Jump to content

IdahoBert

2018 WS Dream Match-up: Dodgers vs. Red Sox

Recommended Posts

Thanks for reminding me of 2006 and a long lay off before the series with the Cardinals Joe buck. I really needed that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m really trying to find something that would compel me to dislike one of these team less than the other. Not there yet. 

Good game though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Dodgers a little bit, I don’t like the Red Sox at all, but I find it really hard, really really hard, to root against JD Martinez. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither starter gets beyond four innings. Sad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 1776 said:

Neither starter gets beyond four innings. Sad.

It's all one big bullpen now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'starter' is like a closer for the first...1 inning....get another dude to do about 2-3, then yet another to do 2-3, then 1-1-1 FTW...or get another 2-3 guy.  

Don't let the hitter see the same guy more than twice at most.  Ideally he sees a different pitcher every time he is up to bat.  Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

It's all one big bullpen now.

It takes a village.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

It's all one big bullpen now.

Not a fan of it.

Share this post


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

The 'starter' is like a closer for the first...1 inning....get another dude to do about 2-3, then yet another to do 2-3, then 1-1-1 FTW...or get another 2-3 guy.  

Don't let the hitter see the same guy more than twice at most.  Ideally he sees a different pitcher every time he is up to bat.  Championship.

Carry 12 pitchers.   

Expect 6 innings a week from each.

Mix and match as needed to confuse the enemy.

No more $15-$25M a year starters.   

Use the savings to sign Trout.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

Carry 12 pitchers.   

Expect 6 innings a week from each.

Mix and match as needed to confuse the enemy.

No more $15-$25M a year starters.   

Use the savings to sign Trout.

 

 

 

The Tigers already carry 12, sometimes 13 pitchers.  Some of those won't/can't go 6 IP per week.

I'm not sure mixing & matching would make up enough for the lack of quality.

I do see how teams could think of this as a salary reduction strategy, at least on the pitching staff.  I'm just not sure how effective it would be over the long haul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LooseGoose said:

Carry 12 pitchers.   

Expect 6 innings a week from each.

Mix and match as needed to confuse the enemy.

No more $15-$25M a year starters.   

Use the savings to sign Trout.

 

 

 

 Meanwhile, back in the day… 

17BE75CA-0E12-4C7F-8E46-728108D7E6F6.jpeg.23ea55f01a0aebbd180c2c37244f2e3e.jpeg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Casimir said:

The Tigers already carry 12, sometimes 13 pitchers.  Some of those won't/can't go 6 IP per week.

I'm not sure mixing & matching would make up enough for the lack of quality.

I do see how teams could think of this as a salary reduction strategy, at least on the pitching staff.  I'm just not sure how effective it would be over the long haul.

I was specifying 12 to illustrate that it might open a spot for another hitter versus those occasional 13 man staffs.  If a pitcher is unable to give us 6IP a week then he should be traded/cut.   It's really not that much to ask of a MLB caliber athlete.

Mixing and matching would mask many of the quality issues, though one could certainly argue that we have in excess of 12 MLB quality pitchers on the roster for next season.

I'm becoming convinced it might be more effective over the long haul as it could be argued that shorter but more frequent appearances might lower injury risks.

And I love the Mick but we no longer cry for single platoon football and the ironmen that played then, maybe it's time for some radical changes in baseball strategy?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

I'm becoming convinced it might be more effective over the long haul as it could be argued that shorter but more frequent appearances might lower injury risks.

I don't know.  I wonder about this.  Shorter but more frequent usage would likely involve (1) more warm up tosses and also full blown pitches in the bullpen per season that are not used in the game (I don't know what, if anything, this would amount to), and less off days and (2) maybe more pitches at higher velocity because of the higher burn possibility but lower stamina requirements per outing.  These are purely guesses, I honestly don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

I was specifying 12 to illustrate that it might open a spot for another hitter versus those occasional 13 man staffs.  If a pitcher is unable to give us 6IP a week then he should be traded/cut.   It's really not that much to ask of a MLB caliber athlete.

