Someone threatens to sit out every year. He's not actually going to do it because it would be monumentally stupid.
Building a Bullpen, 2019 edition
- Thread starter Yelling At Clouds
- Start date
Rosenthal / Kimbrel's agent refutes Bowden's report.
Ken RosenthalVerified account @Ken_Rosenthal 4m4 minutes ago
Craig Kimbrel’s agent, David Meter, on the report that Kimbrel is considering sitting out the season: “The report is wholly inaccurate and Craig looks forward to signing a new contract in the near future. Any report pertaining to his not playing this season is utterly false.”
basically it's pick who you believe for now.
Ken RosenthalVerified account @Ken_Rosenthal 4m4 minutes ago
Craig Kimbrel’s agent, David Meter, on the report that Kimbrel is considering sitting out the season: “The report is wholly inaccurate and Craig looks forward to signing a new contract in the near future. Any report pertaining to his not playing this season is utterly false.”
basically it's pick who you believe for now.
Sign me up for going with "Closer by committee".
1. Cora has plenty of rope from fans and media to try this out over a prolonged time.
2. Cora is an excellent communicator with the players. I'd think preparing relievers on a series by series OR game by game basis would come into play here.
3. Cora is comfortable with advanced analytics and has shown the ability to be calculating/unemotional if necessary
4. The Sox play plenty of high leverage games, so we'd get a good sample size to see if this works.
5. The high cost of Closers could be a market inefficiency that the Sox could exploit and use those savings to retain some of their position players coming up to FA
6. I'd like to see our long reliever always have a minor league option. SO if we burn him they can immediately shuttle him to AAA and summon a fresh arm.
7. If this is a complete failure, make a deal for a reliever at the trade deadline
I think to some degree 2 obviates 3 to a degree.
Like, once we stop being cynical, maybe he can just be all like, "Hey, this will help us win," and the players are all like, "Awesome!"
And as we learned from 2003 and 2018, opening day bullpen meltdowns directly correlate with the success of the rest of the season.
I know you’re being snide, and Grady Little is different from Alex Cora, but the reason Pedro was pitching with 2 outs in the 8th inning and a 1 run lead of game 7 of the ALCS was because the Red Sox didn’t have a consistently reliable closer in 2003. And then they got Keith Foulke for 2004.
Bullshit.
Timlin in the 8th; Williamson in the 9th; would have been a meme back then if such a thing existed. As it was, it was still many Soshers’ quote and at least one poster’s name.
My point was a little different. Its that what happens Opening Day doesn't mean shit; good teams don't lose 100 games because the bullpen shits the bed in the opener.
(And Pedro never got the 2nd out in Game 7)
While they may not have had a reliable closer during the 2003 season, Williamson was undeniably the closer throughout the post season. Pretty much every game they won, he was in there, and pitching pretty well. And more often than not, Timlin was setting up. Sometimes Embree was mixed in and they had some help from Lowe in the ALDS. But all 3 wins in the ALCS were a Timlin/Willamson combo.
2003 post season stats
Timlin 8 games, 9.2 ip, 1 hit, 11k/2bb (one intentional). 0RA 0.00 era. .310 WHIP
Williamson 8 games, 8.0ip, 3 hits, 14k/3bb. 1RA/1er 1.13 era. .750 WHIP
Embree 8 games, 6.2ip, 4 hits, 1k/0bb. 0 RA, 0.00 era, .600 WHIP.
Combined 24 games, 24.1ip, 8 hits, 26k/5bb. 1 RA/1er. 0.37 era, .534 WHIP.
Arroyo 3 games, 3.1 ip, 2 hits, 5k/2bb. 1RA/1er, 2.70 era, 1.200 WHIP. All against the Yankees.
I think his main argument has some merit regarding the 2019 club if you change it to "consistently reliable bullpen arm." Barnes has had stretches of dominance and stretches of meh. Of course, that's the case with a lot of bullpen arms.
Can we get back to this year and not stir up the obviously (to all of us at the time, and in retrospect) terrible decision made by Grady Little.
That’s why I said consistently reliable closer. Sure Williamson, Timlin, and Embree were great in the postseason (and Timlin and Embree were fine set up men all year). But BH Kim entered that offseason as the closer. And when he got into trouble in game 1 in Oakland, they went to Embree. Williamson had been a disaster between the deadline trade and the end of the season. No one thought he was going to be a key cog in the playoff run. Timlin had been given many opportunities to close in his career, and always ended up back as a set up man.
If the 2003 team had a Keith’s foulke or a Craig Kimbral, or a Jonathan Papelbon, he’s have been out there in the 8th that night.
