Building a Bullpen, 2019 edition

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
I don't get this idea floating around that the "Very Good/Elite" bullpen arms will only pitch in the 9th inning in save situations. Assuming that most FA's are at least around 27-28 years old, a 5 year contract would likely be their only big contract with guaranteed money. Would it really matter to anyone what inning they were pitching in? Is the "save" stat all that important anymore? It seems like all GM's realize it's a garbage stat and doesn't increase pay any longer. I get that maybe a guy like Kimbrell thinks he could get into the HoF if he gets "x" number of saves but is that such a motivating factor that bullpen arms would turn down and extra $2million clams to pitch in the 9th instead of whenever the hell he's needed? I seriously doubt it.
And the logic of still needing a great pitcher (but maybe not your best pitcher) shutting down the 9th inning while having your best pitcher pitching whenever needed is bad. You'd want to deploy those two guys anytime after your starter comes out- 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th innings.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
I don't get this idea floating around that the "Very Good/Elite" bullpen arms will only pitch in the 9th inning in save situations. Assuming that most FA's are at least around 27-28 years old, a 5 year contract would likely be their only big contract with guaranteed money. Would it really matter to anyone what inning they were pitching in? Is the "save" stat all that important anymore? It seems like all GM's realize it's a garbage stat and doesn't increase pay any longer. I get that maybe a guy like Kimbrell thinks he could get into the HoF if he gets "x" number of saves but is that such a motivating factor that bullpen arms would turn down and extra $2million clams to pitch in the 9th instead of whenever the hell he's needed? I seriously doubt it.
And the logic of still needing a great pitcher (but maybe not your best pitcher) shutting down the 9th inning while having your best pitcher pitching whenever needed is bad. You'd want to deploy those two guys anytime after your starter comes out- 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th innings.
This isn't a strategy the wheel needs to be reinvented on. Closers close. Setup guys setup. Middle relievers pitch the middle of the game. You want to bring in your elite guy in the 6th and hope and pray the rest of the pen can shut down the opposition in the 7th, 8th and 9th? That's beyond overthinking one of the most black and white strategies in the game. Saved games is not a garbage stat. It means that your best reliever comes in and shuts the other team down in close games at the end. We don't have that and we desperately needed it all year. Thinking that once you shutdown the opposing teams heart of the order in any inning other than the last one guarantees anything is moronic. We've been burned by a crap ton of bottom of the order guys in late innings because "insert reliever here" has thrown up on his shoes.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
This isn't a strategy the wheel needs to be reinvented on. Closers close. Setup guys setup. Middle relievers pitch the middle of the game. You want to bring in your elite guy in the 6th and hope and pray the rest of the pen can shut down the opposition in the 7th, 8th and 9th? That's beyond overthinking one of the most black and white strategies in the game. Saved games is not a garbage stat. It means that your best reliever comes in and shuts the other team down in close games at the end. We don't have that and we desperately needed it all year. Thinking that once you shutdown the opposing teams heart of the order in any inning other than the last one guarantees anything is moronic. We've been burned by a crap ton of bottom of the order guys in late innings because "insert reliever here" has thrown up on his shoes.
If you don't have a good bullpen I'm not sure it matter much one way or the other - are you saying you would rather have worse relievers face the heart of the order in, say, the 7th inning and then have your better reliever face worse hitters in the 9th? In that case you might never even use your better reliever because the game was already blown in the 7th.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,335
The gran facenda
Technically speaking, adding Hernández and the return of Eovaldi DID, on gI do realize it's the year
QUOTE="Eck'sSneakyCheese, post: 3499790, member: 66877"]
This isn't a strategy the wheel needs to be reinvented on. Closers close. Setup guys setup. Middle relievers pitch the middle of the game. You want to bring in your elite guy in the 6th and hope and pray the rest of the pen can shut down the opposition in the 7th, 8th and 9th? That's beyond overthinking one of the most black and white strategies in the game. Saved games is not a garbage stat. It means that your best reliever comes in and shuts the other team down in close games at the end. We don't have that and we desperately needed it all year. Thinking that once you shutdown the opposing teams heart of the order in any inning other than the last one guarantees anything is moronic. We've been burned by a crap ton of bottom of the order guys in late innings because "insert reliever here" has thrown up on his shoes.
There are a few black and white strategies that are no longer employed in games because it's been shown that they are counterproductive to scoring runs and giving your team the best chance of winning. Personally, I want my best reliever pitching when the chance of losing the lead or the tie is the greatest instead of sitting in the bullpen hoping that the ninth is reached with a lead.
 