Mixing and matching would mask many of the quality issues, though one could certainly argue that we have in excess of 12 MLB quality pitchers on the roster for next season.

I'm becoming convinced it might be more effective over the long haul as it could be argued that shorter but more frequent appearances might lower injury risks.

And I love the Mick but we no longer cry for single platoon football and the ironmen that played then, maybe it's time for some radical changes in baseball strategy?

 

 

It is starting already...I forget the team, but someone started a pitcher for the first inning then went to the starter a few times this year.  If you simply look at the numbers it makes total sense to have the hitters see the same pitcher as few times as possible.  Maybe 1 pitcher the first then another the 2nd and then bring in your 'starter' for 4-5 innings.  It is ALL About the players union right now IMO.  Reducing the work load of a 'horse' or even a traditional starter all while 'promoting' the bullpen guys...then salaries need to get adjusted etc....it will take some time and if enough managers start employing a similar strategy it will just naturally head that direction.

I think the time is coming...I think it will still take a few years (like >10), but on the horizon IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 guys who pitch 3 IP X 3 = 9 pitchers who pitch every third game and 3 other bullpen guys that can come in and clean up a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would or could the union do anything about that if teams started going in that direction?  It seems like that would take away the high paying starter and closer jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LooseGoose said:

 

I'm becoming convinced it might be more effective over the long haul as it could be argued that shorter but more frequent appearances might lower injury risks.

 

The there is an argument for 5 days that holds it is the physiologically ideal cycle, but you clearly can't have guys average only 3 IP every 5 days, so you would have to be willing to come off that ideality for something that might work out better for all in practice. I am persuaded beyond a shadow of a doubt that working back to back is bad for guys no matter how short they go. I don't have numbers for it but I think it's pretty clear the injury rate for relievers on a per innings pitched basis must be much higher than it is for starters.

So take an 11 man staff. 9 "regular" pitchers pitch 3 IP per turn every 4th day that is 1080 innings - that is under 130  each. If you have two guys you identify as 'horses',  like JV etc would be fine doing the old school thing and let them go 6 every forth day, that is another 450 innings, and you have it covered. The trick is finding the best way to pick out the few guys you still want to have working 220 innings. You could vary that a little by having your 9 guys total 7 ip for each TWO starts and have one true ''reliever'  who comes in for guys who are failing on a given day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

3 guys who pitch 3 IP X 3 = 9 pitchers who pitch every third game and 3 other bullpen guys that can come in and clean up a mess.

In theory.  Tony LaRussa tried this for a short time with Oakland.  I tried looking up the season and exact time frame a week or so ago, but couldn’t pinpoint it.

Share this post


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

Would or could the union do anything about that if teams started going in that direction?  It seems like that would take away the high paying starter and closer jobs.

It would seem that the statistics would quickly identify the pitchers that prove to be very effective under this regime.  At that point it would follow that they would get paid accordingly.   It's possible that it might serve to spread the payroll more equally across the staff - perhaps the union would like that?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I don't think payroll considerations are factoring into any team's decision to go to a bullpenning strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Red Sox have made clutch hitting a thing apparently:

Quote

Sox have 30 2-out hits in 10-plus playoff games. The 16 for 38 (.421) with two outs and runners in scoring position

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chasfh said:

FWIW, I don't think payroll considerations are factoring into any team's decision to go to a bullpenning strategy.

But it's Tampa.  And Oakland. The teams with the lowest payrolls are the ones doing it.

It's a bit of a mystery that the pitchers do so well in that strategy. It would be like Farmer, Coleman and Stumpf all pitching well for multiple innings for the Tigs. Not real likely to happen....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chasfh said:

FWIW, I don't think payroll considerations are factoring into any team's decision to go to a bullpenning strategy.

I would venture that payroll factors into every decision teams make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×