rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 8, 2018 9:59:08 GMT -5
For Boagie's benefit: Joe Maddon is against it.
From my point of view: It's not surprising that the initial reaction from inside MLB is negative. But one would hope that they would take the time to analyze the idea. The more one analyzes it, the more they can see the potential benefits.
I think it depends in part on who the normal starter is going to be that day. It depends in part on the opponents' lineup. There are going to be days it is the best strategy.
It is sad that even Joe Maddon says that the strategy will burn out the bullpen. He's usually more thoughtful than that. Maybe over the winter he'll sit down and actually analyze the situation.
The closer one looks, the more potential he sees. The one thing that is needed is buy in from those involved. That might be tough, at least at first. But no strong argument has been presented here that refutes the strategy. And one of the arguments against it (burning out the bullpen) is actually an argument FOR it when one looks beneath the surface.
I don't epect the strategy to take root anytime soon, but the evidence makes it appear to be a sound strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 8, 2018 10:40:11 GMT -5
Joe Maddon is against it because he didn't think of it first.
I'm against it because the first inning is the only guaranteed inning a leadoff hitter will leadoff, the 3rd place hitter will bat 3rd and the 4th place hitter will cleanup. Because of that, and because starting pitchers should really be better than any reliever, it only makes sense to start with your best.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 8, 2018 16:29:25 GMT -5
Well said, boagie.
Another "fad" idea shot superbly and expertly down.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 8, 2018 21:12:52 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 8, 2018 21:19:34 GMT -5
I'm against it because the first inning is the only guaranteed inning a leadoff hitter will leadoff, the 3rd place hitter will bat 3rd and the 4th place hitter will cleanup. Because of that, and because starting pitchers should really be better than any reliever, it only makes sense to start with your best. Rog -- In reality, the Giants' top six starters all have ERA's that are better than all but two starters. Five of them have an ERA better than Madison Bumgarner. So if you want to go with your best, one of the relievers is the answer. I just don't get you guys' objections. They're spurious. By the way, it isn't guaranteed that in the first inning the cleanup hitter will hit cleanup. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather?page=2#ixzz5QZCZHv7S
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 8, 2018 21:22:41 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 8, 2018 21:26:27 GMT -5
Except for the very best starters, a very good reliever pitches better than the starter. Look at the ERa's, guys. To quote others here, watch the games. If you watch the games -- and I know you do -- it is apparent that many relievers going one inning pitch better than all but a few starters going six.
If a starter in his sixth inning were truly the best pitcher, why not pitch him in the fourth through ninth innings as a closer? That's kind of what the Giants did with Madison Bumgarner in game 7. Few starters would have accomplished what he did. On another day, he likely wouldn't have.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 8, 2018 21:33:03 GMT -5
If relievers were good they would be starters. If they started their ERAs would be through the roof
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 8, 2018 21:57:58 GMT -5
If relievers were good they would be starters. If they started their ERAs would be through the roof Rog --I think what you meant was that if most relievers had to start and pitch five or six innings, their ERA's would be high. With few exceptions, I agree. But we're not asking the opener to go five of six innings. Instead, he has shown that he can be very good over a single inning. So that's what we're asking him to do. All we're asking the reliever to do is pitch the first inning instead of the sixth or seventh. Let me ask you a question, Randy. If the Giants had their opener pitch one inning and one inning only, do you think the openers could cobble together an ERA better than 5.82? If so, they would have outpitched the Giants starters in the first inning this season. My sense us that the relievers could have fared better than 5.82. In fact, many of the relievers who would fill that role have ERA's that are less than half that. Are relievers as a group as good as starters as a group? No, they're not. That's a fact. But relievers going a single inning are better than starters pitching into the fifth, sixth or seventh inning. That's also a fact. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather?page=2#ixzz5QZKcIIZZ
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 8, 2018 23:07:01 GMT -5
Most relievers have a good ERA because they're brought into situations that favor them. Starting pitchers have to pitch to all the hitters in the lineup, relievers normally face 1-3 hitters. A large part of the time when relievers enter the game in a tough spot it's when the starting pitcher's ERA is on the line. To say the reliever is better because his ERA is lower is a weak argument, Rog. Very weak, and using it is an insult to
Stop cherry picking stats to support your point, because there's really no evidence supporting your opinion. If you think it's still in a exploratory phase and it's a unique idea that might work, I can't argue that. I'd certainly be open to watching and finding out.
