Master Index of Archived Threads


Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 28 2016 04:38 PM

This articlekind of approaches the whole "all reliever staff" from a different angle than I would have -- it argues the advantage would be almost all offense (pinch-hitting) and basically neutral on defense. I'm skeptical of the latter claim. In practice it'd be very difficult to pull off and would almost require a GM + manager prepared to get themselves fired and team that otherwise is confronting a season in the basement. Maybe its tested secretly in the minors first.

Edgy MD Oct 28 2016 05:03 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

The thing is that up to a certain level, many minor league teams are run sort of like that. I have trouble believing it's necessarily defense-neutral, for the same reason I wouldn't have pulled Syndergaard in game 163. Some days your best relievers aren't good at all, and there's money in sticking with the guy who is pitching well, no matter how good your pen is.

Ceetar Oct 28 2016 05:09 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: This articlekind of approaches the whole "all reliever staff" from a different angle than I would have -- it argues the advantage would be almost all offense (pinch-hitting) and basically neutral on defense. I'm skeptical of the latter claim. In practice it'd be very difficult to pull off and would almost require a GM + manager prepared to get themselves fired and team that otherwise is confronting a season in the basement. Maybe its tested secretly in the minors first. It's neat. and he also suggests maybe you have your Ace still pitch on rotation and bat, it's the lesser guys. Think of it like taking away the third (and second) time through the order penalty. All the guys you typically think of as being 5+ IP guys are suddenly elite relievers. It's not like you're giving these innings to garbage middle relief guys. You're taking the 'best' 100 of Dillon Gee's 150 innings. I actually think he understates the value added and doesn't really follow through on the math. I'd like to remove the innings pitched by Verrett the second and third time through, remove Bastardo and gilmartin's innings and replace them with Verrett's first time through wOBA and say..Smyly's. Oh, if I had the time I'd like to write this up for the Mets. I think he also underestimates the value of the pinch-hitters. You'd be able to rest guys and still get them one given AB, or guys that are aching would still be able to at least get an AB every day. I think this pushes the expected value of those AB higher.

seawolf17 Oct 28 2016 08:35 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

Ceetar wrote: I think he also underestimates the value of the pinch-hitters. You'd be able to rest guys and still get them one given AB, or guys that are aching would still be able to at least get an AB every day. I think this pushes the expected value of those AB higher. You know? I'm doing something like that this season with my OOTP team. It's 2033, and I've got four starting outfielders: two 28yo "prime career" guys who have some holes (one's a K machine and the other can't field), a 42yo "team leader" vet, and an "old" 32yo who's still productive but on the decline. I have three more or less reliable starting pitchers, and on the days when my 4/5 guys throw, I'm going to the pen before they become ineffective and using my extra outfielder to double-switch in one of my decent middle relievers for a few innings. Of course, computer baseball ain't real baseball. But still.

Edgy MD Oct 28 2016 08:39 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

I played the 1969 Mets once with a 3x2 rotation. Seaver and Ryan on day one. Koosman and McAndrew on day two. Gentry and Cardwell on day three. Many asses were kicked.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 28 2016 08:46 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

I'm not saying this wouldn't work, just that trying it would put a team at such risk, I don;t know if anyone would have the guts to try it. I could see a team (let's call them the Mets) lose 7 of 8 at some point and completely lose faith in seeing it through, a lot of second guessing, and the differences between those who can get it done and those that aren;t quite as good could be really exposed (in a different way than they are today). And it would not only upset starter patterns but relievers in the sense that most teams are used to pivoting their decisions on which guy to use based on situations once the game has developed. When you have a PH assignment in the 2nd inning it's harder to tell whether you go to the more or less reliable arms you got.

Frayed Knot Oct 28 2016 09:50 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

I'd start out by questioning the equivalency the author is expecting to get from starters & relievers. Reliever WHiPs are sometimes as low as they are because they occur during specific match-ups, where in this case of starters going shorter and relievers going longer, there'd no longer be the ideal match-ups or the short stints. His projections assume that altering the way pitchers are used would not at all change the output you'd get from them. Seems to me also that the plan would tend to get fouled up by the inevitable hurler who gets bombed at which point you're either getting lots of runs scored against you while waiting for his turn to come up in the batting order before you replace him or, by quickly replacing pitchers who are pitching well and replacing even more quickly those not pitching well, you're forced into using most of your staff just to get through one game and then needing most or all of them to do it again the next day. I've long thought that those advocating for this sort of revolving staff are too quick to assume only the upside of the outcome, a bit ironically in the same way that sac bunting advocates do. MLBN host Brian Kenny is a big 'Kill the Starter' guy (along with wanting to kill the 'Win' as a stat, kill the 'Save', etc.) and talks about this sort of stuff in a recent book. He didn't tie his plan specifically to never hitting the pitcher (which IMO would just play right into the hands of the universal DH crowd) but more as a way to proactively remove starters prior to their inevitable decline due to elevated pitch count and/or their 3rd/4th time through the lineup. [fimg=150:36i4es3l]http://covers3.booksamillion.com/covers/bam/1/50/110/633/1501106333.jpg[/fimg:36i4es3l]

