65 replies to this topic

[SoxScout]

Sounds like Bailey is out a while, if you had to pick it would be....

[soxfan121]

Committee. Its time has come again.

[rembrat]

Committee. Its time has come again.

I don't believe Valentine is fond of this approach so I think it falls on Melancon. Aceves was in the mix before it became clear that a replacement closer would be needed for a few months. Given that Aceves is also the first in-line to spot start it wouldn't seem likely that Valentine would give him a fixed role as the closer.

[wutang112878]

I voted Other for Bard.


It seems more logical in the short-term to make Bard the closer and Aceves a starter, basically a slight change for each, than vice-versa. And if Bailey comes back, then maybe you move Aceves to that oddball pen roll and Bard to a starter which also helps keep either of their innings down.

My prediction on what will happen is that Melancon gets the job for say a month or so, and if he cant handle it and Bard isnt incredible as a starter then Bobby V starts making some interesting comments to the media

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I voted Other for Bard.


It seems more logical in the short-term to make Bard the closer and Aceves a starter, basically a slight change for each, than vice-versa. And if Bailey comes back, then maybe you move Aceves to that oddball pen roll and Bard to a starter which also helps keep either of their innings down.

My prediction on what will happen is that Melancon gets the job for say a month or so, and if he cant handle it and Bard isnt incredible as a starter then Bobby V starts making some interesting comments to the media

No way do they move Bard to the closer's spot and consider moving him back to the rotation later in the season.

Your prediction (Melancon for at least a month then re-evaluate)...that's exactly what they'll end up doing. That's the way Ben set it up, that's got to be the first option. If it fails, they'll try something else.

[Rasputin]

Melancon gets first shot. I think that should be obvious.

Bard, to me is only going to get removed from the rotation if he can't cut it or for an innings limit and is pretty much the last option otherwise.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I voted Aceves because I like Melancon best as a set-up guy -- but that's before I saw 121's suggestion of a committee.

I would so love for the Sox to do that, especially once Bard and Doubront are back in the pen.

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

Bill Parcells?

I vote for Aceves.

[Rasputin]

I completely don't get the love for Aceves at closer.

He puts more people on base than other candidates and it negates the ability that makes him an asset.

[Foulkey Reese]

Without anything at all to back this up, I have a feeling that Aceves can pull one awesome season as a closer out of his ass. Let Melancon get the big outs that Bard got last year, and let Aceves get the saves.

Edited by Foulkey Reese, 03 April 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[wutang112878]

No way do they move Bard to the closer's spot and consider moving him back to the rotation later in the season.

Its not ideal after how they prepared him during the spring, but even if they dont say it I cant imagine they would let him throw 140+ innings this year, however thats just my assumption. But if that is true, I think it would be more effective to ease him into the closer role over the next week or two and let Melancon take some instead of letting Melancon close and if cant cut it after a month then Bard needs to be converted over and we had a month of less than ideal results with the Melancon experiment. The real upside I see to making Bard the closer now is that mid-season if Bailey comes back or Melancon is incredible, they could try to convert Bard to a starter at the AS break. Rather than having Bard start for a month or so, then move to closer, then he has to be the closer for the rest of the year or its 2 transitions mid-season, that sounds kind of tough to me.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Without anything at all to back this up, I have a feeling that Aceves can pull one awesome season as a closer out of his ass. Let Melancon get the big outs that Bard got last year, and let Aceves get the saves.

Seriously -- when great wants too much money or breaks its thumb, you can still get crazy.

Aceves is 35 Saves and a Pancho Villa moustache away from Boston immortality.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

I went "other" because the question asked whom i would choose, not Bobby or Ben and i'd also go committee. Stamping Melancon as closer will happen, but i think that just adds more pressure than its worth. I'd let Aceves get a 7-out save if he could do it, then patch together a three-pitcher "save" the next day playing matchups.

Media would bring up 2003, but i don't care as long as it works. Pitchers like to know their roles, i know, but how much do they like being named "closer" then getting relegated to the sixth inning after two weeks of suck?

