2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[Elktonnick]

True for sure. But baseball players habits can be superstitious. And it's been that way as long as I can remember. Maybe some of the things they believe they need to do really don't need to be done. Especially if the cycle of superstition was broken.

You don't see anything wrong in an example when we are up a run or two in the six or seventh with a man or two man on and we are bringing in say an Ogando type player while our closer waits for the ninth?

To be successful in major league baseball consistency isn't a superstition it is a prerequisite. One speaks of pitchers needing to be consistent in the delivery, consistent in finding their release point and having consistency in their control. Practice they say makes perfect that is all about establishing consistency.

BTW You all make it sound that bringing in your best pitcher in the 7th inning is a brand new idea, It has all been done before. If any of you can recall Dick Radatz. He was doing that in the sixties. He would come in in the 7th, 8 th or 9 th. I even think he came in as early as the 6th inning on one occasion. I recall watching a game in the early sixties from the right field bleachers. You could hear the explosion of the ball hitting the catchers glove way up in the right field bleachers. (Of course there were fewer fans watching the games back then.)

Another reason why there is less reason to bring your "best reliever" in before the 9th is that there are more high quality relievers today and more who can throw 95 and above today. Just look at the Yankees bullpen for example.

[cp176]

To be successful in major league baseball consistency isn't a superstition it is a prerequisite. One speaks of pitchers needing to be consistent in the delivery, consistent in finding their release point and having consistency in their control. Practice they say makes perfect that is all about establishing consistency.

BTW You all make it sound that bringing in your best pitcher in the 7th inning is a brand new idea, It has all been done before. If any of you can recall Dick Radatz. He was doing that in the sixties. He would come in in the 7th, 8 th or 9 th. I even think he came in as early as the 6th inning on one occasion. I recall watching a game in the early sixties from the right field bleachers. You could hear the explosion of the ball hitting the catchers glove way up in the right field bleachers. (Of course there were fewer fans watching the games back then.)

Another reason why there is less reason to bring your "best reliever" in before the 9th is that there are more high quality relievers today and more who can throw 95 and above today. Just look at the Yankees bullpen for example.

Like I said in my previous post, I think that I was a master in new age, unconventional thinking when I started Radatz when playing strato back in the 60"s. The stats supported my position very well. It was an unconventional no brainer to use the "monster" as a starter. LOL

[SoxHop]

So here is the link to the article Kimmi sent out.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/201...-shouldnt-they

I really picked up on #5 because I have always questioned the closer role. I think it would be safe to say that more games are lost in innings earlier than the 9th inning.

Here's a portion of what was written about closers in the article:

One might think that the fact that closers don't pitch 100 innings anymore is mostly about closers being limited to one-inning saves. But they are also pitching fewer games. Look at the games pitched leaders for the 1970's and the first half of the 1980's. It is full of closers. You'll see names like Mike Marshall, Rollie Fingers, Dan Quisenberry, Willie Hernandez, Kent Tekulve and Mitch Williams. But by the 1990's and especially the 2000's, closers give way to setup men. You'll see names like Jesse Orosco, Steve Kline, Paul Quantrill, Matt Guerrier and Pedro Feliciano.

So closers have been reduced primarily to single inning work, and not in a great number of games. In short, a team's best reliever is having his contribution to his team severely limited. Wouldn’t it make the most sense to 1) use a team’s best reliever in the highest leverage situations, and 2) have them pitch for more innings, thus maximizing their utility to their team? This is not some impractical pipe dream which works on paper but wouldn’t work in the real world. It worked very well for many years until closers started to be treated like hot house flowers. The return of the multi-inning fireman is very much overdue.

[SoxHop]

To be successful in major league baseball consistency isn't a superstition it is a prerequisite. One speaks of pitchers needing to be consistent in the delivery, consistent in finding their release point and having consistency in their control. Practice they say makes perfect that is all about establishing consistency.

BTW You all make it sound that bringing in your best pitcher in the 7th inning is a brand new idea, It has all been done before. If any of you can recall Dick Radatz. He was doing that in the sixties. He would come in in the 7th, 8 th or 9 th. I even think he came in as early as the 6th inning on one occasion. I recall watching a game in the early sixties from the right field bleachers. You could hear the explosion of the ball hitting the catchers glove way up in the right field bleachers. (Of course there were fewer fans watching the games back then.)

Another reason why there is less reason to bring your "best reliever" in before the 9th is that there are more high quality relievers today and more who can throw 95 and above today. Just look at the Yankees bullpen for example.

Yes, the role of closer has changed recently to be what it is now, a ninth inning person.

I would think this method wouldn't be much more productive to a team that had multiple relievers of the same caliber. But out of the say 4 relievers, why would you be using the best one the least, and maybe using them at the point in the game when it's not the highest percentage of runs being scored against the team?

If this strategy won one or two more games a year, it would be a success.