Which does not excuse Grady Little failing to make the obvious move because one of them had a cold sore that afternoon he attributed to nerves.
No one expected Joe Kelly to be a key cog in the 2018 playoff run and Kimbrell was the worst pitcher on the team not named EdRod or Workman. You never really know what you are going to get over the course of a maximum 20 games. If you win the WS, chances are quite a few people no one thought would be key cogs end up being key cogs. Eovaldi and Pearce were vital, and they weren't even on the team to start the year. Bogaerts and Betts hit about as well as Sandy Leon.
You said this earlier:
I'm not sure how you can argue closer by committee isn't inherently a bad idea while also saying the Sox lost because they didn't have a consistently reliable closer. I'm not even sure a closer by committee can exist with a consistently reliable closer. Isn't "consistently reliable closer" the bullpen strategy pretty much every team has employed since Tony LaRussa? If you are consistently going to the same guy to close your games, that is not a closer by committee. That's just more of the same.
Yeah, it would definitely take a renegade to have 2 or 3 aces and and use them all like a relief ace rather than put them in straight jacket roles. The closest is probably how Francona used Miller and Allen in 2016. OTOH KC didn’t do it when they had their troika. Or, suppose the Yankees decided to do bullpen by committee this year? Wow.
Putting my previous post differently to be clearer, Bullpen by committee is almost always used to cover for a weakness, not as a way to further maximize a strength. Because of that, it gets a bad rap.
I don't know if this is true. It's almost never really been used because of irrational fears after one or two 9th inning implosions. What team has used it?
The BPbC makes the most sense even if you do have a "consistently reliable bullpen arm". What is the thinking that the 9th inning is the most important? I know this has been hashed over a brazillion times but during a season, would you rather bring in your best pitcher in a 7th inning one run lead or a 9th inning 3 run lead?
What team has done this consistently throughout a season (not just in the playoffs...?)
I *think* Cora's approach is also aimed at having the better pitcher pitch against the better hitters. So 7th inning 1 run lead bottom of the order vs. 9th inning 3run lead top of the order. At least that seemed to be guiding his usage last post-season. Obviously, the pitchers are different, but that's a strategy that can carry over. Its also a bit more "defined," (to the extent that relievers will be doing something new to them) in that the batting order more fixed than leverage.
I *think* P91's point is that teams that have done "closer by committee" during the regular season typically do it because they don't have a dominant pitcher in their bullpen. They may have one or more above average relievers, along with a couple of JAG's. But even above average relievers will spit the bit more often than a dominant pitcher like Kimbrel (who really was dominant until the playoffs). The 2018 Sox were one of those teams that had both a dominant reliever and several guys who would qualify as above average (Barnes, Brasier, Kelly on his good days).
As for the designated relief ace model (aka, putting your best pitcher in the highest leverage situation), it remains to be seen if it can work over the course of the regular season. It should on paper, but real life doesn't always mimic paper. The biggest issue is that you need a front office that is willing to let the manager determine the highest leverage point in the game, and not get upset if the one run game in the 7th is still a one run game in the 9th, and the second or third best reliever has to come in to close and blows the game open in the process.
As for the designated relief ace model (aka, putting your best pitcher in the highest leverage situation), it remains to be seen if it can work over the course of the regular season. It should on paper, but real life doesn't always mimic paper. The biggest issue is that you need a front office that is willing to let the manager determine the highest leverage point in the game, and not get upset if the one run game in the 7th is still a one run game in the 9th, and the second or third best reliever has to come in to close and blows the game open in the process.
Closer by committee and the relief ace model both were THE model employed by teams prior to the LaRussa 1-inning closer model becoming the standard. That was how guys like Gossage and Fingers were deployed back in the 70s. The notion that it "remains to be seen" if it can work in the regular season puts seems like recency bias more than anything.
I'm not saying we need to return to the days of Dick Radatz throwing 5 innings of relief every other day and blowing himself out before age 30, but the idea of bringing in Matt Barnes in the 6th on Monday then the 8th on Wednesday then the 9th on Saturday for 2-3 outs each time, based on optimal match-ups, isn't going to turn the world upside down.
I'm not saying we need to return to the days of Dick Radatz throwing 5 innings of relief every other day and blowing himself out before age 30, but the idea of bringing in Matt Barnes in the 6th on Monday then the 8th on Wednesday then the 9th on Saturday for 2-3 outs each time, based on optimal match-ups, isn't going to turn the world upside down.
