Trade deadline banter

[beckdawg]

The trade for Q I loved no question even loosing eloy and cease I thought we desperately needed a CCSP for this year and the future. I love that he's durable and still very good. Kinda like Lester.

I agree in theory about did we have to go for the most expensive reliever idea. About a week ago I was all about getting Neshek, thought he could be had cheap (which I think he was) and still gives us another high leverage guy to use this year. But I really don't think we paid that high of a price for Wilson so I'm happy. I do disagree on importance of bullpen, at least to our ball club. Our bullpen is probably our only advantage over Dodgers and Nats, that really could be the difference. Plus I'm not super confident all of our starters wil be able to go too deep in games effectively in the playoffs.

Yeah I mean I love the Q deal and had they found another like it I'd be super jazzed. On the bullpen matter, a good reliever pitches ~60 innings a year and if you want a 3 ERA over 60 innings you can give up 20 runs. A 4 ERA is roughly 27 runs over that same period. So the difference between a good reliever and a bad reliever is likely 7 runs over roughly 60 appearances. None of that takes into account how the pitcher is used or if he is over worked. In the playoffs, you get maybe 15 innings if you're heavily used. A 3 ERA over 15 innings is 5 runs. A 4 ERA over 15 innings is 7 runs. That's why it's hard for me to buy into relievers. The relative difference is so small. When you're talking the difference between great and good it's even smaller. For example Chapman over 20.1 IP has a 3.10 ERA in the post season. Mark Melancon over 10 IP in the postseason has a 3.60 ERA. Interestingly, Pedro Strop over 13 IP has a 2.08 ERA. With that size of a sample fluke things happen. You want to believe that if you have the "better" guy you're more well prepared but I doubt the numbers agree. In fact I'd bet that if you actually studied it you'd find that split heavy guys who dominate one side or the other fair as well if not better in that sort of role comparable to dominant split neutral relievers.

I look at it like this. Almost any reliever in the majors should be good in low leverage situations. Pitchers league wide have a 3.03 ERA in what fangraphs considers low leverage. In other words, any guy who starts a clean inning should roughly be fine on average. It's the high leverage situations that matter. In situations fangraphs considers high leverage situations the league average is 9.35 ERA. Medium leverage for what it's worth is 4.76 ERA. Managing a bullpen effectively comes down to how many high leverage situations you are going to get into and having someone to cover that. I think some people are heavily in favor of just having the "best" guy out there and if so they probably like the Wilson trade. I prefer to play the odds more on split heavy guys. The downside with your ROOGY/LOOGY guys is teams will combat that by staggering a line up to make them useless against the next hitter. And you only have so many roster spots.

What I'd like to see is for teams to just toss the idea of a "closer." Historically your best high leverage pitcher has been your closer. But if that high leverage situation comes up in the 6th inning and you lose the game there what good is he? I think teams will eventually get there but the game doesn't appear ready yet for that sort of thinking. When they do I think the importance of bullpen will shrink some.

 

[beckdawg]

I knew the 100 pitch thing started awhile back but 2001 even surprised me. The rise in relief pitchers started even father back than that...looks like 1985 and rising. It's not new, it's just more in the forefront because of the Royals and now how each reliever kind of has a particular job or inning he pitches in. Specialization.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kurkjian_tim&id=4359938

I think we're talking about two different things though. Obviously relievers are used more which is what you're suggesting. What I'm talking about more is in reference to the skyrocketing cost that has occurred in the past 5 years. From 2001-2011 reliever cost was fairly steady adjusted for inflation. The graph here is more about the growth of LOOGY's. In the 80's you'd have a reliever come in and he'd throw 2-3 innings commonly. This graph basically shows the idea that 1 out guys became a thing. The 2014 Royals to my knowledge were one of the first teams to have effectively 3 guys who could close in Davis, Holland and Herrera. All 3 had ERA's under 1.45. And in the playoffs they also brought up Brandon Finnegan who was fantastic. What made that bullpen special is their starter could get into a jam and at any point in the game you had 3-4 guys who could come in and fairly reliably get them out of that jam. Why that is revolutionary is historically if a starter got into a jam in say the 5th inning you'd see a middle reliever. Typically it was your "long guy." In other words, you're talking about guys like Travis Wood who are essentially our 6th starter. The idea was then for that guy to get you to the 7th where you'd see your specialization guys for the 7th-9th. Where we are today is a team like the cubs has Davis for the 9th but they can bring Edwards in at any point in the game. And presumably when Edwards gets you out of that jam you have someone like Duensing who's not a high leverage reliever start a clean frame. That in turn makes him more effective at his job because most relievers are decent with no one on to start an inning.