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

Its not ideal after how they prepared him during the spring, but even if they dont say it I cant imagine they would let him throw 140+ innings this year, however thats just my assumption. But if that is true, I think it would be more effective to ease him into the closer role over the next week or two and let Melancon take some instead of letting Melancon close and if cant cut it after a month then Bard needs to be converted over and we had a month of less than ideal results with the Melancon experiment. The real upside I see to making Bard the closer now is that mid-season if Bailey comes back or Melancon is incredible, they could try to convert Bard to a starter at the AS break. Rather than having Bard start for a month or so, then move to closer, then he has to be the closer for the rest of the year or its 2 transitions mid-season, that sounds kind of tough to me.

There is no way they take an already stretched out Bard, put him in as closer for a couple months, then stretch him back out so he can be a starter after the All-Star break when Bailey could be ready. That makes no sense. Bard is already stretched out, let him start till he proves he can't, if it doesn't waork out simply shift him to closer. There is no conversion to closer, he simply hops in the pen and throws one inning at the end of the game. You don't have to slowly work him down in innings, If a guy can pitch 5 or 6innings to start a game hecan easily throw 1 inning to end it.

Edited by Carl Everetts Therapist, 03 April 2012 - 01:19 PM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

There is no way they take an already stretched out Bard, put him in as closer for a couple months, then stretch him back out so he can be a starter after the All-Star break when Bailey could be ready. That makes no sense. Bard is already stretched out, let him start till he proves he can't, if it doesn't waork out simply shift him to closer. There is no conversion to closer, he simply hops in the pen and throws one inning at the end of the game. You don't have to slowly work him down in innings, If a guy can pitch 5 or 6innings to start a game hecan easily throw 1 inning to end it.

If there is a transition to be made going from starter to reliever (be it closer or not), it is in adjusting to pitching on back to back days. But that's not a difficult or lengthy transition, I imagine, especially for a pitcher who has been in the role before.

[Toe Nash]

Without anything at all to back this up, I have a feeling that Aceves can pull one awesome season as a closer out of his ass. Let Melancon get the big outs that Bard got last year, and let Aceves get the saves.

He already pulled an awesome season as a swingman out of his ass. I don't think a repeat is very likely.

[pokey_reese]

I voted Melancon, and it feels like an obvious one to me. Your set-up guy usually becomes the closer when the closer goes down, presumably because he is the second best reliever. Not to mention, ours has closing experience.

This is an Occam's Razor situation in my mind. "Don't egg-head in the ghetto," as Ray Smuckles would say.

[Eric Van]

Ostensibly, officially, Melancon.

Actually, in practice, committee.

See how long it takes Cafardo and the CHB to notice.

[Manramsclan]

Melancon

He's been a successful closer at the major league level.

I think that when Ben acquired him, I think the Sox were comfortable with him being the closer if they weren't able to complete any additional deals. This may have pre-empted Bard to the rotation, but the point stands. Once Melancon was acquired it was easier to take a risk on the dominant but fragile Bailey, and the Sox were covered for the 8th and 9th with a contingency plan at closer if Bailey got hurt. Well, it came much earlier than we all thought it would but the choice is clear: Melancon is the guy.

Putting Aceves in the closer role limits his best qualities: his flexibility and an ability to pitch multiple innings.
Padilla doesn't get the nod from me because he has less experience closing than Melancon.

The argument that he should stay in the 8th inning because he is the best pitcher doesn't apply here in my opinion because although I agree that he is the best pitcher in the bullpen(minus Bailey) this guy has already closed. He also isn't a guy with crazy stuff like Aroldis Chapman or Bard who necessarily fits the profile of relief ace who has better stuff than his more established closer counterpart. He's a guy in the low-90's who gets ground balls with his cutter. He's an effective pitcher who can close. Interestingly enough, Melancon strikes out more batters per 9 than I expected with 7.9 K/9 over 112 innings in the big leagues. That rate is consistent with his minor league numbers so that could continue. All signs point to be him being successful in either role but why would the Red Sox decide to go with an unproven commodity in the closer role rather than a proven one?