The problem with that is you only know what the highest leverage situation in a game was after the fact. You have to deploy your relievers as the game unfolds. More importantly, you have to warm them up in advance of what you think may be the highest leverage point in the game. It's a lot harder to do in practice than in theory.
That's why I think it will be targeted at least as much to who is coming up than a detailed leverage analysis. Lineup turnover is somewhat more predictable. IIRC Cora explained his usage patterns last post-season based on that.
A couple of thoughts on this....Whatever length of "rope" Cora has in this matter starts in the center and moves at the speed and direction determined by not only the success of the committee, but where the Sox happen to be in the standings. Cora can look the genius if it works and if it doesn't it will likely be more of a stain on DD and ownership for not getting an established closer.
Ditto for Thornburg. I watch his outing today and There’s just no there there. Was hoping to see better after all the happy talk coming in February.
My point was, it's really, really early. Results so far are even less meaningful than in-season small samples, because pitchers are still working on specific pitches etc. rather than necessarily focusing on getting outs.
Do you think that’s as true for people trying to make the team as it is for an established veteran? Thornburg could be released this spring. Brewer probably would rather not start the season in Rhode Island. They don’t have the luxury of sucking.
Like all inflexible blanket statements, this is not always true. And it is in particular not true for players on the bubble.
And, as I noted, Thornburg’s “stats” have perfectly matched his nonexistent stuff, which has been consistently absent since Dombrowski traded a starting 3B and 3 prospects for this particular middle reliever.
Can't predict injuries and the prospects weren't really prospects. Travis Shaw would be nice but no one saw him being much better than average (which has value) and there was hope Thornburg would be a lights out arm. Granted this team hasn't had much luck at all trading prospects for bullpen arms.
Yes, it is.
Care to make any more judgements that'll be proven ultimately worthless in a few weeks?
So, why did Jackie Bradley make the team out of spring training in 2014? For you to be correct, you’d have to believe he would have made the team if he’d hit .150 with no home runs that spring.
...and to ignore the possibility that coaches may tell a pitcher, "Just throw fastballs today. I want to see 80% fastballs...", or "let's work on the cutter.." is absurd.
I don't know?
Perhaps ask the coaches and training staff from that season. They could likely tell you, seeing as they had all the inside information and context on what was going on down there at any given time and we do not.
Common sense would also tell you that stats do not matter when results of games don't matter and you don't know which players are trying and which are experimenting, working on something, or not going all out.
Sure, that’s absolutely true if that player is a lock to make the roster, or a young prospect who is a lock to be sent down. Nobody should get bent out of shape if David Price has a spring ERA of 9 or Betts hits .140. Totally agree.
It doesn’t make sense at all for a bubble player like Brewer or Thornburg to “not be going all out.” And, as I said, I watched Thornburg’s outing. He wasn’t throwing new pitches, or throwing only cutters, or anything like that. He was pitching to get people out, and showing disgust when he gave up line drive after line drive.
More to the point, how many times has the been a true open competition for a roster spot coming out of spring training and that spot goes to the player who performed demonstrably worse?
Last edited:
Are you really this dense?
Player A hit a bomb today and player B struck out swinging. Player A went against Brian Johnson throwing nothing but fastballs, player B went against Chris Sale throwing an inning of his normal repertoire at 100%. Tell me how those results matter?
You don't even know which players are in direct competitions nor do you have the proper context to analyze any of their performances at a time when results are not the focus. Alex Cora does, you do not.
So using the language you prefer, on Sunday, Tyler Thornburg pitched an inning using his full arsenal against minor league filler and got rocked. There’s your context, Pollyanna.
That's a hell of an effort. Great work. Continue kvetching over useless projection sites and spring training stats, I'll continue being correct.
Thornburg get torched and walks 2 while striking out none again today. But it’s ok. He’s been so solid the past two years, I’m sure he’s just out there going through the motions and getting ready for the season, not concerned about results at all. Maybe he walked those guys on purpose to get in some work on his pickoff move. He’s progressing perfectly, according to Baghdad Bob over here.
this experiment is not working out great so far, and is further hurt by swingman Wright not being available for a significant stretch once again. you never want to look into spring training too much, but Thornburg in particular does look like dead weight.
still 3 more weeks to figure out something at least to start the season.
still 3 more weeks to figure out something at least to start the season.
Other than Kimbrel, I’m wondering who’s out there who would be less of a question mark than who they’ve got, though. In other words, if they’re sorting through a bunch of flawed options, they why not just gamble on the flawed options you’ve already got?
To be clear, I’m not suggesting things are good or even ok, only that there aren’t a lot of great options out there.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting things are good or even ok, only that there aren’t a lot of great options out there.