 

[beckdawg]

What do you think of Danny Duffy, I could see the Royals going in to full mode rebuild after the year?

Duffy is probably not the cubs mold of a pitcher. He's a decently fly ball pitcher. That being said, I can see the interest some would have in him. My question is more about his k rate. Last year when he was fantastic it was 9.42 per 9. This year it's 7.04 and for his career it's 7.69. His walk rate's pretty decent so if he's over 8 k/9 he's pretty interesting but I'd worry a bit if 2016 was a mirage or not. KC is obviously going to want a return as though 2016 was his norm.

 

[ursamajor]

I'm not sure who you're referring to but if it's me I think you're missing the point. The players the cubs traded were never "the future." They were exactly how they were used which is to say trade assets. The point is a team always has more than one need. The cubs already had arguably the deepest bullpen in the race. I'm not opposed to replacing Grimm with something else but did that need to be arguably the most expensive reliever traded? And did they also need to get the most expensive back up catcher? And to contrast, how does that compare to the need the cubs will have assuming both Lackey and Arrieta leave?

There's valid points to be made on both sides. Maybe you prefer to give up prospects for Wilson rather than paying a FA reliever. And maybe you prefer to address the Lackey departure with another short term tier 2 vet in FA. But to characterize it as "throwing shade" because someone disagrees with that approach is disingenuous. It's probably true to suggest had the cubs spent less on someone besides Chapman and had they not made the Wilson trade they could have arguably had both Gray and Quintana. Whether or not that's "better" is subjective.

The great thing about baseball is there's tons of different ways to win. That's why the hot stove and trade deadline are so much more interesting than other sports. I'm not misrepresenting my views here. I came out immediately suggesting I don't buy into the theory of having a great bullpen as much as the current thinking dictates. That's not some controversial view. My thinking is fairly inline with how most of baseball felt prior to 2014 when the Royals made their run with a deep bullpen. Prior to that if you had a good set up guy and a good closer that's more or less all teams cared about. Opinions changed since then about the "right" way to build a team. And in 5 years opinions probably will be different again.

You can't ever have too deep a bullpen in the post season.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

Beckdawg,
Early 90's Reds and Yankees come right to mind.

 

[DanTown]

You'd have to point to some examples to convince me that it was prior to the Royals. This whole 3 headed bullpen monster idea wasn't really a thing until very recently where you essentially had 3 guys who were of set up or closer quality. That's more what I'm talking about because that's what has shot the price of relievers into a crazy level. First trade I remember for a closer that went into crazy levels value wise was the Kimbrel from atlanta to san diego trade. That happened after 2014. Prior to that closers certainly were traded but it was rarely for the sort of prospects we talk about now.

Edit: as an example here, Sean Marshall was one of the better relievers prior to the cubs trading him for Dave Sappelt, Ronald Torreyes and Travis Wood. If that trade had occurred in todays price Marshall would have brought back so much more and that wasn't that long ago. Trade happened in December of 2011.

Teams have always tried to have good bullpen arms but there wasn't so much an emphasis on velocity and pitching in the youth ranks 20 years to create good bullpen arms of 10 years ago. The answer to this question was guys started throwing harder and harder to get drafted when so much money was on the line so there became an abundance of elite arms to use out of the bullpen. The idea of stacking your bullpen with elite arms isn't some new idea; the Yankees did that in the mid 90s with Wettland and Rivera; what is new is the supply of elite arms so that a team can have two or three and there are still dozens of arms left on the market. What's also new is the number of a teams who aren't trying to win who take up zero of those arms. For years good relievers pitched on bad teams.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Teams have always tried to have good bullpen arms but there wasn't so much an emphasis on velocity and pitching in the youth ranks 20 years to create good bullpen arms of 10 years ago. The answer to this question was guys started throwing harder and harder to get drafted when so much money was on the line so there became an abundance of elite arms to use out of the bullpen. The idea of stacking your bullpen with elite arms isn't some new idea; the Yankees did that in the mid 90s with Wettland and Rivera; what is new is the supply of elite arms so that a team can have two or three and there are still dozens of arms left on the market. What's also new is the number of a teams who aren't trying to win who take up zero of those arms. For years good relievers pitched on bad teams.