Lefty Specialist Oct 28 2016 10:05 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

Somehow I think this would be giving too many at-bats to the Eric Campbells of the world.

A Boy Named Seo Oct 28 2016 10:24 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

Some of the stuff we're seeing in the playoffs this year (using closers in higher leverage situations) was stuff that Ben and Sam did when they took over an indy league team a couple years ago (and documented in this fine book -> https://www.amazon.com/Only-Rule-Has-Wo ... 1627795642). They signed and drafted guys based on stats only, tried zany shifts, and juggled the closer role, other stuff. Hardest part seemed to get people to buy in and do stuff "that you just don't do in baseball". Agreed that this would have the greatest chance to not get struck down immediately if they pulled it off in the low minors/indies. But, yeah, why not try it!

MFS62 Oct 29 2016 12:48 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

Do you think that Andrew Miller would have emerged as a multi-situational asset if Terry Collins had been his manager? Anyhow, with all the current talk about "the shift", the most different idea about positioning a fielder was suggested by announcer Tim McCarver. He said that the old baseball strategy of playing the third baseman close to the line to "protect against doubles down the line" was wrong. He said that if the third baseman played closer to the batter, it cut down the angles for hits both to the fielder's left (shortstop hole)and right (down the line). From a mathematical (actually, geometrical) standpoint he is correct. But it would take a third baseman with excellent reflexes and quickness (Not to mention a good dental plan) to make it work. I'm not sure whether any mamager ever tried it. Later

Frayed Knot Oct 29 2016 01:50 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

MFS62 wrote: Do you think that Andrew Miller would have emerged as a multi-situational asset if Terry Collins had been his manager? Of course the playoffs are a different animal. During the regular season just six of Miller's 26 appearances for Cleveland following the late July trade were for more than one inning and only once during that time did Francona bring him in prior to the 7th. But now in October they're quite obviously leaning on Miller more often, for longer, and starting earlier in games than they did in more than two months of regular season use.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Oct 29 2016 03:14 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

Lefty Specialist wrote: Somehow I think this would be giving too many at-bats to the Eric Campbells of the world. Well, keep in mind that you're replacing pitcher-hitters. Even Eric Campbell tends to make Bartolo Colon look like Eric Campbell. That said, building batty bench depth would seem a priority.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 29 2016 04:44 PM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

The game of baseball is trending towards this mode of play. Granted, this would constitute a huge evolutionary leap, probably the biggest yet, and may not happen in my lifetime, if ever. But it's trending that way. It makes total sense to me. Two more points to make here, one obvious and the other less so. One ... Obviously, the advantage to this new style of play lies in the fact that your opponents haven't yet adapted. The advantage disappears when everybody else is doing it. Two ... Another reason to go that route, unmentioned in the author's piece, is that pitchers lose effectiveness with every successive pass through the opponent's lineup. Every pitcher. Not only the fringe pitchers hanging on in desperation for their baseball lives, but even the elite Cy Young caliber superstar hurlers.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 30 2016 12:54 AM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

Yeah when I said this was a different angle on this I was referring to the already out there talk of transitioning limits on pitchers from number of pitches to number of batters. I believe he Rays are already doing this, never letting their guys get a 3rd time thru

Frayed Knot Oct 30 2016 01:48 AM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

So with the more radical 'never let 'em hit' theory in place, Kluber tonight would have been removed after pitching two innings. Not sure the Indians would be best served by that move.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Oct 30 2016 02:31 AM Re: Let's discuss radical new approaches to managing

Frayed Knot wrote: So with the more radical 'never let 'em hit' theory in place, Kluber tonight would have been removed after pitching two innings. Not sure the Indians would be best served by that move. No. At least in the last couple of years, Kluber gets better, weirdly, as he goes through the lineup multiple times. OE: And-- even MORE weirdly-- JUST as I type that, Verducci plops an infographic along those lines. OE2: His career numbers, though, do show the expected slight increase in ERA/WHIP as he cycles through the lineup, with the big jump coming-- Gee, this seems familiar-- in his third time through the order.