[SoxHop]

In all sincerity correct me if my interpretation of what you are saying is wrong. Your approach seems to be that you would bring your closer in during any game, at any time that you think the situation dictated it regardless of the inning that the game was in? By closer, i assume that you mean the guy that you feel is your best shut down guy in a fairly short relief stint? If that is what you are saying, although I like your theory, I do not think that it holds up over the course of a 162 game season. There are some games that seem more important than others over the course of a year. In those games, I think that you do what you can do to win. I do think that a back of the rotation late inning guy is very valuable. I find myself questioning what is going on more now as managers in general try to create 7th and 8th inning specialty guys in addition to a late game stopper. I also will add that I do not think that a failure to use your "closer" at any time during a game, in any way is an example of conventional, traditional, do it the way it has always been done thinking. If you are using statistics to justify your position on this one then you are doing what I did when I was 13 and playing start-o-magic baseball. I started Dick Radatz! Now there was a 20 game winner for sure that was supported statistically if I ever saw one!LOL- This debate isn't about a new way of dong things at all. Still a good debate.

Yes, it's about going back to an old way of doing things.

I'm not sure exactly how it would work. What it would be trying to do is get who is most likely your best reliever in more times during the year in situations that already call for a reliever.

Maybe the closer roll would go away and he would be added to reliever pool, when there is a situation that. This idea would be more difficult for the manager to manage. I'm definitely not saying brining in the closer at any inning, especially the early ones where there is trouble, I would think the starter roll stays the same. Just maybe if the starter is starting to falter and now the situation is serious you would then go with your best guy.

I agree, there are games that are more important to others. Top teams in your division or teams you are in a race with would take priority, there would be certain situations where there would be more need to go with your top guy. You would manage his innings like any other reliever.

You all have seen games where you know the other team is going to do damage to the reliever who is in, or has already done damage. I have to question why isn't our best guy in at this time to stop it. Because if it isn't stopped at that time, you are then hoping your offense can overcome the deficit. Why not stop it before it happens, instead of waiting to use our best guy in the hope that he will be useful later in the game.

[cp176]

It does make some sense to me. There have been many great points brought up here. Not the least of which for me is that some of the old ways are actually recognized to be somewhat new and creative to some of the people who have not been around the game "forever". I say that whatever works is what needs to be used. If what works can be supported by data and statistics, all the better for people for whom the use of metrics represents a game changer. I'm probably not in that camp - If it is new and works, I probably will use it. If it is old and works better, i probably will stick with it.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, major league teams only scored an average of 3.95 earned runs a game in 2015, so the management of pitching seems to be pretty effective overall.

Just one way to look at it.

[cp176]

Well, major league teams only scored an average of 3.95 earned runs a game in 2015, so the management of pitching seems to be pretty effective overall.

Just one way to look at it.

Trust me - I won't be the one who says that there is better way. What you have for personnel has to shape to a great extent how you use them.

[SoxHop]

It does make some sense to me. There have been many great points brought up here. Not the least of which for me is that some of the old ways are actually recognized to be somewhat new and creative to some of the people who have not been around the game "forever". I say that whatever works is what needs to be used. If what works can be supported by data and statistics, all the better for people for whom the use of metrics represents a game changer. I'm probably not in that camp - If it is new and works, I probably will use it. If it is old and works better, i probably will stick with it.

At the least I find the subject interesting. It was only a short article and didn't go into detail or specifics. If I was running a team, I'd need a lot more info to implement the idea.

[SoxHop]

Been thinking about the Vasquez and Swihart thing today. If both pan out one will go. We could end up with a very good player for one of these guys in a trade.

[User Name?]

Well, major league teams only scored an average of 3.95 earned runs a game in 2015, so the management of pitching seems to be pretty effective overall.

Just one way to look at it.

Can you definitely prove offense is depressed because of effective pitching management though? Looks like grasping at straws to me.

[cp176]

Been thinking about the Vasquez and Swihart thing today. If both pan out one will go. We could end up with a very good player for one of these guys in a trade.

I'm not sure Swihart brings much alone. The potential is certainly there for him to be very good but someone would have to be willing to take a chance that his catching skills really will continue to improve. Maybe in a package but might not be worth it. Down the road maybe and maybe that is what will happen.

[Bellhorn04]

Can you definitely prove offense is depressed because of effective pitching management though? Looks like grasping at straws to me.

I said it's just one way to look at it. Just trying to add to the conversation, that's all. You know it's impossible to definitely prove one way or the other.

[Dojji]

Been thinking about the Vasquez and Swihart thing today. If both pan out one will go. We could end up with a very good player for one of these guys in a trade.

And this is your assumption only 10 months after both Vazquez and Hanigan were hurt by mid-April forcing us to call up Swihart in the first place and give him a trial by fire?

OK...

Seriously there is no rush to deal off our depth at catching. We've made that mistake before, no need to rush into it again. My analysis is there's NFW either of Swihart or Vazquez are traded before the deadline, and are only traded at the deadline if one of the catchers has made the job his own, Hanigan is healthy, and we still have Leon in the wings to provide replacement level backup if needed.

[User Name?]

And this is your assumption only 10 months after both Vazquez and Hanigan were hurt by mid-April forcing us to call up Swihart in the first place and give him a trial by fire?

OK...

Seriously there is no rush to deal off our depth at catching. We've made that mistake before, no need to rush into it again. My analysis is there's NFW either of Swihart or Vazquez are traded before the deadline, and are only traded at the deadline if one of the catchers has made the job his own, Hanigan is healthy, and we still have Leon in the wings to provide replacement level backup if needed.

Turning Swihart into a hybrid C/1B/3B with his athleticism might provide the Sox with fantastic insurance against injury at C, and suck at the corners. I think he has the tools to pull it off. I remember Ruseell Martin playing a decent 3B with the Dodgers there for a while.