I happen to think the development of the super reliever would be more interesting to see and impactful to the team that adopts it. In fact, if it were up to me, I'd like to see the Giants develop two super relievers. Imagine a 12 man staff: 5 starters, 2 super relievers, 2 specialists, a 7th inning guy, a setup and closer. And this might be totally out of the box, but screw it, let Panda pitch more. The guy has a nice curveball.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 9, 2018 0:32:41 GMT -5
If you think it's still in a exploratory phase and it's a unique idea that might work, I can't argue that. I'd certainly be open to watching and finding out.
Rog -- I'm right there with you. We don't know how it will work out, but it has a large handful of potential advantages, so it makes to try it and see how it works.
The difficult thing is evaluating it. But with enough games and enough scrutiny, some clarity should evolve.
The potential advantages are many -- including a decent possibility the starter will be able to pitch MORE innings.
One thing we know for sure is that the Giants' starters at least have been HORRIBLE in the first inning this season. I suspect it's not a problem that hasn't been there before. We don't know if the starter's beginning inning would go better if it were inning #2 instead of the first inning, but I'm confident the openers would pitch a better ERA than 5.82.
I think you're right about keeping an open mind, Boagie.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 9, 2018 0:52:13 GMT -5
To say the reliever is better because his ERA is lower is a weak argument, Rog. Very weak, and using it is an insult to
Stop cherry picking stats to support your point, because there's really no evidence supporting your opinion.
Rog -- You make a good point here, Boagie. ERA isn't the ideal measure of a reliever, and a starter's ERA can be affected by the performance of his reliever. A pitcher who comes in in the middle of an inning has fewer outs to record to avoid giving up an earned run, which can help his ERA.
But that the Giants have SIX relievers with ERA's that are lower than almost all the starters, and that the starters' ERA of 5.82 in the first inning isn't affected by a reliever except in the worst of situations, is strong evidence supporting my opinion.
You have shown nothing to refute it.
I have an idea. WHIP would be a clearer measure to compare starters and relievers. Here is how they go for the Giants:
1. Will Smith 0.85
2. Dereck Rodriguez l.05
3. Reyes Moronta 1.08
4. Tony Watson 1.13
5. Sam Dyson 1.15
6. Madison Bumgarner 1.26
7. Andrew Suarez 1.27
8. Derek Holland 1.27
9. Hunter Strickland 1.28
10. Chris Stratton 1.41
11. Mark Melancon 1.44
The pitchers' WHIPS come in five different plateaus.
Will Smith is in a category by himself.
Dereck Rodriguez and Reyes Moronta form the second plateau.
Tony Watson and Sam Dyson make up plateau three.
Madison Bumgarner, Andrew Suarez, Derek Holland and Hunter Strickland are the fourth plateau.
Chris Stratton and Mark Melancon make up #5.
Four of the top five are relievers. In contrast, four of the bottom five are starters. Based on WHIP -- which isn't affected by other pitchers -- the good relievers have outperformed the starters.
That's not to say that the relievers are better pitchers than the starters. It's just that they have the advantage of being able to air it out and usually don't have to worry about pitching more than one inning.
Your point about ERA is a very good one, Boagie. But WHIP is as much in the advantage of the relievers as ERA is.