Coachster

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2009
8,945
New Hampshire
I'm starting to wonder if the best way to deal with our situation, (middling bullpen talent, starters unable to go deep into games because they constantly waste pitches.We're 5th in the majors in walks allowed.) is to do the Tampa thing, and have a 'starter' match up and throw the first couple innings, then use our 'real' starters for the next two times through the rotation, and finish with Barnes or Workman. The guys we have; Darwinzon, Brewer, Walden, and Taylor might serve much better opening a game, and then if Sale etc. could get us through to the 8th, it might work.

It certainly would work better than what we're doing now; believing against all odds that our starters will actually pitch into the 7th.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
This isn't a strategy the wheel needs to be reinvented on. Closers close. Setup guys setup. Middle relievers pitch the middle of the game. You want to bring in your elite guy in the 6th and hope and pray the rest of the pen can shut down the opposition in the 7th, 8th and 9th? That's beyond overthinking one of the most black and white strategies in the game. Saved games is not a garbage stat. It means that your best reliever comes in and shuts the other team down in close games at the end. We don't have that and we desperately needed it all year. Thinking that once you shutdown the opposing teams heart of the order in any inning other than the last one guarantees anything is moronic. We've been burned by a crap ton of bottom of the order guys in late innings because "insert reliever here" has thrown up on his shoes.
Except the whole concept of "closers close" and "setup guys setup" was a reinvention of the wheel itself, and a relatively recent one at that. 30 years ago, those titles barely existed. The original "closers" back in the 60s and 70s were guys who came in in the 6th or 7th as needed and just stayed in the game until the end. The notion of using a lesser pitcher to bridge to the special guy in the end is still a new concept in the overall history of baseball. The one-inning closer and especially the one-inning setup guy are recent conventions that primarily evolved out of worship of one stat rather than as a basis to best deploy the pitching staff to win games.

Saving a guy, especially your best guy, to get the "save" is simply inefficient deployment. Just because teams have done it insistently for the last couple decades doesn't make it the most sound strategy. It's popular because it's a safe strategy that many managers prefer simply because it's an easy way to deflect blame in the case of a loss. Is not the best example of the folly of holding back your best guy to "close" the Orioles-Blue Jays AL Wildcard game in 2016? The Orioles blow the game in the bottom of the 11th while their best reliever sits in the bullpen unused because they were holding him back in case they got the lead.

You're never in that position if you don't have a guy you've designated as your closer.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
If you don't have a good bullpen I'm not sure it matter much one way or the other - are you saying you would rather have worse relievers face the heart of the order in, say, the 7th inning and then have your better reliever face worse hitters in the 9th? In that case you might never even use your better reliever because the game was already blown in the 7th.
First sentence is absolutely true. And yes I would rather have my lesser arms pitch when the game isn't final. If they blow it in the 6th or 7th the team still has a chance. Less innings mean less chances.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
There are a few black and white strategies that are no longer employed in games because it's been shown that they are counterproductive to scoring runs and giving your team the best chance of winning. Personally, I want my best reliever pitching when the chance of losing the lead or the tie is the greatest instead of sitting in the bullpen hoping that the ninth is reached with a lead.
I understand your point but respectfully disagree. I want my best reliever at the very end when any screw up literally means game over.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,335
The gran facenda
I understand your point but respectfully disagree. I want my best reliever at the very end when any screw up literally means game over.
What if the best chance for a screw up is in the 7th or 8th inning? You don't want your best reliever out there to give you the best chance of holding the lead? I don't understand the logic behind what you're saying here.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
What if the best chance for a screw up is in the 7th or 8th inning? You don't want your best reliever out there to give you the best chance of holding the lead? I don't understand the logic behind what you're saying here.
It's almost like he'd rather trail going into the 9th if it means using your best reliever in the 7th or 8th.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
I understand your point but respectfully disagree. I want my best reliever at the very end when any screw up literally means game over.
Even if saving the "best reliever" to the "very end" means the game is already over?


