2019 Trade Deadline

[RedOctober3829]

@RedOctober3829

But the thing is, they think the highest leverage situation is a late inning scenario when the opponents have their best hitters coming up, not always the 9th inning.

This is the “relief ace” concept that many here on SoSH have long advocated as being the optimal bullpen strategy.

Maybe they wouldn’t do it if they had Kimbrel. But that’s irrelevant actually. When people say that the Sox just haven’t had anyone “claim” the “closer’s role”, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Red Sox are operating this season.

I know what a relief ace is. I like the idea of it. However, I think you need 2-3 other high leverage guys in addition to the relief ace. A couple of examples are the Indians with Andrew Miller in 2017 and the Yankees last year with Dellin Betances. Those two teams could bring in those arms whenever they wanted to but also knew they had guys like Dan Otero and Cody Allen and in the Yankees case they had David Robertson, Zach Britton, and then Aroldis Chapman behind them to come in later in other high leverage situations. Hell, the Yankees had Adam Warren and Chad Green to come in as early as the 5th to shut down high leverage situations. In a close game, you may shut down the other team in the 6th or 7th, but there's a very good chance the same situation will pop up in the 8th or 9th and you better have others capable of doing what the relief ace did.

At the start of the season the Red Sox tabbed Barnes as the relief ace, but who was behind him? A lot of pitchers that Cora and management hoped would turn out good.

 

[BaseballJones]

I know what a relief ace is. I like the idea of it. However, I think you need 2-3 other high leverage guys in addition to the relief ace. A couple of examples are the Indians with Andrew Miller in 2017 and the Yankees last year with Dellin Betances. Those two teams could bring in those arms whenever they wanted to but also knew they had guys like Dan Otero and Cody Allen and in the Yankees case they had David Robertson, Zach Britton, and then Aroldis Chapman behind them to come in later in other high leverage situations. Hell, the Yankees had Adam Warren and Chad Green to come in as early as the 5th to shut down high leverage situations. In a close game, you may shut down the other team in the 6th or 7th, but there's a very good chance the same situation will pop up in the 8th or 9th and you better have others capable of doing what the relief ace did.

At the start of the season the Red Sox tabbed Barnes as the relief ace, but who was behind him? A lot of pitchers that Cora and management hoped would turn out good.

So there are two issues we’ve identified: First, what’s the strategy they’re employing? The answer to that is the relief ace concept, not the traditional “closer” concept. But second, do they have enough good pitchers to pull it off? I think the answer there is no.

All I’ve been trying to point out is that people here (and on WEEI, etc) have been fundamentally misunderstanding the way the Sox have approached it. When they make claims that nobody has stepped up and seized the closer role, it shows that they simply do not understand what the Sox have been doing, even though they literally explained it all in Sports Illustrated.

 

[RedOctober3829]

So there are two issues we’ve identified: First, what’s the strategy they’re employing? The answer to that is the relief ace concept, not the traditional “closer” concept. But second, do they have enough good pitchers to pull it off? I think the answer there is no.

All I’ve been trying to point out is that people here (and on WEEI, etc) have been fundamentally misunderstanding the way the Sox have approached it. When they make claims that nobody has stepped up and seized the closer role, it shows that they simply do not understand what the Sox have been doing, even though they literally explained it all in Sports Illustrated.

Yeah, I know what they're doing and I don't like it.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

When 30 out of 30 teams use the "traditional" closer approach for 20+ years running, where does the data come from to support the "committee" approach? I think a team (or two) will have to commit to it before there's usable data that goes beyond the theoretical. And I think that's what the Sox are committed to doing at this point. Whether it's philosophically motivated or financially (I think it's a blend of both), I don't really expect them to abandon it next year by signing a "closer". They might pursue a free agent reliever to bolster their pen, but I doubt it will be the traditional closer.

When 30 out of 30 teams use the traditional starting rotation approach with 5 guys expected to pitch 5-7 innings/game or more for 40+ years running, where does the data come from to support the "opener" approach? Do we have enough data on that? Is that an inefficiency that the Rays and now some other teams (including the Yankees!) stumbled upon, not having enough good starters to expect to pitch that many innings, but having guys who could go 3-9 batters and then change things up on the opposition?

Don't the spoils go to the innovators?

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Yeah, I know what they're doing and I don't like it.

