Jump to content

djhutch

If not K-Rod, then who?

Tigers' Closer  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. If not K-Rod, then who?

    • Justin Wilson
      19
    • Alex Wilson
      7
    • Anibal Sanchez
      1
    • Joe Jimenez
      0
    • Bruce Rondon
      0
    • Other on roster?
      4
    • Other NOT on roster?
      2


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, pyrotigers said:

I agree with this, however, it does still concern me that Brad has shown little if any inclination to do this. Based on his public statements and his usage of relievers, I think it's pretty clear he wants a "long guy", 7th inning guy, 8th inning guy, 9th inning guy, and he's going to use them in that order whenever possible.

In my opinion, doing that requires better pitching than the "fireman" strategy. You have to have 3 relievers who can get the job done on a daily basis in any close game. And they all have to be "on" the same day. Alex Wilson at the least seems fully capable of pitching 2-3 innings. If he gets a 1-2-3 inning in the 7th, I feel like it makes plenty of sense to just send him out for the 8th.

It seems kind of common sense to me that the more pitchers you insert into a game the more likely you are to run into a guy having an off day. Andrew Miller might be better at this role than almost anyone else in MLB, but that doesn't mean other pitchers couldn't fill the same role. Maybe Miller blows 3 games over the season, and Alex Wilson blows 6. I still think that's better than Wilson blowing 2, J. Wilson blowing 3, and K-Rod blowing 8. Or whatever. Yeah, it's a risk, but is it any riskier than putting more Tigers relievers into a game?

Yeah I don't know. I do think more relievers could handle multiple innings than what we see. But just for the sake of discussion, let's say you have three relievers you can count on to put up a zero. Does using one of them for multiple innings make it more difficult to use them the next day? Is it better to use eachbof them for an inning so you can use them tomorrow too? 

I think a reliever being "on" is more a result of only facing a few batters and getting through it rather than getting through it because they were on. It's hard to say they would get outs in inning 2 just because they got through inning 1. 

That said, when a guy throws five pitches or something, no reason to take them out, but that's more about keeping more guys available to pitch later. 

Traditional bullpen usage gets a bad rap, I guess is what I'm trying to say. If we had three good relievers instead of two, we would be doing just fine using the Ausmus roles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, pyrotigers said:

I agree with this, however, it does still concern me that Brad has shown little if any inclination to do this. Based on his public statements and his usage of relievers, I think it's pretty clear he wants a "long guy", 7th inning guy, 8th inning guy, 9th inning guy, and he's going to use them in that order whenever possible.

In my opinion, doing that requires better pitching than the "fireman" strategy. You have to have 3 relievers who can get the job done on a daily basis in any close game. And they all have to be "on" the same day. Alex Wilson at the least seems fully capable of pitching 2-3 innings. If he gets a 1-2-3 inning in the 7th, I feel like it makes plenty of sense to just send him out for the 8th.

It seems kind of common sense to me that the more pitchers you insert into a game the more likely you are to run into a guy having an off day. Andrew Miller might be better at this role than almost anyone else in MLB, but that doesn't mean other pitchers couldn't fill the same role. Maybe Miller blows 3 games over the season, and Alex Wilson blows 6. I still think that's better than Wilson blowing 2, J. Wilson blowing 3, and K-Rod blowing 8. Or whatever. Yeah, it's a risk, but is it any riskier than putting more Tigers relievers into a game?

It's worse that that though. If you want to win anything you are going to have to win 90-95 games. Until  baseball does something to change the equation for pitches thrown in a game, starters are going to continue to average fewer innings. So do the math. It doesn't add up. You can't run guys out there 90 times per season. You just can not have all one inning guys the way the game is played now. There are too many innings and too many non-blowout games to work. It's an impossible paradigm even if you think you might have the horses to start down that path. You have to have guys that average more innings than appearance. What makes it appear to be even somewhat possible is that teams shuttle a lot guys back and forth to the minors to absorb some of the innings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I ran the world and owned and managed the best baseball team in it, this is how I would organize my pitching for today's style of game (of course if I ran the world i would change today's style of game, but put that aside for a moment.....)

I would have 5 starters. Their job is give me twice through the order, or anything additional if you have it but I'm going to plan on 6 ip mostly. I would have 4 guys whose job it is to work 3 innings every 4th day.  They are on regular rotation as the 'second shift'. If a starter goes 8, they get a short day, but in general I'm not letting my starters go over 100 pitches much. Then I have 3 relief pitchers. Their job is to come in and get out of a jam. Maybe to bridge for a starter who can't get to 6, or maybe for the 2nd tier guy whose pitch count gets up to 60 or more or is just in trouble for any other reason. I would figure most games to pattern out either 6/3 or 5/3/1 or 6/2/1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

So if I ran the world and owned and managed the best baseball team in it, this is how I would organize my pitching for today's style of game (of course if I ran the world i would change today's style of game, but put that aside for a moment.....)