It's almost like he'd rather trail going into the 9th if it means using your best reliever in the 7th or 8th.
It does help avoid the 9th inning gut-punch loss.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
Except the whole concept of "closers close" and "setup guys setup" was a reinvention of the wheel itself, and a relatively recent one at that. 30 years ago, those titles barely existed. The original "closers" back in the 60s and 70s were guys who came in in the 6th or 7th as needed and just stayed in the game until the end. The notion of using a lesser pitcher to bridge to the special guy in the end is still a new concept in the overall history of baseball. The one-inning closer and especially the one-inning setup guy are recent conventions that primarily evolved out of worship of one stat rather than as a basis to best deploy the pitching staff to win games.

Saving a guy, especially your best guy, to get the "save" is simply inefficient deployment. Just because teams have done it insistently for the last couple decades doesn't make it the most sound strategy. It's popular because it's a safe strategy that many managers prefer simply because it's an easy way to deflect blame in the case of a loss. Is not the best example of the folly of holding back your best guy to "close" the Orioles-Blue Jays AL Wildcard game in 2016? The Orioles blow the game in the bottom of the 11th while their best reliever sits in the bullpen unused because they were holding him back in case they got the lead.

You're never in that position if you don't have a guy you've designated as your closer.
Thank you for the well thought out reply. Calling the way bullpens are constructed now a recent concept seems... off. Relative to how long baseball has been played? Absolutely. Relative to baseball as we know it? Not really. The setup guy and closer didn't evolve from worshipping the save. It was implemented because those are the final innings of the game and when win probability can swing drastically. This isn't a process that needs to be over thought.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
What if the best chance for a screw up is in the 7th or 8th inning? You don't want your best reliever out there to give you the best chance of holding the lead? I don't understand the logic behind what you're saying here.
And I don't understand yours. Hypothetically now sending out "elite bullpen guy/closer" in the 7th in a one run game only to have "not the closer" blow it in the 8th or 9th would look universally stupid. Sending out "not the closer" in the 7th and having him shit himself means maybe he doesn't get the chance to pitch a high leverage situation again and someone else gets that opportunity as well as giving the offense a chance to bail him out. If screw ups happen closer to the end of the game your chances to possibly get back into the game go away.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,371
Thank you for the well thought out reply. Calling the way bullpens are constructed now a recent concept seems... off. Relative to how long baseball has been played? Absolutely. Relative to baseball as we know it? Not really. The setup guy and closer didn't evolve from worshipping the save. It was implemented because those are the final innings of the game and when win probability can swing drastically. This isn't a process that needs to be over thought.
There was a lot of save worship going on. One-inning closers did not emerge until after the save rule was tweaked in the mid-1970's so that a reliever could earn a save by pitching just the final inning with a lead of 3 runs or less. This overlapped neatly with the emergence of both greater free agency and arbitration where stats grew in importance for salaries.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Thank you for the well thought out reply. Calling the way bullpens are constructed now a recent concept seems... off. Relative to how long baseball has been played? Absolutely. Relative to baseball as we know it? Not really. The setup guy and closer didn't evolve from worshipping the save. It was implemented because those are the final innings of the game and when win probability can swing drastically. This isn't a process that needs to be over thought.
Oh, they absolutely did. Before the save was the coin by which relievers got paid, there was no such thing as a setup guy. Once teams started handing out bigger contracts for guys who had a lot of saves, they started protecting those guys more and more. By protecting, I mean going from the 2-3 inning "closer" in the mold of Rich Gossage and Rollie Fingers to the 1 inning closer in the mold of Dennis Eckersley. You want to see that progression in action, look at Lee Smith's career. In his early days, he was pitching 90-110 innings a year for 25-30 saves. By the end, he was pitching 50-60 innings for 35-40 saves...fewer innings, more 1-inning saves. He went from being the relief ace of his staff, entering games in the 7th or 8th when necessary to designated 9th inning only guy making a bunch more money than anyone else in the pen.

