It's Going To Be An 11-Man Staff
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 2, 2010 9:58 AM PDT
in Miscellaneous
Email
PrintEveryone seems to be coming around, and I, for one, welcome the news. It's a tough break for Jesus Colome, who allowed three walks and struck out 11 in 11 spring innings, but then we're talking about a 32 year old with 213 walks and 314 strikeouts in 409.1 innings that matter, so it's hard to be too broken up about this. Ryan Langerhans gets to stay, which means (A) we don't lose Ryan Langerhans!, and (B) Milton Bradley will get a little less time in LF and a little more time at DH than we figured a week ago. Neat.
The staff, of course, for anyone who hasn't been paying attention, like, at all:
Felix Hernandez
Ian Snell
Ryan Rowland-Smith
Doug Fister
Jason Vargas
David Aardsma
Brandon League
Mark Lowe
Shawn Kelley
Sean White
Kanekoa Texeira
We're going to be without Cliff Lee for at least a week of the season, and it's going to take more time before he's up to 100%, so going with a six-man bullpen is ballsy. Kelley and Texeira have demonstrated that they can handle a few innings at a time, though - and White, too, to a lesser extent - so it's not an impossible situation. If it were, they wouldn't be doing it. Worse comes to worst, Luke French and Garrett Olson will be available in Tacoma for emergency bullpen relief. Bear in mind that none of these relievers is a specialist, so it's not like we'll be burning through arms after one or two batters.
I'm excited. I'm excited to find out what this team can do. I'm really excited for the bullpen, as five-sixths of it looks to be solidly above-average. And while the rotation's not sexy, as we talked about in the latest podcast, it's not nearly as bad as so many people are making it out to be. Really, it's an Ian Snell bounceback away from having an ace and a bunch of 4's and 5's. We can deal with that while we wait for Lee and Erik Bedard to return.
Monday. Can't wait for Monday.
129 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
There's no way to do this without coming off as a nitpicky douche
but I believe the expression is is “if worse comes to worst”. It’s a minor and common mistake that I wouldn’t point it out except you publish a ton and might care. Or not.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Apr 2, 2010 10:09 AM PDT reply actions
This is the sort of nitpick I actually appreciate
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 2, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Where's Teej when ya need 'im?
Does the World Series trophy come with a plate of bacon?
by PositivePaul on Apr 2, 2010 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
To the reference materials!
“Worst comes to worst” is actually the traditional phrase, but “worse comes to worst” is the more modern — and clearly more logical — option.
Well, either way it happens, my people are going to come first.
by abender20 on Apr 2, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
Unless you're talking about different groups of people
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Apr 2, 2010 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm sticking with the modern version because it works better
Worst comes to worst? What kind of progression is that?
by lemonverbena on Apr 2, 2010 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Upton Sinclair once described a situation in which the worst came to wurst.
"Most all good Americans hate the Yankees. It is a value we cherish and pass on to our children like decency and democracy and the importance of a good breakfast." - William B. Mead
by Steve Nelson on Apr 2, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 11 recs
It's not a progression, but a confluence ...
… it’s when two things that are the worst of their types are brought together.
"Most all good Americans hate the Yankees. It is a value we cherish and pass on to our children like decency and democracy and the importance of a good breakfast." - William B. Mead
by Steve Nelson on Apr 2, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Except, no types have been defined in that phrase
It’s ironic absurdity, already the worst of something gets worser. My guess is Americans evolved it into something logical from the original Limey.
by lemonverbena on Apr 2, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
But upon reflection I see your point
Americans (myself included) didn’t catch the subtlety. Give us a glimmer!
by lemonverbena on Apr 2, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
More like Tony Orlando and Dawn
"Most all good Americans hate the Yankees. It is a value we cherish and pass on to our children like decency and democracy and the importance of a good breakfast." - William B. Mead
by Steve Nelson on Apr 2, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Doing a quick back of envelope + fangraphs calculation
Looking at Jack Wilson. Career he is .330 vs LHP and .297 vs RHP (wOBA). If you had a bench player who could hit .330 vs. LHP and Jack Wilson saw a LHP at the end of every game and was pinch hit for once a game you would see around a 5 run increase.
The scenario is a little weird but I think you can kind of see that a roughly average bench player is going to have a really hard time being worth more than 1 WAR from just pinch hitting.
by Edgar for Pres on Apr 2, 2010 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Have to factor in the PH penalty
which will erase those five runs pretty fast.
Yeah thats true
Hopefully you could find a guy who could do better than Jack Wilson against LHP though too.