Really excellent points. Relievers have almost always been failed starters, that hasn't changed, but as you say the quality of those starting arms has improved so the failed starters have better stuff. Carl Edwards Jr. is a good example. Twenty years ago he would have either have been used as a BOR starter, despite having near TOR stuff, because he likely wouldn't be able to handle the grind of 200 innings plus a year and would have some injury periods. Barring that he would have been used as a closer. The thought of using a guy as lights out as he is as early as the 6th inning is a new one. Part of it is that teams don't require their starters to go as long, only the best see the lineup three times anymore on a regular basis, and part of it is the quality of arms. Really good post, Dan Town.

 

[chibears55]

Bullpen arms weren't a necessity beside a good closer and set up guy as much as they have been lately because starters would go deep into games, guys in pen went a full inning or more, and maybe I'm wrong but don't recall pitch counts being a concerned ..

Look at the 1984 cubs....
They went with 5 guys in pen

Rich Bordi.... 31 G 6 GS 83 IP he was their long reliever/ 6th starter ( mostly DHers)

Warren Brusstar... 41 G 63 IP

George Frazier... 37 G 63 IP

Tim Stoddard... 58 G 92 IP set up

Lee Smith... 69 G 101 IP closer

As you see Stoddard and Smith were used more then just 1 inning alot..

They only had 13 pitchers with 17 or more Games and 7 of them were starters...

Cubs this year , already have 7 guys with 36 or more Games just out of the pen including 5 over 40 and Montgomery been used 21 times in pen (7 starts)..

Cubs have 5 relievers over 40 games already with 2 mos. to go..
1984 they had 3 total for a full season
Brusstar 41 G and set up Stoddard 58 G and Closer Smith 69 G..
Crazy...

Huge difference with baseball from just 30 yrs ago...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Teams have always tried to have good bullpen arms but there wasn't so much an emphasis on velocity and pitching in the youth ranks 20 years to create good bullpen arms of 10 years ago. The answer to this question was guys started throwing harder and harder to get drafted when so much money was on the line so there became an abundance of elite arms to use out of the bullpen. The idea of stacking your bullpen with elite arms isn't some new idea; the Yankees did that in the mid 90s with Wettland and Rivera; what is new is the supply of elite arms so that a team can have two or three and there are still dozens of arms left on the market. What's also new is the number of a teams who aren't trying to win who take up zero of those arms. For years good relievers pitched on bad teams.

Again you're talking about going with 2 elite guys for most of this time period. As you mention Wettland/Rivera. I'm sure there are other duos like this. I'm talking about having 3 elite guys like betancis(sp?) Miller and Chapman. Now I'm not saying bullpens were utterly ignored previously but the depth of quality is something new. The 7th inning guy for several playoff teams could probably close for other teams. For example look at the 99 yankees which IIRC was their best team of that era. You had Rivera who was obviously always Rivera. Mike Stanton was their set up guy and while his ERA was high really good k/9 bb/9 and his fip was decent. Ramiro Mendoza was their long guy. Then you had Jason Grimsley and Dan Naulty. That was their entire bullpen.

Brett did mention the Reds and think i'd go a bit earlier than the 90's but they are possible similar. You talk about them with Dibble, Charlton and Franco and I think they probably deserve to be in the conversation. However, they also had a 5 man bullpen. So it's a little different comparing that to now because the specialization that took place during the steroid era. From a value perspective, I think the fact you're only talking about 5 guy pens also made finding relievers then easier. The cubs right now are running a 8 man pen regularly and occasionally 9 guys. The cubs are a bit different as most teams are still going 7 guys but the volume of good relievers is going to take a dip comparative to the 90's when you're using almost double the guys.

 

[beckdawg]

So I dug in a bit on stats last night on Wilson trying to figure out why he ended up being "the guy" and I came up with something I find interesting. Typically you'd expect a LH reliever to dominate LH batters. Wilson is decent vs LH batters. His wOBA vs lefties this year is .270 and on his career it's a little worse at .293. However, the cubs surprisingly are pretty set there. He'd be the 5th best in that regard. Order goes Davis(.183), Edwards(.197), Strop(.209), Montgomery(.247) then Wilson. On the other hand, the cubs aren't nearly as set up with ROOGY's. Their best relievers vs RH batters goes Koji(.229), Duensing(.242), Edwards(.257), Rondon(.268), Davis(.290), Montgomery(.321), Strop(.323), Grimm(.330). This year vs RH batters Wilson is at .237 wOBA. That's a significant improvement vs his career .270 vs RH batters. So it could be sample size but I think it's worth considering he may just be pitching different this year. That split is over 29 innings. And on the year his K rate is way up suggesting something different is going on.