As they were protecting the "closers", they also started protecting the starters with pitch counts and what not, so they weren't covering so many innings either...thus the bridge reliever, the "setup guy", became more of a reality. Now the game has evolved a bit and more teams are recognizing the value of a good setup pitcher and how they can shorten games by having a strong bullpen, the save is slowly being de-emphasized in terms of how relievers get paid. As that happens, the role of a big-C closer is going to be de-emphasized as well. In that manner, the Red Sox are a bit ahead of the curve with what they're doing.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
It's almost like he'd rather trail going into the 9th if it means using your best reliever in the 7th or 8th.
No I think his point, to be fair, is that if you blow the lead in the 7th, there’s still time to come back. You blow it in the 9th and the game is basically over.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
And I don't understand yours. Hypothetically now sending out "elite bullpen guy/closer" in the 7th in a one run game only to have "not the closer" blow it in the 8th or 9th would look universally stupid. Sending out "not the closer" in the 7th and having him shit himself means maybe he doesn't get the chance to pitch a high leverage situation again and someone else gets that opportunity as well as giving the offense a chance to bail him out. If screw ups happen closer to the end of the game your chances to possibly get back into the game go away.
I think you're ignoring the possibility that, after using your elite reliever in the 7th, its also possible then for the Sox to score more runs, thus making it no longer a close game.

I understand your point about the ninth inning being "the end" so there is less time for the offense to bail out pitching screwups, but I think the argument for using your "best" reliever in the highest leverage situation can be seen in this ridiculously simplified example:
Bottom of the eighth, sox up 1, the heart of opposing team A is scheduled to come up. You have your choice of 2 relievers that are available (again, very simplified scenario): Elite and Mediocre. Lets say Elite has an 80% chance of shutting down the heart of the order and Mediocre has a 40% chance of shutting them down (giving up no runs). Furthermore, for the bottom of the 9th, when facing the end of opposing team A's lineup, Elite has a 95% chance of giving up no runs and Mediocre has a 90% chance. Allowing Elite to pitch the 8th reduces the likelihood of team A tying or taking the lead overall, even if it slightly increases the risk that it would happen in the 9th. Again, this is a very simplified version, in which there is a significant difference between the heart of the order and the back of the order in terms of batters, but this is basically the entire argument for using your best relievers in the highest leverage situations.