[Rudy Pemberton]

Melancon has experience closing. Of course, it was with one of the worst team's in modern history, so he's in for something a bit different with the Sox.

At this point, i think you consider Bailey done for the year (and anything you get is gravy) and see what's out there (although it's likely guys like K-Rod, Gregg, Thornton, etc), and who knows if the Sox would want to blow whatever payroll flexibility they have (if they do in fact have any) on such a guy.

Ugh. Think this pen may make folks really, really miss Papelbon.

(If this truly is only 6-8 weeks, than there's no need to acquire anyone. That sounds optimistic, hope its not).

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 03 April 2012 - 02:40 PM.

[nvalvo]

I voted Padilla, because I think both Aceves and Melancon should be used more flexibly. I'm especially excited about Melancon's groundball abilities, which should be really useful putting out fires. I imagine a lot of situations where, say, Buchholz leaves a close game with one out in the seventh and men on first and second — perfect Melancon situation.

Padilla isn't great, but he throws strikes, and that's usually enough to protect a lead for an inning. I'd also be more than open to a committee arrangement, and I think that Valentine has the attitude to pull it off. Imagine how disdainfully he'll treat the first journalist to criticize him over it!

The real cost of that approach is giving saves to all our pre-Arb relievers, but it isn't my money...

[TheGoldenGreek33]

Pretty obvious choice, Melancon and I don't base that on closer-mindset™. He gets ground balls and pitches well with runners on. I worry about him against lefties, but for the past few years he's been very solid pitching in high leverage situations. He'll be just fine. And if not, it all depends on how Bard fares in the rotation. But I'm not going to sit here and stress about a guy that's going to throw 5% of the teams' total innings.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I voted for Melancon, for the same reasons stated by multiple people above.

Additionally though, I hope, that they explore the market for bullpen arms as it looks like an obvious need at this point. The Dallas Morning News is reporting that Texas is listening to offers on Koji Uehara. If the cost isn't prohibitive, he'd be a good addition.

[aron7awol]

I look at the problem like this: In the bullpen, you will have two guys who get the very high leverage innings (around 1.75 LI), and the rest you fill in with specialists and medium leverage guys. Who do you put in each role to maximize value?

Leverage of 2011 Sox relievers (20 IP minimum):
Aceves 93.0 IP, 0.96 pLI
Bard 73.0 IP, 1.69 pLI
Albers 64.2 IP, 0.93 pLI
Papelbon 64.1 IP, 1.69 pLI
Wheeler 49.1 IP, 0.44 pLI
Morales 32.1 IP, 0.94 pLI
Atchison 30.1 IP, 0.31 pLI
Bowden 20.0 IP, 0.17 pLI

Definite 2012 Starters:
Beckett
Lester
Buchholz

Definite 2012 Relievers:
Melancon

2012 Moving Parts (Starters/Relievers):
Bard
Doubront
Padilla
Aceves
Cook

You know you will give Melancon one of the two high leverage reliever slots, so you have one high leverage reliever slot left and two starter slots left. I'll do some quick and dirty valuations of guys in each role based on a replacement level ERA of 4.00 for relievers and 5.00 for starters. For estimating ERA difference between roles, SIERA estimates a 0.37 ERA difference, and Nate Silver used 25% as a difference in a similar exercise on Papelbon. I'll look at the values using both. You may not completely agree with my projections, but everyone can take it for what it's worth...