But anyways that's my best guess at an answer for the question "Why Wilson?" I think it would be fair to suggest if you need a high leverage out vs a RH batter you'd be a little wary putting in Koji or Duensing in a playoff game. Koji typically gets the job done but in the mid 80's if he goes bad he can go really bad. Duensing is better suited for lower leverage. And you don't really want to have to use Edwards to get out of a jam. Ideally you'd probably want him as your 8th inning guy.

 

[chibears55]

So I dug in a bit on stats last night on Wilson trying to figure out why he ended up being "the guy" and I came up with something I find interesting. Typically you'd expect a LH reliever to dominate LH batters. Wilson is decent vs LH batters. His wOBA vs lefties this year is .270 and on his career it's a little worse at .293. However, the cubs surprisingly are pretty set there. He'd be the 5th best in that regard. Order goes Davis(.183), Edwards(.197), Strop(.209), Montgomery(.247) then Wilson. On the other hand, the cubs aren't nearly as set up with ROOGY's. Their best relievers vs RH batters goes Koji(.229), Duensing(.242), Edwards(.257), Rondon(.268), Davis(.290), Montgomery(.321), Strop(.323), Grimm(.330). This year vs RH batters Wilson is at .237 wOBA. That's a significant improvement vs his career .270 vs RH batters. So it could be sample size but I think it's worth considering he may just be pitching different this year. That split is over 29 innings. And on the year his K rate is way up suggesting something different is going on.

But anyways that's my best guess at an answer for the question "Why Wilson?" I think it would be fair to suggest if you need a high leverage out vs a RH batter you'd be a little wary putting in Koji or Duensing in a playoff game. Koji typically gets the job done but in the mid 80's if he goes bad he can go really bad. Duensing is better suited for lower leverage. And you don't really want to have to use Edwards to get out of a jam. Ideally you'd probably want him as your 8th inning guy.

Come playoff if starters do their job and get into the 7th, Maddon best case scenario in close games if needed, would be to use the combo of Montgomery Rondon in 7th and Edwards Wilson in 8th with Davis closing it out...

Obviously it a bonus the longer the SP goes and if one guy can pitch the whole inning ...


I've got a feeling though the bats are going to be a big difference in these games more then the pitching..



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[chibears55]

So Grimm went to AAA. Kinda figured that he was the weak link.

Now I haven't heard of the 2nd guy demoted yet.

Should be Caratini

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

1990, 91 Reds - Myers, Charlton, Dibble
1997 Yankees - Rivera, Stanton, Mendoza
1998 Yankees - Rivera, Mendoza, Lloyd

 

[CSF77]

So I dug in a bit on stats last night on Wilson trying to figure out why he ended up being "the guy" and I came up with something I find interesting. Typically you'd expect a LH reliever to dominate LH batters. Wilson is decent vs LH batters. His wOBA vs lefties this year is .270 and on his career it's a little worse at .293. However, the cubs surprisingly are pretty set there. He'd be the 5th best in that regard. Order goes Davis(.183), Edwards(.197), Strop(.209), Montgomery(.247) then Wilson. On the other hand, the cubs aren't nearly as set up with ROOGY's. Their best relievers vs RH batters goes Koji(.229), Duensing(.242), Edwards(.257), Rondon(.268), Davis(.290), Montgomery(.321), Strop(.323), Grimm(.330). This year vs RH batters Wilson is at .237 wOBA. That's a significant improvement vs his career .270 vs RH batters. So it could be sample size but I think it's worth considering he may just be pitching different this year. That split is over 29 innings. And on the year his K rate is way up suggesting something different is going on.

But anyways that's my best guess at an answer for the question "Why Wilson?" I think it would be fair to suggest if you need a high leverage out vs a RH batter you'd be a little wary putting in Koji or Duensing in a playoff game. Koji typically gets the job done but in the mid 80's if he goes bad he can go really bad. Duensing is better suited for lower leverage. And you don't really want to have to use Edwards to get out of a jam. Ideally you'd probably want him as your 8th inning guy.

What I read is he has changed from a sinker to a 4 seem and his elevation of his fastball went up. He also added to his FB so it sits more towards 97.

But this has also increased his flyball rate. But he is not going back to his previous approach.

I was wanting him earlier year and honestly I'm content right now. The team has a young core so you have to support it. Wilson honestly is going to stabilize the pen getting to Davis.