I'm glad you're keeping an open mind, Boagie.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 9, 2018 1:03:53 GMT -5
I happen to think the development of the super reliever would be more interesting to see and impactful to the team that adopts it. In fact, if it were up to me, I'd like to see the Giants develop two super relievers. Imagine a 12 man staff: 5 starters, 2 super relievers, 2 specialists, a 7th inning guy, a setup and closer. Rog -- Good idea, Boagie. It's tough to develop super relievers though. Andrew Miller has done it, but he's also really good. He was drafted ahead of Clayton Kershaw, Tim Lincecum and Max Scherzer (whom apparently no one knew was drafted immediately after Tim). To develop TWO super relievers would be really tough. I'm think the best candidates would be Moronta and Strickland, but I'm going off the top of my head. At least I don't have any hair getting in the way. The one thing that may be missing from your staff is the long man. It could be one of the two super relievers, but it seems they should be used in a more important role. Probably not the specialists (although a guy like Ty Blach could do it if he were the left-handed specialist). Not the two set up men or the closer. But you're right: Pablo could be the long man! Pablo could be on the bubble next season though, although he'll probably make it. He plays both corners and switch hits. It could come down to him against Alen Hanson, and Alen is more versatile and also a switch hitter. I like your creativity here, Boagie, so I'm going to try to further evaluate it. I have mentioned that I like the idea of two closers, even though it could closer 1 and closer 2. Ideally they would be of opposite hands. There are many ideas that could be employed. I wrote a letter to Roger Craig back in the late 80's presenting an idea, and that was about a decade before I got into sabermetrics. I first became interested in sports chemistry more than a decade before that. I have long gone beyond the pale in studying baseball in particular. Even before sabermetrics. It does make me feel good that you're keeping an open mind. I hope we all will -- on this and other topics. The baseball world is changing, probably faster than ever before. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather?page=2#ixzz5Qa5oz6oz
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 9, 2018 9:30:47 GMT -5
Relievers don't have all of the pitches necessary to be a starter.
Look at Ottavino, of Colorado.
Terrible starter.
But for a couple of hitters, untouchable.
That's the way it is for the vast majority of closers.
Great stuff in a LIMITED role.
Closers USUALLY have only 1 or 2 good pitches.
Starters need more.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 9, 2018 11:34:48 GMT -5
I think you've described the primary difference between starters and relievers quite well here, Boly. In fact, I think you've REALLY nailed this one.
Nail, look at hammer. Now look at Boly. Be frightened!
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 9, 2018 12:02:14 GMT -5
To say the reliever is better because his ERA is lower is a weak argument, Rog. Very weak, and using it is an insult Rog -- An insult, Boagie? I agree with your criticism of using ERA when comparing starters to relievers, but ERA is the most common tool, and the difference was SO large. Then when we went to WHIP, which isn't affect by bequeathed runners as is the case with ERA and starters and occasionally ERA and relievers, only to see that if anything, the difference was even greater. On the one hand, you brought out a key factor which had rarely been used on this board. On the other hand, you WAY overreacted in saying that using it was insulting. Maybe WHIP would have been the better measure, but I used ERA because it is most commonly used. And the fact I was supporting was naturally supported by either measure. If we use hit rate, home run rate or strikeout rate, the result is the same. The starters prevail only in walk rate, and that is primarily because of The Kings, who compensates by allowing just barely over a hit every two innings. I guess it would be impossible for Reyes Moronta to be The Kings plural, but among the Giants -- Reyes is indeed The King. In fact, among all pitchers who have thrown 60 innings or more, he ranks #2 behind only Josh Hader, the pitcher when we were criticizing guys for taking pitches down the middle. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather?page=2#ixzz5QckeTlAE
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 9, 2018 13:13:26 GMT -5
When speaking of closers, almost everyone of them today throws GAS.
Major gas.
With that gas they develop a nasty slider.
But that's usually all they have, and over the course of a 5-6-7 inning outting, as it did for Ottavino, that doesn't play well.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 10, 2018 8:51:49 GMT -5
A large part of the time when relievers enter the game in a tough spot (USUALLY CREATED BY BY THE STARTERS THEMSELVES) it's when the starting pitcher's ERA is on the line. (THE RELIEVER IS USUALLY CALLED INTO THE GAME BECAUSE THE MANAGER FEELS THE RELIEVER HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF GETTING OUT OF THE JAM THAN THE STARTER DOES. THE MANAGER BELIEVES THAT AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT THE RELIEVER IS BETTER THAN THE STARTER).
Rog -- THE CAPS ARE MY WORDS.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 10, 2018 8:56:20 GMT -5
Can we agree on these statements as true generalities?
. Starting pitchers are usually better pitchers than relief pitchers.
. Relief pitchers pitching a single inning are usually better than starters pitching five or six.
I believe both statements are true and get to the crux of the matter. Did we find something on which we can all agree?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 10, 2018 11:09:53 GMT -5
Agree
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 10, 2018 13:57:12 GMT -5
When I say develop super relievers, I really mean to develop them at the low levels, not after they've made the bigs. But there are probably some floating around baseball that would be good super relievers, and some that might even be already used in the same fashion without the title of super reliever.