I would have 5 starters. Their job is give me twice through the order, or anything additional if you have it but I'm going to plan on 6 ip mostly. I would have 4 guys whose job it is to work 3 innings every 4th day.  They are on regular rotation as the 'second shift'. If a starter goes 8, they get a short day, but in general I'm not letting my starters go over 100 pitches much. Then I have 3 relief pitchers. Their job is to come in and get out of a jam. Maybe to bridge for a starter who can't get to 6, or maybe for the 2nd tier guy whose pitch count gets up to 60 or more or is just in trouble for any other reason. I would figure most games to pattern out either 6/3 or 5/3/1 or 6/2/1.

This seems like a great concept.  I agree with Pyro that the 6/1/1/1 or 5/2/1/1 model has too many failure points.  It seems like if a pitcher is "on" it would be less risky to have him go 2 than to bring in another guy who might be "off".

Two advantages of the 1-inning stint is that it means you don't have to worry at all about pitch count, so go for the strikeout and let the oppo foul pitches off left and right if they wish; and secondly (and more to my point below) you have more flexibility in terms of bringing guys in "fresh" off a 15-20 pitch stint last night or two nights ago, vs. a guy who throws 30-40+ pitches over 2 or more innings.

***IF*** managers used the 1/1/1 approach's flexibility to use guys more in "fireman" situations, that would increase it's value....some managers do that....without researching the point, it seems from memory that Brad has avoided the fireman approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stole this from Tango but I would have three starters each used as they are today.  The 4th rotation spot would be pitched by three pitchers each pitching three innings.  The 5th spot would be the same as the 4th spot.  The six pitchers in the 4th and 5th spots would also pitch in relief once through the rotation.  Then there would be three full-time relievers.  The benefit is that you would only need three really good starters and it should be easier to find pitchers that can pitch three innings than six innings.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

So if I ran the world and owned and managed the best baseball team in it, this is how I would organize my pitching for today's style of game (of course if I ran the world i would change today's style of game, but put that aside for a moment.....)

I would have 5 starters. Their job is give me twice through the order, or anything additional if you have it but I'm going to plan on 6 ip mostly. I would have 4 guys whose job it is to work 3 innings every 4th day.  They are on regular rotation as the 'second shift'. If a starter goes 8, they get a short day, but in general I'm not letting my starters go over 100 pitches much. Then I have 3 relief pitchers. Their job is to come in and get out of a jam. Maybe to bridge for a starter who can't get to 6, or maybe for the 2nd tier guy whose pitch count gets up to 60 or more or is just in trouble for any other reason. I would figure most games to pattern out either 6/3 or 5/3/1 or 6/2/1.

I don't believe that this approach would yield a better result than the status quo. Starters are pitching fewer innings these days, but I think that is typically due to the fact that a reliever is the better option in the 7th inning than a starter, either because the reliever is a more effective pitcher at that point, or because the game is not so much in doubt and you don't have a reason to push your starter. 

Assuming for a minute that you get 6 from your starter, and assuming 13 games every two weeks, that's 39 innings over two weeks that you need to get from 7 relievers. Let's just call it 6 innings over 2 weeks per reliever, or 3 innings per week. That is entirely reasonable. 

Tigers relievers have given us 90 innings so far this year. 

Mostly, I don't see how a team could possibly fill a five man rotation plus a four man secondary rotation. Could you point to four guys in our system or any other team's system that could be relied on to pitch 3 effective innings out of the pen?

i just don't see how this would be necessary or how it would work out better for teams than what they are doing now. 

That said, it wouldn't be tough for a team to carry 2 or even 3 long relief types and maintain the status quo. Lean on those guys to bridge you from starter to the seventh inning if necessary, or lean on them to mop up or go long when a game is not in doubt, rather than use three of your scrubs to finish out those games. That way you can deploy your four good short outing guys when the game is doubt, most of the time. Occasionally you may need one of the long guys if a couple of the good dudes are spent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I stole this from Tango but I would have three starters each used as they are today.  The 4th rotation spot would be pitched by three pitchers each pitching three innings.  The 5th spot would be the same as the 4th spot.  The six pitchers in the 4th and 5th spots would also pitch in relief once through the rotation.  Then there would be three full-time relievers.  The benefit is that you would only need three really good starters and it should be easier to find pitchers that can pitch three innings than six innings.   

I'm skeptical that you could find four additional guys that can all pitch well for 3 innings. 

Basically, this is taking your fourth and fifth starters and capping them at 3 innings, and then using buck Farmer and Chas bell and Warwick saupold and anibal Sanchez to pitch the rest of those innings. 

Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shelton said:

There will be plenty of low leverage innings for krod to pitch. Someone has to pitch them. And you never know. He might make an adjustment and pitch well later. 

At this point it is not like they have other options to call up. 

Maybe not, but could anyone be worse?    Not right now.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Shelton said:

I'm skeptical that you could find four additional guys that can all pitch well for 3 innings. 

Basically, this is taking your fourth and fifth starters and capping them at 3 innings, and then using buck Farmer and Chas bell and Warwick saupold and anibal Sanchez to pitch the rest of those innings. 