Bard, reliever: 75 IP, 3.00 ERA - Value: 8.33 x 1.75 LI = 14.58
Bard, starter (25% ERA adj): 200 IP, 3.75 ERA - Value: 27.78
Bard, starter (0.37 ERA adj): 200 IP, 3.37 ERA - Value: 36.22
Bard's breakeven point as a starter using these numbers: 200 IP, 4.34 ERA - Value: 14.67

Doubront, starter: 200 IP, 4.50 ERA - Value: 11.11
Doubront, reliever (25% ERA adj): 75 IP, 3.60 ERA - Value: 3.33 x 1.75 LI = 5.83
Doubront, reliever (0.37 ERA adj): 75 IP, 4.13 ERA - Value: -1.08 x 1.75 LI = -1.90

Padilla, starter: 200 IP, 4.00 ERA - Value: 22.22
Padilla, reliever (25% ERA adj): 75 IP, 3.20 ERA - Value: 6.67 x 1.75 LI = 11.67
Padilla, reliever (0.37 ERA adj): 75 IP, 3.63 ERA - Value: 3.08 x 1.75 LI = 5.40

Aceves really has three potential roles. He could be in a role similar to 2011, where he pitches more innings at medium leverage (he pitched 93.0 IP with a 0.96 pLI), you could give him the second very high leverage spot, or you could make him a starter. I'm giving Aceves a rosier projection than I'd like here to make his lovers on this board happy, even though I think he'll be worse. I'm also going to try the answer the question of whether he is more valuable in a similar role to 2011 or in a high leverage role.

Aceves, multi-inning reliever: 100 IP, 3.75 ERA - Value: 2.78
Aceves, high-lev reliever: 75 IP, 3.75 ERA - Value: 2.08 x 1.75 LI = 3.65
Aceves, starter (25% ERA adj): 200 IP, 4.68 ERA - Value: 7.11
Aceves, starter (0.37 ERA adj): 200 IP, 4.12 ERA - Value: 19.56

Cook, starter: 200 IP, 4.00 ERA - Value: 22.22

Based on all of this, I'd give Bard one of the starter slots, Cook the other, and give Padilla the second high leverage reliever slot until Bailey comes back. However, at this point in the season, keeping your depth is extremely important, so I'd actually keep Cook in the minors until May 1st.

Maximizing value using 25% estimates, ignoring depth:
Bard, starter - 27.78
Cook, starter - 22.22
Padilla, reliever - 11.67
Total: 61.67

Leaving Cook in AAA to keep depth for now:
Bard, starter - 27.78
Padilla, starter - 22.22
Doubront, reliever - 5.83
Total: 55.83

Maximizing value using 0.37 estimates, ignoring depth:
Bard, starter - 36.22
Cook, starter - 22.22
Padilla, reliever - 5.40
Total: 63.84

Leaving Cook in AAA to keep depth for now:
Bard, starter - 36.22
Padilla, starter - 22.22
Aceves, reliever - 3.65
Total: 62.09

Even though this analysis says Padilla should be starting over Doubront, I can understand the decision to let Doubront start for now. You can't have him in the rotation all year due to his innings limit, but he is coming into his age 24 season and looks like he's improved. He's very difficult to project, and my 4.50 ERA projection for him may be too conservative. I like the idea of giving him April to show what he can do, and then you re-evaluate when you are forced to make a roster decision with Cook. In that month, one of the starters could go down and then you don't have a roster issue.

My vote is for Melancon to close, with Padilla taking the setup role and Bard and Doubront as the starters. On May 1st, you re-evaluate.

[soxfan121]

I went "other" because the question asked whom i would choose, not Bobby or Ben and i'd also go committee. Stamping Melancon as closer will happen, but i think that just adds more pressure than its worth. I'd let Aceves get a 7-out save if he could do it, then patch together a three-pitcher "save" the next day playing matchups.

Media would bring up 2003, but i don't care as long as it works. Pitchers like to know their roles, i know, but how much do they like being named "closer" then getting relegated to the sixth inning after two weeks of suck?

I approve of this post. Well said.

Melancon - He's been a successful closer at the major league level.

The cellar of the NL Central is not the major league level and the term "successful closer" makes my skin crawl.

Viva Doug Jones and Bob Wickman.