And anytime that you can avoid putting the game on the line and Rondon is your only option is worth trading for.

 

[CSF77]

Should be Caratini

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

It was. They are still wanting him to back up next year. I'm alittle doubtful to What Jed put out with him. He is a league starter and holds more value to the team in a trade vs playing in a limited role. Back up catchers are dime a dozen

So imo just meant nothing. He is going back to full time because his value is higher when the winter meetings happen.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Come playoff if starters do their job and get into the 7th, Maddon best case scenario in close games if needed, would be to use the combo of Montgomery Rondon in 7th and Edwards Wilson in 8th with Davis closing it out...

Obviously it a bonus the longer the SP goes and if one guy can pitch the whole inning ...


I've got a feeling though the bats are going to be a big difference in these games more then the pitching..



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I agree that it will be important for these guys to have disciplined at bats and make pitchers work. That's been the biggest issue offensively this year IMO. Of course that said in the playoffs it's always about pitching. I think Joe is OK with his pitchers getting into a groove and getting through the 7th inning, but to be honest against tough competition he prefers to pull guys in the 6th and turn it over to his high leverage guys in teh bullpen. Wilson gives him another guy like that.

Not too long ago I heard an interesting discussion on this whole starters vs. bullpen thing. Steve Philips and C.J. Nitkowski were talking to Jon Heyman about the move to these "super pens" that's been happening more and more. Heyman had said the a lot of GMs had been telling him that they would prefer doing away with the whole starter/reliever dynamic and be able to use pitchers in whatever order made sense for matchups, etc. For example maybe you'd like Carl Edwards to pitch 3 innings to start the game because you like how his stuff plays against a certain lineup. Then maybe the second best guy takes 2 innings, etc and then you get to the late inning guys as normal. Essentially make every day a bullpen day by design, not by necessity. Nitkowski was horrified, Philips was intrigued, specifically pointing out that it would allow more flexibility and bring salaries down some, but pointed out why it will it never happen. He said in order for that to happen the "win-loss" stat would have to be eliminated entirely. He pointed out that while pitching evaluation has little to do with W-L already, that players do still get paid in part on W-L and IP at that the MLBPA would never allow the elimination of that stat because it really would tip the salary scale to the teams. They all agreed to that but again everyone was intrigued but the ex-player. I think it would make the game more interesting in some ways and less interesting in others.

 

[DanTown]

Again you're talking about going with 2 elite guys for most of this time period. As you mention Wettland/Rivera. I'm sure there are other duos like this. I'm talking about having 3 elite guys like betancis(sp?) Miller and Chapman. Now I'm not saying bullpens were utterly ignored previously but the depth of quality is something new. The 7th inning guy for several playoff teams could probably close for other teams. For example look at the 99 yankees which IIRC was their best team of that era. You had Rivera who was obviously always Rivera. Mike Stanton was their set up guy and while his ERA was high really good k/9 bb/9 and his fip was decent. Ramiro Mendoza was their long guy. Then you had Jason Grimsley and Dan Naulty. That was their entire bullpen.

Brett did mention the Reds and think i'd go a bit earlier than the 90's but they are possible similar. You talk about them with Dibble, Charlton and Franco and I think they probably deserve to be in the conversation. However, they also had a 5 man bullpen. So it's a little different comparing that to now because the specialization that took place during the steroid era. From a value perspective, I think the fact you're only talking about 5 guy pens also made finding relievers then easier. The cubs right now are running a 8 man pen regularly and occasionally 9 guys. The cubs are a bit different as most teams are still going 7 guys but the volume of good relievers is going to take a dip comparative to the 90's when you're using almost double the guys.

The thing you have to remember is the number of quality arms in teams systems is higher and teams realize the importance of the "middle" innings. For decades, if you pitched in the sixth it was seen as a sign of being a weaker reliever but now teams understand that leverage is important in those innings as well. The influence of "sabermetrics" in to the sport has mostly been seen in how teams field their rosters. There are no "designated" pinch hitter types like Lenny Harris or Matt Stairs so teams could keep more bullpen arms thus the need for better quality arms arose.

There is no one pancea that answers why 2017 bullpens are better than 2007 or 1997; there have been probably close a dozen small shifts in how the sport is played so now teams don't just care about their closer.

 

[beckdawg]

I agree that it will be important for these guys to have disciplined at bats and make pitchers work. That's been the biggest issue offensively this year IMO. Of course that said in the playoffs it's always about pitching. I think Joe is OK with his pitchers getting into a groove and getting through the 7th inning, but to be honest against tough competition he prefers to pull guys in the 6th and turn it over to his high leverage guys in teh bullpen. Wilson gives him another guy like that.