It seems based on your own argument that you would actually like it though.... IF the Sox had 2 or 3 guys that were "closer quality". If they had landed Ottavino and say Robertson and Barnes... and they circulated around facing a tough part of the opposition lineup in the 7th one day then a weaker part of the lineup but "closing" the 9th the next day... it seems like you'd be fine with that. Otherwise, I have a hard time believing that you'd opt for the Buck Showalter situation. Any team these days that intends to contend needs at least 2 dominant BP arms. The Sox don't have any (Barnes is pretty close despite some mid season crap.... Eovaldi we know can be that... and Darwinzon may be that also), or didn't have any and that seems to be the most obvious flaw. Why they didn't or don't is a different matter though, along with whether they could have

 

[RedOctober3829]

It seems based on your own argument that you would actually like it though.... IF the Sox had 2 or 3 guys that were "closer quality". If they had landed Ottavino and say Robertson and Barnes... and they circulated around facing a tough part of the opposition lineup in the 7th one day then a weaker part of the lineup but "closing" the 9th the next day... it seems like you'd be fine with that. Otherwise, I have a hard time believing that you'd opt for the Buck Showalter situation. Any team these days that intends to contend needs at least 2 dominant BP arms. The Sox don't have any (Barnes is pretty close despite some mid season crap.... Eovaldi we know can be that... and Darwinzon may be that also), or didn't have any and that seems to be the most obvious flaw. Why they didn't or don't is a different matter though, along with whether they could have

Yes I would like it if they had the arms to do it with but they don't.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Yes I would like it if they had the arms to do it with but they don't.

They actually may now... but it might also be too late...

 

[joe dokes]

So there are two issues we’ve identified: First, what’s the strategy they’re employing? The answer to that is the relief ace concept, not the traditional “closer” concept. But second, do they have enough good pitchers to pull it off? I think the answer there is no.

Another issue about "closers" is that they've grown to command outsized salaries compared to the at-least-as-equally-important "other guys pitching high-leverage innings." Assuming a team can find enough good pitchers, it could probably pay several of them for the same cost as a guy who isn't necesarily any better of a pitcher, but who has been stashed into a stat-counting role. Think of how often we've heard an announcer describe a closerman's potential appearance in terms of a "save situation." It seems to me that it's *only* because a single clean inning with a 3run lead is a "save" that teams so frequently employ/save their best reliever for that relatively easy task.

 

[chrisfont9]

I do as well, I always saw the Eovaldi signing the answer to Porcello moving on. Even getting him cheap on a one year (whatever cheap might be these days) as judyb mentioned means a roster spot and money that is likely better allocated elsewhere.

Partly this, plus I'm not sure there will be too many other SPs available this winter, so even by retaining Eo Dombrowski still probably thinks they need to add a Porcello replacement. Cole is the big prize but I'd be a little shocked if the Sox were in on him, based on what he's going to get paid and who can offer more than us.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

When 30 out of 30 teams use the traditional starting rotation approach with 5 guys expected to pitch 5-7 innings/game or more for 40+ years running, where does the data come from to support the "opener" approach? Do we have enough data on that? Is that an inefficiency that the Rays and now some other teams (including the Yankees!) stumbled upon, not having enough good starters to expect to pitch that many innings, but having guys who could go 3-9 batters and then change things up on the opposition?

Don't the spoils go to the innovators?

100% agreed. That was kinda my point. There is no data for us to point to to say "this is the better way". There's only theory right now (and IMO it's sound theory). Someone has to be the guinea pig. Thought it was going to be the 2003 Sox (but they were light years behind what the 2019 Sox have in the bullpen). After 15+ years, I'm glad to see it's this year's Red Sox. Admittedly the personnel isn't ideal but I fear that having the "correct" personnel might have led to falling back into the old way of doing it. For example, keeping Kimbrel around would certainly have meant he would have remained in the closer role. Re-channeling his money to someone like Andrew Miller or Adam Ottovino (instead of Eovaldi) probably would have allowed for the current plan.

 

[Plympton91]

"Closing" is not a skill. It's a job description. Like "cleanup hitter."

Proof?

 

[donutogre]

Proof?

It's hard to prove a negative (in this case, "closing is not a skill.") But my first bit of evidence is the immortal Joe Borowski racking up 45 saves with a 89 ERA+, 4.12 FIP and 1.43 WHIP. That tells me that any mediocre pitcher can be a closer if his team is good enough to give him lots of save ops.

 

[joe dokes]

Proof?

I can't prove something is not something. I think the burden is on those who take a "good relief pitcher that a team is willing to use in high-leverage," demand that he only pitch the 9th inning, with only a 3-run lead or less, never in a tie game on the road, and conclude that doing *that* requires a skill separate and apart from being a "good relief pitcher that a team is willing to use in high leverage."

 

[absintheofmalaise]

I'm going to close this thread so we can keep the bullpen discussion in one thread. I'll move some of the posts into the bullpen thread when I have a chance.