Absolutely fair point on the saves still = $$. I didn't really consider that even though Barnes hadn't gotten any, he might have thought that he *would* with Kimbrel gone. Also in that ideal world that doesn't yet exist excellent relievers would get paid for relieving excellently, not necessarily on the save count.
I think it depends on what league, since the DH does change the calculus. For well over 10 years, I have been wondering why no NL team puts together a team of relievers who each pitch 2-3 innings and get pinch hit for when their spot comes up in the order. It seems to me that this could have been done very economically salary-wise. Each pitcher could plan on pitching 2-3 innings every other to every third day. Of course this could be tweaked by using a traditional starter or 2 in the rotation.
No, the assumption is that there is something qualitatively different pitching in the 9th inning versus the 7th or 8th inning.
Usually when people suggest this, my thought is that it's tough to get prospective free agents to "buy in" to this idea, but I guess as I'm thinking about it, three of what we assume are their top targets - Robertson, Miller, and Britton - have pitched effectively in multiple different roles, and even Ottavino has collected the odd save here and there. It's really only Kimbrel who's been used in one role his whole career and presumably would want assurances about being allowed to continue in that role with any team signing him, and they're talking like they don't expect to sign him. So maybe it could work.
It's true all season long. The 9th inning of a close game frequently has, to name just a few differences:
ThAnk you for listing all this out there. So many times people assume that folks are just talking about intangibles when discussing the importance of a closer. Not every save is a 3 run advantage rocking chair.
Not trying to be a wiseass, and maybe its lack of coffee, but I'm not sure this is true. Relievers who "can't close," often end up (paradoxically) in the often-higher-leverage 7th and 8th. Once a guy starts failing as a not-closer, his next step is usually out the door. Who did you have in mind as a career-wrecked 9th inning failure?
Donnie Moore. Calvin Schiraldi. Off the top of my head.
Moore was at the end of his career and had pitched over 100 innings in relief a few years before. Schiraldi was never even really a closer.
Reminds of a “fun fact” I learned recently. In 1978, Bob Stanley had a 15-2 win-loss record, a 2.60 ERA, and pitched 141.2 innings... nearly all of them in relief. (He started 3 games.)
For one thing, pitching/hitting styles changed. Stanley averaged 157 IP a year from 1977 to 1983, mostly in relief. But he also had a K/9 of 3.2 for that period. That's not a typo, and it's not his BB/9, it's his K/9.
Lowest K/9 among qualified AL starters last season was Mike Leake at 5.8 (Bartolo Colon was at 5.0 in 148 total innings). Lowest in the NL was Miles Mikolas at 6.5.
Thanks. Makes me wonder if it isn’t time for a “iron-man reliever” revival, perhaps a role for aging starters who’ve lost fastball velocity, but have become better “pitchers” (as opposed to “throwers.”) There are many older starters that make this pitching-style transition and become back-of-the-rotation starters. Maybe some of them could or should be Bob Stanley-type long relievers. Steve Wright already sorta fills that role, but I’m talking about non-knuckleballers. Or maybe it could be a role for young pitchers who, for whatever reason — stamina or the nature of their stuff — are only effective once through a lineup.
I think Stanley's decline also coincided with a decline in Sox IF defense.
If the iron man reliever comes back, it will probably in the form of 55 appearances 101 ip. The Greg Harris 80 games 112.1 ip MRs aren't coming back. The 90's saw so many MRs fall off drastically after those types of seasons.
Maybe, but I’m imagining a role that’s different from traditional middle relief. For example (I’m not proposing this, it’s just a what if) what if you had two nominal starters “share” a game? I.e. you plan for your #5 starter to pitch the first four-five innings and a “#6” starter-type pitcher to pitch the last four-five innings?
May all his Wendy Peffercorns be dimes.
Agreed. I'd also add that off-the-field Joe Kelly may be worth 8M a year, too. I feel like the Sox are going to miss him in the bullpen and in the clubhouse more than they'll miss him on the mound.
Yeah, he was brilliant in the post season, but there were times in the second half of the season where it looked like he might not even be on the playoff roster.
I'd be surprised if they don't sign one of these guys (the Yankees probably get the other one). And could happen soon.
This. Happy for Joe, loved what he did in the postseason, happy that he finally flipped the script on Ben's horrible Lackey giveaway, but the team needs performance certainty to commit that amount of money and years for a reliever. Given the budgetary pressures the Sox are facing in the coming years, I wouldn't want them to be allocating $8 million annually to see if Kelly has indeed finally figured things out.
The interesting thing about Kelly vs. Robertson (to me) is this. Cora kept Kelly on the playoff roster because "100 plays" - i.e., Kelly's 100mph velocity is a real weapon. Robertson doesn't throw nearly as hard as Kelly does - he's more like 93ish. But Robertson's numbers, year in and year out, are better than Kelly's. AND he strikes out a lot more guys per nine innings. It's weird. He's simply a better pitcher than Kelly is, by a significant margin. Just looking at the last two years:
I believe the theory on Robertson is that his effective velocity is really more like 95ish because he releases the ball a foot closer to the plate than the average pitcher given his legendary stride. Not Kelly's 100, of course, but far more deceptive.
I think this is right. I'd be surprised if DD didn't sign Robertson or Ottavino, and I'd be more surprised if he signed more than one expensive arm.
This seems right to me. Given their overall payroll, two more free agents in anywhere near or above Kelly’s $ range seems impossible to me.