Anyway, it comes down to it that pinch hitters aren’t worth that much in runs. They do see very high leverage situations though so it is possible they could have high value.
by Edgar for Pres on Apr 2, 2010 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I called it weeks ago! This is exactly what I wanted!
Even with Lee being hurt, this makes a ton of sense. You really only need 12 pitchers if you’re a hardcore specialist bullpen user. While I still don’t trust Snell or Fister, I think they’re still solid enough that they can pull some innings out of Texeira or Kelley as needed.
I mean, sheesh, with Griffey on the roster and another “1B” type, (whether it was to be Sweeney, Garko or one of the Tacoma Blimps) I’d much MUCH rather have the roster flexibility with the offense than carry Garrett Olson or some other mopup-at-best guy in the ’pen…
Does the World Series trophy come with a plate of bacon?
Thirty or forty years ago teams commonly carried 10-man pitching staffs.
"Most all good Americans hate the Yankees. It is a value we cherish and pass on to our children like decency and democracy and the importance of a good breakfast." - William B. Mead
by Steve Nelson on Apr 2, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Thirty or forty years ago wizards commonly walked the streets with staffs
by lemonverbena on Apr 2, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
And Tony Orlando and Dawn were just cutting their first records.
"Most all good Americans hate the Yankees. It is a value we cherish and pass on to our children like decency and democracy and the importance of a good breakfast." - William B. Mead
by Steve Nelson on Apr 2, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
It is kind of remarkable that every one of these guys has a good pitch to throw opposite handed batters.
Except White. Yay not wasting a roster spot on a Mike Myers/John Parrish sort.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Apr 2, 2010 10:12 AM PDT reply actions
This is annoying, I once had to request a visual demonstration of the inverted W because it doesn't make sense.
Similar to one of those idiot “super heroes” with a retarded name and a stupid power.
There should really be an SBN site just for font discussion
by lemonverbena on Apr 2, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
.
Does the World Series trophy come with a plate of bacon?
by PositivePaul on Apr 2, 2010 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I almost hate to ask, but
my fantasy nerdness compels me to: who’s in line for saves if Aardsma reverts to BBrdsma? League or Lowe?
I would guess League
but it’ll depend on how everyone’s throwing. I also imagine they will cut Aardsma some slack since they’re all about belief and all that.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Apr 2, 2010 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
I think League
will be one of the best relievers in baseball. The M’s FO obviously thinks highly of him.
I have a hard time seeing him beat out
Nathan, Soria, Rivera, Papelbon, Bailey and others. I’d say putting him in the top twenty would be optimistic but possible.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Apr 2, 2010 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
I bet even Josh Wilson could...
Does the World Series trophy come with a plate of bacon?
by PositivePaul on Apr 2, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I think that League will end up in the elite level of relievers this season.
He supposedly has 100 MPH heat (from what I heard but I may be wrong) and the sickest pitch in baseball. Those two things will make for a damn good reliever if used in the right role.
His numbers were pretty good last year
outside of maybe ERA, I could definitely see Safeco giving him the little bump he needs to get into the elite level of relievers. It sounds like he’s gonna be really fun to watch this year.
Beat out?
No, probably not. I don’t have a hard time seeing League fit right in with those guys, though.
Love it. Ballsy.
I think/hope this means they think Mr. Clifton Phifer Lee is right on track.
So, Felix no longer has a pitch count? Just roll him out there like he’s Bob Gibson.
This sort of feels like running with a 4 man rotation.
But is it really that out of the ordinary? 25 years ago 9 man pitching staffs (staves?) were not uncommon.
Not that much easier.
The game has changed a little (a lot more opposite field power is the largest difference) but not that much.
by Johnny Slick on Apr 2, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
If Babe Ruth played today, he'd get his fat ass handed to him by Doug Fister.
by abender20 on Apr 2, 2010 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If Nolan Ryan played today
He’d get ripped apart by Jack Wilson!!!
by Johnny Slick on Apr 2, 2010 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
No, it's TRUE.
And Roger Clemens would be replacement level! Oil Can Boyd would just be a drunkard, not a major league drunkard!
by Johnny Slick on Apr 2, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
11 man rotations were quite common a few years ago.
And it’s really only an 11-man rotation while Lee is out.
I don't think 11 man rotations were ever that common.