I appreciate you explaining your perspective, particularly in a patient and non-petulant way. I just think that your argument leans heavily on the idea that some guys cannot pitch the last inning in close games and other guys (Closers) can. Or that a loss in the 9th is significantly worse than a loss when the runs were given up in the 8th.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
No I think his point, to be fair, is that if you blow the lead in the 7th, there’s still time to come back. You blow it in the 9th and the game is basically over.
Being in the lead and praying it holds is better than blowing the lead and praying for a comeback. I'm pretty sure it's not even close.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,335
The gran facenda
And I don't understand yours. Hypothetically now sending out "elite bullpen guy/closer" in the 7th in a one run game only to have "not the closer" blow it in the 8th or 9th would look universally stupid. Sending out "not the closer" in the 7th and having him shit himself means maybe he doesn't get the chance to pitch a high leverage situation again and someone else gets that opportunity as well as giving the offense a chance to bail him out. If screw ups happen closer to the end of the game your chances to possibly get back into the game go away.
What EW said.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
And I don't understand yours. Hypothetically now sending out "elite bullpen guy/closer" in the 7th in a one run game only to have "not the closer" blow it in the 8th or 9th would look universally stupid. Sending out "not the closer" in the 7th and having him shit himself means maybe he doesn't get the chance to pitch a high leverage situation again and someone else gets that opportunity as well as giving the offense a chance to bail him out. If screw ups happen closer to the end of the game your chances to possibly get back into the game go away.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/news/why-didnt-zach-britton-pitch-mlb-playoffs-2016-orioles-blue-jays-al-wild-card-walk-off-encarnacion/i4zu88ujgcdf1ugv43fhzrlx8
Now THAT looks stupid.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
My favorite part is that he might have deployed his best reliever in a one game playoff if they were at home. Yay the-way-its-always-been-done.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
I still don't agree guys but that's ok. What Showalter did was defensible as much as that pains me to say. Who's to say the outcome would have been any different had he gone with Britton? Britton shuts them down in the 11th and they lose in the 12th. Or Britton shuts them down in the 11th they score in the 12th and he keeps Britton in to shit himself. Or Britton closes the 11th and 12th and they win. Or Britton pitches the 11th and 12th and they lose in the 13th. Too many factors to point at that one situation and say " See? Look how right we all are." Cool that the Sox want to go in a different direction. They didn't have the horses to pull it off even if some guys are looking better now. I guess time will tell and we'll know a lot next off-season by the personnel they bring in.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I still don't agree guys but that's ok. What Showalter did was defensible as much as that pains me to say. Who's to say the outcome would have been any different had he gone with Britton? Britton shuts them down in the 11th and they lose in the 12th. Or Britton shuts them down in the 11th they score in the 12th and he keeps Britton in to shit himself. Or Britton closes the 11th and 12th and they win. Or Britton pitches the 11th and 12th and they lose in the 13th. Too many factors to point at that one situation and say " See? Look how right we all are." Cool that the Sox want to go in a different direction. They didn't have the horses to pull it off even if some guys are looking better now. I guess time will tell and we'll know a lot next off-season by the personnel they bring in.
I'd also rather lose in the 13th because I've spent my best pitcher in the 11th, than lose in the 11th because I didn't use my best pitcher at all. Especially in extra innings, on the road, in a do or die game. The goal of any team in extra innings is to give your offense one more chance to score (can't win if you don't score). Sure, the later the game goes, the more chance you run out of good pitchers....but the same applies to the other team too. Holding back anything is going to lose you more games than you win.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
I'd also rather lose in the 13th because I've spent my best pitcher in the 11th, than lose in the 11th because I didn't use my best pitcher at all. Especially in extra innings, on the road, in a do or die game. The goal of any team in extra innings is to give your offense one more chance to score (can't win if you don't score). Sure, the later the game goes, the more chance you run out of good pitchers....but the same applies to the other team too. Holding back anything is going to lose you more games than you win.
I agree for the most part. Although I'd rather not lose at all! It's a lot easier to look at a loss and say the wrong decision was made. Obvious I know. Having both the guy you can count on to get out of a jam in the 6th, 7th or 8th AND a guy who can shutdown the end would be ideal. Unfortunately this year the Sox didn't have either.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
I'd also rather lose in the 13th because I've spent my best pitcher in the 11th, than lose in the 11th because I didn't use my best pitcher at all. Especially in extra innings, on the road, in a do or die game. The goal of any team in extra innings is to give your offense one more chance to score (can't win if you don't score). Sure, the later the game goes, the more chance you run out of good pitchers....but the same applies to the other team too. Holding back anything is going to lose you more games than you win.
Put another way.......in that tie game on the road there's no margin for error. So use your best guy. Worst case is that someone else will have to pitch the next inning with no margin for error. OTOH--If your team scores, then the not-best guy has at least 1 run to work with. It seems pretty clear (where they are in the lineup aside): best guy where you must give up zero runs or your season is over or (if your team scores) not-best guy where you can give up 1 run and keep playing.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
I agree for the most part. Although I'd rather not lose at all! It's a lot easier to look at a loss and say the wrong decision was made. Obvious I know. Having both the guy you can count on to get out of a jam in the 6th, 7th or 8th AND a guy who can shutdown the end would be ideal. Unfortunately this year the Sox didn't have either.
Your assumption that there's something special about "shutting down the end," as opposed to "getting out of a jam" earlier is where we disagree.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
Your assumption that there's something special about "shutting down the end," as opposed to "getting out of a jam" earlier is where we disagree.
I'm aware. I obviously don't believe it's an assumption. I think it's a different mentality. We've seen the guys who don't have the uhhh.... gumption to pitch in the 9th. It's higher stakes, higher leverage and there's a finality to it. Some guys can't handle it even though the stakes may be as high in earlier innings. I understand that some of you think there's no difference. You are correct in stating that on that point is where we disagree.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
I'm trying to remember what game it was in the ALCS in '04 that Leskanic essentially was the "closer" that night. IINM, Foulke came in in the 8th inning and pitched 2 shutout innings (high tension shutdown innings). It's possible to make the argument that the Leskanic could have pitched those innings and then Foulke the last two innings that Leskanic "closed" the game with.
It's also possible that not-quite-exhausted Yankees could have belted the snot out of Leskanic pitching the earlier innings and the game would have been over. It's possible Leskanic's success in the late innings was because the MFY batters were dead exhausted and didn't have the mental stamina to beat his weak stuff, so Foulke extending the game into extra innings while the Yankee bats were a little stronger essentially helped Leskanic. Obviously speculation, but any chance to think about that glorious ALCS is worth it. How about another 4 game sweep of those asshats?
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
Put another way.......in that tie game on the road there's no margin for error. So use your best guy. Worst case is that someone else will have to pitch the next inning with no margin for error. OTOH--If your team scores, then the not-best guy has at least 1 run to work with. It seems pretty clear (where they are in the lineup aside): best guy where you must give up zero runs or your season is over or (if your team scores) not-best guy where you can give up 1 run and keep playing.
I dunno, I'd still prefer to use my best guy and just end the game if possible. I think once you hit extra innings, "saving" your best reliever becomes sort of silly, unless you save them from pitching to the bottom of the order, even if you're the home team. The whole argument about "what if you use him in the 10th and then another reliever blows a save in the 12th" seems kind of silly---if you really think that this other reliever is so likely to give up runs, what is the advantage of having him give up those runs in the 10th vs the 12th? The only argument I could think of that would make even a modicum of sense is if most of your bullpen has already been used recently and you'd rather just lose the game quickly then risk running through even more guys in a loss.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,305
I know he's not a part of the Sox pen anymore, but just wanted to relay that Tyler Thornburg can't get AAA players out either. He was at the game in Vegas with the Dodgers AAA team, came in with a 2 run lead in the 8th: walk, bomb hr, warning track fly out that just missed, walk, pop out before being replaced.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
No I think his point, to be fair, is that if you blow the lead in the 7th, there’s still time to come back. You blow it in the 9th and the game is basically over.
It’s probably not too hard to figure out if teams score more runs from the 6th or 7th inning on when trailing versus when leading. Maybe that’d give some indication of which is better?
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I know he's not a part of the Sox pen anymore, but just wanted to relay that Tyler Thornburg can't get AAA players out either. He was at the game in Vegas with the Dodgers AAA team, came in with a 2 run lead in the 8th: walk, bomb hr, warning track fly out that just missed, walk, pop out before being replaced.
Anyone got Carson Smith's phone number?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Perhaps a bit too late for 2019, but Brad Boxberger (31yo) just got released and might be worth a look. If nothing more to see if he might be able to fill a roll in 2020

