wonder how a guy can break his momentum and still throw in the high 90's.

Even with good mechanics I think we'll continue to see lots of injuries to pitchers. By throwing as hard as they do now, they're truly testing the limits of the arm. It wasn't really designed to throw a ball overhanded.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3657/relief-roles?page=1#ixzz4VHMwz0z7