Maybe in hockey.
by Johnny Slick on Apr 2, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
only hockey teams have 11-man rotations
"Most all good Americans hate the Yankees. It is a value we cherish and pass on to our children like decency and democracy and the importance of a good breakfast." - William B. Mead
by Steve Nelson on Apr 2, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes
Maybe push Fister to 6th starter/long reliever, White to AAA. Bench too thin with the Happy Twins at DH.
by lemonverbena on Apr 2, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
That's a rather specious argument.
25 years is a long time and baseball has changed a lot since then. What matters is how common things are today, not in the past.
No, I disagree.
Baseball really hasn’t changed all that much. Tony LaRussa and the A’s of the late 80s/early 90s convinced everyone that big bullpens are the way to go, and we’ve learned a bit more about blowing out guys’ arms, but I watched the game of 25 years ago and it’s fundamentally the same game that it is now.
It’d be cool to have numbers enter here like pitch f/x stuff showing that, I don’t know, fastballs are faster and curves break more, but without that I’m not sure that the current data show anything other than managers being more inclined to use bullpens now.
by Johnny Slick on Apr 2, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
There's 15% more teams
6% more runs scored, 21% more home runs per game, 22% less stolen base attempts, 97% more HBPs,
complete games have dropped from 15% down to 3%!
a 7% drop in PAs that end with a batted ball, strikeout rates have risen almost 30%
And that doesn’t even get into the fact that players today are better than they were in 1985. Baseball has changed.
I'm at work so can't really compile this stuff myself
…but how are HBPs compared with, say, the 50s and 60s? Actually, I guess it doesn’t matter so much. My own experience tells me that while back then rates could be high because pitchers were throwing at hitters (not based on personal experience!!! Just know my history), the growth in the last 10 years seems to be tied to guys not bailing out when they have a ball thrown at them. Instead, they turn into it so it hits them in their soft fleshy parts.
This is getting off into a tangent but the rules as written do say that a batter has to make an effort to get out of the way of a pitched ball. I guess it didn’t matter so much in the past because, well, they would due to the fact that the pitch in question could kill or maim them. That risk has mostly gone away, I think, and as a result attempts are made to make the ball hit them in the back rather than avoid it altogether.
by Johnny Slick on Apr 2, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Especially so considering Don Baylor played from 1970-88
He skews the average all by himself.
by lemonverbena on Apr 2, 2010 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
If you compare it with exactly 25 years ago, that's true.
That’s not true if you compare it with 1987, though, at least for some of those numbers. CGs have gone way down and I suspect number of pitches by starters have as well, but how much of that is the actual requirements of the game changing and how much of it is a different managerial perspective applied to the game now?
As for the “players are better today than they were in 1985”, I just don’t see a lot of evidence for that. We know more about conditioning and we’re bringing in more players from Japan, but there are also a lot fewer black players and in general top American athletes are choosing other sports to a much greater extent than they were in ’85.
And I don’t see how “15% more teams” applies one way or the other.
by Johnny Slick on Apr 2, 2010 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
And don't forget the most important thing
We play more games. Pitchers need to be able to make it through a longer season than they used to.
IME teams tend not to blow through all 12 members of their pitching staff in the postseason.
Bullpens do seem to be more important to postseason success.
by Johnny Slick on Apr 2, 2010 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
I once bought a new hard drive specifically so I could play this game again
That’s pretty high on the nerd scale, isn’t it? At least a 7…
No - what matters is the increment of value in the change
What has changed is that teams have decided (rightly or wrongly) is that incremental roster space is better used to create pitching matchups in key situations than in having an additional position player available for platooning or pinchitting.
It’s likely that there is value with that, but it’s also not a huge increment of value or teams wouldn’t have deployed nine- or ten-man pitching staffs. That means that shifting back to a smaller is likely not going to seriously hurt a teams performance. Further, given the overall options for creating a roste,r in a specific situation a shorter pitching might even be optimal.
"Most all good Americans hate the Yankees. It is a value we cherish and pass on to our children like decency and democracy and the importance of a good breakfast." - William B. Mead
by Steve Nelson on Apr 2, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Wrong argument.
I’m not saying 12-man pitching staffs are ideal.
I’m saying the argument that it’s not unusual in today’s game because of how things were 25 years ago is a bad one.
Want to know how out of ordinary it is? Count how many teams in 2010 plan on using a 11-man pitching staff.
That's not really what I'm arguing though.
I’m saying that 25 years ago, when the game was still fairly similar to what it is now, pitching staffs were significantly smaller than they are now. Not the same, smaller. While I acknowledge that the game has changed somewhat – as it applies in this case, the increase in the number of starters expected to only go 5 innings and 100 or fewer pitches – it hasn’t changed so much that a 12 man staff is required for the game.