[Lefty on the Mound]

I like Padilla as the intimadator-closer. His reputation as a guy not afraid to "come inside" should keep batters off balance in the 9th inning and prevent them from crowding the plate.

[drtooth]

We might want to change out thinking on the term "interim closer". See DRS comments in the Bailey thread. If the earliest we are seeing him is August (if indeed he has a UCL tear), this is going to be the long-term (at least for this year) closer. Padilla has not closed for a full season. Melancon has. This has the potential to be a train-wreck of a pen.

Edited by drtooth, 03 April 2012 - 03:14 PM.

[Sprowl]

Melancon has experience closing in 2011. Aceves has experience as an all-purpose relief ace in September 2011. When everything else is uncertain, go with experience.

[maufman]

I look at the problem like this: In the bullpen, you will have two guys who get the very high leverage innings (around 1.75 LI), and the rest you fill in with specialists and medium leverage guys. Who do you put in each role to maximize value?

Only seven relievers in MLB had an LI of 1.75 or better last season (minimum 50 IP). It's a tribute to Tito's managerial skills that the Sox had two of those seven. (Bard was in the top five in 2010 also.)

A lot of our conversations about the bullpen rest on the unexamined assumption that Bobby V is likely to manage the bullpen similar to how Tito managed it. For example, why are we so sure that whoever is tagged the "closer" will seldom be asked to get more than 3 outs or enter a game with runners on base?

Edited by maufman, 03 April 2012 - 04:33 PM.

[SoxScout]

DidierMorais

Melancon on stepping in for Bailey: "I'm ready". Said it with a smile on his face

Edited by SoxScout, 03 April 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[Manramsclan]

The cellar of the NL Central is not the major league level and the term "successful closer" makes my skin crawl.

How is the cellar of the NL central not the major league level. He plays other teams in the major leagues correct? And some of those teams are fourth, third, second and first place teams correct?

I understand the whole argument here but it borders on religion. There really is such a thing as a successful closer. This isn't a guy who got the role because he was "and established Closer" (sucky pitchers like Eddie Guardado come to mind) but because he was outpitching everyone else and was able to succeed in that role. He wasn't going to be the closer on this team because there was a better pitcher for the role. Without that guy, he's the next best pitcher for the role.

Edited by Manramsclan, 03 April 2012 - 06:12 PM.

[TheGoldenGreek33]

Thanks to soxhop411:

RT/@ESPNStatsInfo: Nearly 58% of balls put in play vs Mark Melancon last yr were ground balls: highest rate among RP w/ 20+ saves.

[JimBoSox9]

Thanks to soxhop411:

Where do I place my "SoSH will blame Youkilis, Aviles, or BABIP for every Melancon blown save in 2012" bet?

Edited by JimBoSox9, 03 April 2012 - 06:31 PM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Why is Chad Fox not an option?

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Why is Chad Fox not an option?

Why are you using 2003-World-Series-Champions-Closer Chad Fox for that example?

[Rasputin]

Why is Chad Fox not an option?

Carl Crawford.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Carl Crawford.

What ever happened to that guy?

[JakeRae]

I chose Melancon due to the fact that Aceves really needs to be kept in a role where he will be used for multiple innings on a semi-regular basis. I'd rather the team have a consistent closer option for the season, so that rules out Padilla, who can't stay healthy. Melancon has closing experience (something I don't value but MLB managers seem to) and is the most reasonable choice in light of Padilla's injury history and Aceves' versatility.

It's not that I don't think Aceves could close. The skill inherent in closing is generally overstated and Aceves is a good reliever. But, Aceves is a fairly unique player given his ability to throw 100+ innings out of the bullpen and putting him in a role where he'll only throw 70 or so innings seems like a waste of one of his best attributes.

[someoneanywhere]

Why is Chad Fox not an option?

Because Billy Wagner is left-handed. Ben, make it happen.

[barbed wire Bob]

Anybody but Bard. I think he will be more valuable to the team as a starter than as a closer. FWIW, here is an old Joe Posnanski article of the value of a closer.