Right?

Gehringer said this exercise was supposed to be for good pitching staffs.  It would work better if you had three good starters followed by a lot of depth guys.  It won't work if you have three useless pitchers like Sanchez, Rodriguez and Bell.  You could pitchers like A. Wilson and Greene as two of your three inning guys, but then you'd have to find some relievers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Gehringer said this exercise was supposed to be for good pitching staffs.  It would work better if you had three good starters followed by a lot of depth guys.  It won't work if you have three useless pitchers like Sanchez, Rodriguez and Bell.  You could pitchers like A. Wilson and Greene as two of your three inning guys, but then you'd have to find some relievers.  

Just seems like if you had a good pitching staff you wouldn't need to go this route. If you have a bad staff, you can't find enough good pitchers to make this work. Maybe I'm way off on this, but I'm not sure there is a surplus of guys out there that can pitch well for three innings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

I stole this from Tango but I would have three starters each used as they are today.  The 4th rotation spot would be pitched by three pitchers each pitching three innings.  The 5th spot would be the same as the 4th spot.  The six pitchers in the 4th and 5th spots would also pitch in relief once through the rotation.  Then there would be three full-time relievers.  The benefit is that you would only need three really good starters and it should be easier to find pitchers that can pitch three innings than six innings.   

I would love to see this tried. Thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for Justin Wilson because he has pitched the best.

 

But Ausmus is a dick and will never make a change.  K--rod is here to stay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Just seems like if you had a good pitching staff you wouldn't need to go this route. If you have a bad staff, you can't find enough good pitchers to make this work. Maybe I'm way off on this, but I'm not sure there is a surplus of guys out there that can pitch well for three innings.

 The reasoning is that there are not a lot of teams that are strong from one through five and that would be enough guys that could do well the first time through the order. We do not know though because there is no data.  There are no pitchers in baseball that regularly pitch three innings which is actually kind of strange.   Why is there a group of pitchers than can go 6+ innings, another group that goes just one inning, but virtually no pitchers that are slotted somewhere in between.  I would think that there are a lot of pitchers that would be suited to pitch somewhere between those two extremes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give the Wilsons the two-headed closer title and pitch Greene more.  One of the three will need a rest at some point.

Promote Jario in a month to give him a taste, see how he does.

Giving VerHagen a spot start and asking Norris to do his best Smily impersonation may be a reasonable short-term fix for the very back end of the road trip.  Release Machado (should we really care he's out of options?) to make room for DVH, gamble he doesn't get picked up (but its OK if he does).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Brad is too by-the-book to go with two closers for more than a week or so. He'll ignore lineup/platoons and just go with whoever is supposed to pitch whatever inning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mickeyb105 said:

Give the Wilsons the two-headed closer title and pitch Greene more.  One of the three will need a rest at some point.

Promote Jario in a month to give him a taste, see how he does.

Giving VerHagen a spot start and asking Norris to do his best Smily impersonation may be a reasonable short-term fix for the very back end of the road trip.  Release Machado (should we really care he's out of options?) to make room for DVH, gamble he doesn't get picked up (but its OK if he does).

Many of the ideas replacing KRod sound good to me. What matters most is Brad's handling of the pitching staff. And let's be honest, his use of his pitching staff isn't one of his strengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yoda said:

I think Brad is too by-the-book to go with two closers for more than a week or so. 

He will probably say he's going closer by committee but then abandon it after a few games.  Managers always say stuff like that but it rarely lasts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

 The reasoning is that there are not a lot of teams that are strong from one through five and that would be enough guys that could do well the first time through the order. We do not know though because there is no data.  There are no pitchers in baseball that regularly pitch three innings which is actually kind of strange.   Why is there a group of pitchers than can go 6+ innings, another group that goes just one inning, but virtually no pitchers that are slotted somewhere in between.  I would think that there are a lot of pitchers that would be suited to pitch somewhere between those two extremes.  

Hard to say. I think it's more likely that there are current starters who would be better or more effective if they could just go three, but that just means you need more starter types to make it work. 

Anyway, who knows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what I was looking forward to in my theoretical setup is even more pitches per inning - relating to a the general discussion about the leagues' 'pace of play' initiatives. I think the most probable outcome of reducing the strike zone next season is even more pitches thrown per inning and even more pitching changes and more relief innings thrown,  so that has been the direction my thoughts have been going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I would see if moving Norris to a high leverage/multiple innings Miller type of reliever would help them/him.  I would also bring up the big time arms and let them let loose, although I'm kind of weary of Jimenez right now.  Jairo Labourt is definitely intriguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3-inning guy thing seems like a fun idea to me.  Candidates on the Tigers/Hens would be Norris, Greene, Farmer, Bell.  Of course, since the cupboard is bare the pickings start to get pretty slim if anyone gets hurt at all.  Zimmermann and Sanchez seem like the odd men out in the scheme that Lee talked about -- can't really be trusted for 3 solid innings, not enough stuff right now to blow people away as a short man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,671
    • Total Posts
      2,975,774
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...