I think the reason why everyone uses a 12-man staff is that, well, everyone uses one. Managers live primarily to not get fired, and being unconventional and failing is a great way to get canned.
by Johnny Slick on Apr 2, 2010 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Your words:
“But is it really that out of the ordinary?”
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 2, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Is it just me or does Sean White seem out of place?
Wouldn’t a replacement-level lefty be more useful?
He's a replacement righty who's been stretched out all ST to pitch more than one inning at a time.
That kind of thing is kinda vital for a small(er) pitching staff.
by Johnny Slick on Apr 2, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
And Sean White isn't replacement level.
When Lee comes back, you’ll have Vargas as a multi-inning lefty.
He's probably a little better than replacement level
And he can get both lefties and righties out and go more than an inning if necessary. They’re hoping for French and Olson to develop in AAA as starters.
5.04 xFIP vs lefties compared to 4.27 xFIP for French vs lefties last year, despite French starting.
I’d put French in the bullpen as the long man / swing man who comes in to face lefties sometimes.
The SP depth chart would look like this:
Felix
(Lee)
(Bedard)
RRS
Snell
Vargas
Fister
French/Hill/F-bend/whatever
Once Lee and Bedard are back, French is somewhere around 8-10 on the SP depth chart. I think having French over White in the bullpen is more useful than stashing him in AAA.
And by tRA White was above league average.
I don’t have a problem with xFIP, and think it’s cool, but just understand what you’re doing when you use it. Same w/FIP. We know the truth lies somewhere between FIP and xFIP, and that seems accurate to me.
Personally, I just want a pitcher with decent stuff, and when he’s healthy, White’s got it.
What makes you think he has decent stuff?
He misses the zone a lot, people make contact when he pitches in the zone, and he gets ok-but-not-great groundballs.
Unless his true talent lies in suppressing HRs and line drives, he’s pretty damn near replacement level.
Sinking FB at 93+ is a good pitch.
Were his 2009 results completely out of line with his true talent? Yeah. But there’s ONE pitching metric that makes him look sort of replacement level-y, and it’s now sort of odd that a lot of M’s fans think he’s god awful.
The fact that French would be better in the pen now doesn't really necessitate putting him there
He’s 24 and only got to spend about half a year in AAA before he was promoted to the bigs. He’s still got stuff to learn and could be potentially more useful in the future as a starter given time to develop than he would be as a reliever this year. He might be way down on the depth chart now, but that could easily change if he takes a step forward in AAA.
Yeah, I think teams have to keep those things in mind.
Especially when the difference really isn’t going to be that great no matter who you choose for that 11th spot. It’s probably in French’s and the Mariners best lnog-term interest to keep him pitching in a starting role. I think if they were going to go with a lefty mop-up guy, Olson would be a better choice — he’s had a lot of time as a starter and it’s not likely now that we could expect much more improvement from him. His probable future in the big leagues is as a last guy on the staff sort of thing.
by nathaniel dawson on Apr 2, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Putting the Aardsma concerns aside, I like the bullpen.
Fuck the Angels
Yesssss!
I’m so glad they did this. Nice to see a team not bound by groupthink and fear of backlash when taking an unconventional approach.
Absolutely the game has changed over the last few decades, but I doubt those changes inherently demand that a team employ 12 pitchers on their staff. I can’t see any reason to think that those changes necessitate adding 2 more pitchers to give yourself the best chance of winning.
12 pitchers with a short bench seems to do more to hurt a team than help.
by nathaniel dawson on Apr 2, 2010 2:39 PM PDT reply actions
Sorry to bring up an old subject
But I’d still rather have Morrow than League. Our bullpen looks pretty solid and I feel pretty comfortable with Lowe and Kelley handing the high leverage situations by themselves if League wasn’t around. I’d much rather give Morrow a shot in the rotation than guys like Vargas and FIster.
Hopefully Lee and Bedard get back soon. Our offense isn’t good enough to support this rotation for long.
If Morrow was on this team we would have a 12 man pitching staff.
Or rather 11 pitchers and one whiny bitch.
by Sec 108 on Apr 2, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Beating the system
Is there a way a team can let an injured player serve a multi-game suspension? So instead of going on the DL, and then coming back and serving the suspension, just sneaking in the suspension while the player cannot play anyway…
I guess the disadvantage would be that the roster doesn’t open up to bring in a player to replace someone on the DL, but on the other hand, you would get extra play from the “suspended” player
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