Not too long ago I heard an interesting discussion on this whole starters vs. bullpen thing. Steve Philips and C.J. Nitkowski were talking to Jon Heyman about the move to these "super pens" that's been happening more and more. Heyman had said the a lot of GMs had been telling him that they would prefer doing away with the whole starter/reliever dynamic and be able to use pitchers in whatever order made sense for matchups, etc. For example maybe you'd like Carl Edwards to pitch 3 innings to start the game because you like how his stuff plays against a certain lineup. Then maybe the second best guy takes 2 innings, etc and then you get to the late inning guys as normal. Essentially make every day a bullpen day by design, not by necessity. Nitkowski was horrified, Philips was intrigued, specifically pointing out that it would allow more flexibility and bring salaries down some, but pointed out why it will it never happen. He said in order for that to happen the "win-loss" stat would have to be eliminated entirely. He pointed out that while pitching evaluation has little to do with W-L already, that players do still get paid in part on W-L and IP at that the MLBPA would never allow the elimination of that stat because it really would tip the salary scale to the teams. They all agreed to that but again everyone was intrigued but the ex-player. I think it would make the game more interesting in some ways and less interesting in others.

The problem you'd run into doing that is largely the same you have with closers being used outside the 9th. Arbitration for some silly reason pays differently based on where you pitch instead of how you pitch. In my view I think the way forward is to piggy back starters. If you look at the difference between successful starters and long guys who are largely worthless it's often just a case of one being able to get through the line up a third time and another who can't. However, if you have 2 guys who each pitch roughly 4 innings that's no longer an issue and suddenly you're getting far more value out of your relievers and protecting your young pitchers against big time inning usage.

Every statistical fiber of my being tells me that the specialization route teams have gone is terrible value for relievers. You have some closers making $15 mil a year to pitch 60 innings. There's something wrong with that. I don't think you can entirely do away with specialization because there's always going to be value in guys who dominate one split who can get out of tough jams. But if you had say 8 or 9 guys who could feasibly pitch 4-5 innings and then have a couple days off with 3-4 guys you use nightly in higher leverage situations I think you could skirt a lot of the issues teams have with finding pitching right now. A guy walks too many betters but has dynamite stuff? Let him go 80-90 pitches over 4 innings. A guy who's good for 2 trips through the oder but gets shelled after seeing him a bit? Ditto.

The difficult part is getting buy in from the players and figuring out the most efficient use pattern. But I think eventually some team with little to lose is going to try it.

 

[CSF77]

The problem you'd run into doing that is largely the same you have with closers being used outside the 9th. Arbitration for some silly reason pays differently based on where you pitch instead of how you pitch. In my view I think the way forward is to piggy back starters. If you look at the difference between successful starters and long guys who are largely worthless it's often just a case of one being able to get through the line up a third time and another who can't. However, if you have 2 guys who each pitch roughly 4 innings that's no longer an issue and suddenly you're getting far more value out of your relievers and protecting your young pitchers against big time inning usage.

Every statistical fiber of my being tells me that the specialization route teams have gone is terrible value for relievers. You have some closers making $15 mil a year to pitch 60 innings. There's something wrong with that. I don't think you can entirely do away with specialization because there's always going to be value in guys who dominate one split who can get out of tough jams. But if you had say 8 or 9 guys who could feasibly pitch 4-5 innings and then have a couple days off with 3-4 guys you use nightly in higher leverage situations I think you could skirt a lot of the issues teams have with finding pitching right now. A guy walks too many betters but has dynamite stuff? Let him go 80-90 pitches over 4 innings. A guy who's good for 2 trips through the oder but gets shelled after seeing him a bit? Ditto.

The difficult part is getting buy in from the players and figuring out the most efficient use pattern. But I think eventually some team with little to lose is going to try it.

The whole 3rd time has more to do with stuff. Hendricks had this issue even last year where he is a location guy vs a stuff guy but after 2x the hitters were nearing .300 against him.

So some guys add another pitch that the use more latter inning to give another look.

I remember there was this ex Padre that went 4 seem early inning and as his arm tired his ball gained more movement so he switched to a 2 seem which was like facing another pitcher in the 3rd AB

 

[beckdawg]

The whole 3rd time has more to do with stuff.

I mean not really. It's something that effects everyone it's just people with worse stuff fall off harder.