[nothumb]

My head says Melancon but my heart says Aceves. And I fully expect that sometime around August 15th, Bard will have washed out as a starter AND a closer, Melancon will be pitching in the 7th inning and Bailey will be sitting next to Greg Oden in a wax museum somewhere while Old Man Padilla and his lunatic protege Alfredo battle it out for the closer role.

Book it.

[Harry Hooper]

Melancon's GB prowess makes you want to have him available for the relief ace role, but if he is the closer, BobbyV can use the bench and put his best infield D out there with Melancon to help protect the lead in the 9th.

So, Melancon as closer with Padilla and Aceves working as multi-inning setup guys. That would minimize the higher-leverage innings going to the lesser lights in the pen.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Melancon's GB prowess makes you want to have him available for the relief ace role, but if he is the closer, BobbyV can use the bench and put his best infield D out there with Melancon to help protect the lead in the 9th.

So, Melancon as closer with Padilla and Aceves working as multi-inning setup guys. That would minimize the higher-leverage innings going to the lesser lights in the pen.

Actually, that's really a good point. There's nothing to keep Punto from playing for Aviles, with Aviles shifting over to 3rd -- at least with a 2-run lead in the 9th.

This year might actually present the most reasonable and acceptable case for using a defensive replacement since Lowell retired.

[aron7awol]

Only seven relievers in MLB had an LI of 1.75 or better last season (minimum 50 IP). It's a tribute to Tito's managerial skills that the Sox had two of those seven. (Bard was in the top five in 2010 also.)

A lot of our conversations about the bullpen rest on the unexamined assumption that Bobby V is likely to manage the bullpen similar to how Tito managed it. For example, why are we so sure that whoever is tagged the "closer" will seldom be asked to get more than 3 outs or enter a game with runners on base?

According to this...
http://www.fangraphs...yers=0&sort=7,d
...there were 24 relievers last season (minimum 50 IP) with a pLI of 1.75 or greater, and neither Papelbon nor Bard were included.

Edit: If you have two great relievers and you give them the highest leverage innings that you can, 1.75 is a decent estimate as to where they will end up, or at least good enough for the analysis I was doing.

Edited by aron7awol, 03 April 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[Doctor G]

How is the cellar of the NL central not the major league level. He plays other teams in the major leagues correct? And some of those teams are fourth, third, second and first place teams correct?

I understand the whole argument here but it borders on religion. There really is such a thing as a successful closer. This isn't a guy who got the role because he was "and established Closer" (sucky pitchers like Eddie Guardado come to mind) but because he was outpitching everyone else and was able to succeed in that role. He wasn't going to be the closer on this team because there was a better pitcher for the role. Without that guy, he's the next best pitcher for the role.

if you are closing for a cellar dweller in the NL central how high leverage are the innings when your team is for all practical purposes eliminated at the ASB.Not real hard to shake off the blown save. This is why I voted Aceves. when the Red sox season was on theline in the last two weeks of September , he was the best pitcher on the staff, after having been worked as hard as anyone else. Those were high leverage innings.

[TheGoldenGreek33]

According to this...
http://www.fangraphs...yers=0&sort=7,d
...there were 24 relievers last season (minimum 50 IP) with a pLI of 1.75 or greater, and neither Papelbon nor Bard were included.

I think maufman was talking about WPA/LI, not average LI.

[aron7awol]

I think maufman was talking about WPA/LI, not average LI.

But WPA/LI was not relevant to what we were discussing. He may have looked at the wrong data, but I doubt that was on purpose.

[greek_gawd_of_walks]

Byung-Hyun Kim is flipping of 35,000 somewhere.

Melancon starts out closing, but by the end of the season, ACE leads the team in saves.

Edited by greek_gawd_of_walks, 03 April 2012 - 11:57 PM.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Remy on D&C saying it'll be Aceves.

[rembrat]

Is there any place online that keeps track of balks? I remember Aceves having a few last year and wanted to see if it was a yearly thing for him.