Printable View
I’m 100% being on board with keeping both Houck and Whitlock in the bullpen.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonslav59
I can see the arguments. Starters are hopefully good for 150 IP, but also only impact maybe 28-32 games. As relievers, they are only good for maybe 70-80 IP, but also can impact 60-80 games…
Good point, and as Bell alluded to, ever-increasing multi-inning roles of relievers have increased their value, while also prompting a rule-adjustment need for assigning victories to pitchers.Quote:
Originally Posted by notin
I would also add, however, that workhorse starters (currently defined as "going five" or "two times through the order", whichever comes first) provide another asset that can't be overlooked or quantified: eating innings, which gives some of the almost-daily bullpen guys a day of R & R -- recovery and reset. Managers, coaches and players talk about it all the time; in that sense, a pitcher who starts 30 games can positively impact around 45 games... if half his starts "go long," and refreshed relievers are better the next game after a day off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5GoldGloves:OF,75
Absolutely true. Eating innings is essential. Of course, we really don’t know if Houck or Whitlock are capable of eating very many. They might be Diet Relievers…
Also, maybe Houck and Whitlock can each give us 90-125 IP, next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by notin
Best numbers 3rd time through.
.673 Perez
.780 Eovaldi
.819 Sale (26 PA)
.924 Richards
1.011 Pivetta
1.016 ERod
1.489 Houck (18 PA)
2020 (10+ PAs)
.571 Perez
1.200 Eovaldi
Hypothetical question for you and notin: if you knew Whitlock could deliver 150 quality innings next year as a starter, would you still keep him in the bullpen?Quote:
Originally Posted by moonslav59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellhorn04
No. If I knew it based on something (history?) then I might use him as a starter because it’s usually easier to replace relievers than it is to replace starters.
But right now my opinion is Houck and Whitlock work will in the bullpen. It’s not broken. Why fix it? Getting new starters might put question marks on the rotation, but moving Houck and/or Whitlock there and replacing both creates more question marks.
Where did you read that we lost Ottavino? I keep track of https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...rades-analysis and it's not there.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonslav59
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellhorn04
I’m about 60-40 on Whitlock staying in the pen and 85-15 on Houck.
Of course, if we only add one meh sp’er then those numbers will move.
He’s a FA, so I count him as off the roster, unless we replace him with him. Lol!Quote:
Originally Posted by kenmeister
The way pens are changing, having two guys that can go 2-3 innings every 2-4 days gives us a huge advantage over many teams. Maybe both can give us many more innings, next year from the pen.Quote:
Originally Posted by notin
Starters pitch more innings, but relievers appear in , and effect the outcome of , many more games. And for late relievers , it is usually in close games. The trend seems to be bigger staffs , more rest days and quicker hooks for starters . And more reliance on the bullpen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellhorn04
Oh I am 100% behind keeping him in the bullpen. But it’s not going to happen…Quote:
Originally Posted by moonslav59
If we traded for Montas, I’d be 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by notin
As our roster is right now, we’d have to move one to the rotation to have any chance at a ring.
Rangers to sign Semien to $175M/7. That's $25M x 7. They also signed Kole Calhoun.
Marlins sign Avisail Garcia to $53M/4. That's over $13M x 4.
Byron Buxton agrees to extension for $100M/7.
Kluber signs for $8M but can make over $4M in bonuses based on games started.
Am I supposed to bash Bloom for not paying more on any of these FAs?
Not!