https://www.rotoworld.com/baseball/mlb/player/19694/brad-boxberger
No thanks. This is the second team that's cut him loose this season. If the purpose is auditioning pitchers for 2020, I'd rather give those innings to younger in-house guys like Darwinzon and Taylor and Shawaryn and Lakins than a re-tread free agent.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
No thanks. This is the second team that's cut him loose this season. If the purpose is auditioning pitchers for 2020, I'd rather give those innings to younger in-house guys like Darwinzon and Taylor and Shawaryn and Lakins than a re-tread free agent.
Shawayran and Lakins can’t even get AAA hitters out. They’re cannon fodder. And our savior Due in Feltman can’t get Aa hitters out.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Shawayran and Lakins can’t even get AAA hitters out. They’re cannon fodder. And our savior Due in Feltman can’t get Aa hitters out.
Yeah, but they are already on the 40 so you may as well see if they are worth protecting. Neither one is very talented. They don't strike guys out and walk too many. If they were auditioning pitchers for 2020, I'd much rather see Tanner Houck (not on 40) who actually has "late inning" potential and Denyi Reyes. Reyes is also on the 40 and has been on a pretty good run of late. That would be more of an audition for a rotation spot though. He'll probably get lit up like a Christmas tree but he' should be given a chance to fail. His last 7 games: 1.72 era, 47.0 ip, 35 hit, 10r/9er, 5bb/27k. Last 13: 2.71 era, 83.0ip, 67 hits, 26r/25er, 14bb/62k. All 13 games were at least 6 ip. He has that going for him. Maybe Bobby Poyner too.

Darwinzon and Taylor are obviously already on the team and should be given a chance to audition this year even if the team is trying to make a playoff run.

edit: I guess it would be arguably rushing Tanner Houck.