Yusmeiro Petit was developed as a starter than turned into long relief guy, his makeup would be perfect for a super reliever. He's a guy that can pitch long and short and is effective at both. Petit was essentially used in a super reliever role during the 2014 season and most noticeably during the post season that year. As we all know, he was a very important cog in the bullpen, but yet he was really just a long reliever which is considered by many to merely be just the 6th best starter.
To really get good pitchers interested in being in that role, there needs to be a pay increase for those in that role, rather than just being considered not a very good starter, and getting paid not much more than league average.
Remember Lincecum in the 2012 post-season? How good would a team be with that kind of pitcher to turn to late in the game during a full season? I think having not just one, but two pitchers capable of doing that would greatly benefit the team that adopted this bullpen strategy. Not only would it keep most of the bullpen well rested, it would also enable the manager to not always automatically go with a closer in the 9th in a save situation. Bumgarner in the 7th game of the WS in 2014 for example. He was going good, so why mess with it?
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 10, 2018 22:11:26 GMT -5
When I say develop super relievers, I really mean to develop them at the low levels, not after they've made the bigs. Rog -- That's a fine concept, Boagie. The closest the Giants have to that right now might be Ty Blach, and he's missing most of the super part. I used to think Tim Lincecum might make a super reliever, but by that time he probably wasn't good enough. Had the Giants used him as a super reliever once he got to the big leagues, he likely would have been the best in that role since Mike Marshall. Beginning to build super relievers in the low minors is a good idea, although in a way the requirements are similar to those of a closer or set up man. The super reliever has to pitch longer, but in two or three innings a super reliever may not have to face a single batter twice. It would seem he might get by with the small repertoire a closer or set up man has. One disadvantage would be that the reliever probably can't be as focused or throw as hard in two or three innings as he can in one. But stretching out the closer and set up man in the minors might help. Also, a guy who has three or four pitches as a starter but has only a couple that are stand outs might be able to focus on throwing just those two pitches might be able to focus on throwing just the two in a shorter role for a starter. Heck, if a team had nine super relievers and two closers, it could likely get by with 11 pitchers. It would be difficult to find 11 who were good enough, but perhaps in a shorter stint, 11 could be good enough. Probably not, but perhaps a hybrid system could be developed that allowed the one, two or three starters to pitch longer, as they now do when starting. And have the so-called "reliever" game on the other days. Thiry years ago it was suggest that a team go with a four-man rotation and two closers. The four-man rotation would have four starters coupled with four "finishers." It would involve having two starters available each game, with the plan being for the two starters -- one pitching in relief of the other -- to be able to finish the game between them. If they were unable to do so, a closer would be called upon. That plan included just 10 pitchers and likely wouldn't work in today's game. But it might have been intriguing back then, and even now it might be able to keep staffs at 12 instead of 13. Or conceivably "just" 11. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather?page=2#ixzz5Ql4YkYCF
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Sept 10, 2018 22:21:33 GMT -5
Remember Lincecum in the 2012 post-season? How good would a team be with that kind of pitcher to turn to late in the game during a full season? Rog -- I thought Tim was a great choice for the role. The thing that is tough on guys like Miller, Chapman and Jansen in the postseason is that they can tire under such workloads. During the regular season they just wouldn't last. But maybe the super reliever could be that hybrid between the starter who throws multiple pitches in order to last five, six or seven innings and the closer and set up men who are programmed to pitch a single frame. I would like to see teams try some of these strategies to see how they work out. It may be that one strategy would work better for one team and another strategy would work better for another, based on the strengths and weaknesses of the particular pitching staff. As mentioned above, a hybrid strategy might be the best way to go. I doubt we'll see much of any of these strategies employed in my lifetime, both because baseball is very traditional and because the strategies would be tough to evaluate. It is easy to look at an experiment and say that it failed. But the teams that are most likely to experiment usually do so because their pitchers aren't very good. If they're simply lousy pitchers, it's tough for a system to make them good. Evaluating would be tough. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4812/bullpen-blather?page=2#ixzz5Ql8TTafv
|
|